Also had an A+M cylinder on my carbine and it was good, no issues. Only reason I swapped was i had a Ratworks tune and had their cylinder too, which is also good.
Also had an A+M cylinder on my carbine and it was good, no issues. Only reason I swapped was i had a Ratworks tune and had their cylinder too, which is also good.
I've had A&M cylinders on 2 HW100s now - they've both been good 👍
All of the above.
A failsafe? It's much easier to put a destruction valve in rather than loose the whole cylinder.
That's just an excuse for poor quality material that's overstressed.
When dive cylinders are tested hydrostatically the pressure is 1.5X the SWP. This is only done to check the expansion of the bottle which should be no more than 5%. Expand - not split from end to end. Before going into production they should have been tested to destruction which would be far more than just 1.5X probably at least double that. Splitting open as in the pic is destruction of the cylinder.
That would never happen with a buddy bottle made by a reputable company such as Luxfer. Moral of the story is to beware when buying aftermarket pressure vessels.
Look at option 2 on their site and there is £220 which I don't want to spend for just 400g less weight.
Sorry to hear about a cylinder splitting...not funny at all.
I was interested in buying the A&M cylinder offered in the sales section but 4 years old an no valve
fitted so I better add 20 quids and get a brandnew one with warranty...
That's why I asked for Your experiences with the aftermarket cylinders :-)
Last edited by Luftgewehr100; 16-12-2018 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Tippfehler
Founder & ex secretary of Rivington Riflemen.
www.rivington-riflemen.uk
The pic of a crack across the thread is quite typical of aluminium failure under pressure. The split cylinder looks more like a welded seam having failed - and pressure vessels should be made from seamless tube or machined from solid. Aluminium is a material that is prone to having dislocations in its structure. Eliminating them requires expensive manufacturing methods all of which could be of no value if you then draw it out into a tube, a process which puts the bulk material under severe stress.
Steel handles the whole manufacturing process much better and from what I have read so does titanium.
Musing on this, I can't he;lp but wonder whether the ideal would be a hybrid tube, but that would be prohibitively expensive as pressure welding the inner and outer tubes together would require an explosion within a mould. Many ships and luxury yachts have steel hulls for strength and aluminium superstructure to reduce top hamper (weight). The interface between the two is a bi-metallic strip of steel/ali bonded by explosives. This dramatically reduces corrosion of the aluminium against the steel.
Rob.
Well looking at that picture, it's quite obvious that that cylinder as not been tested, as the law stands any pressure vessel holding less than 500cc, does not require testing, hence that rubbish, proper alloy pressure tube is as expensive as titanium, so i very much doubt at those prices its made from the correct grade tube, probably standard run of the mill seamless alloy tube at a tenner a metre, what some people will do to make a quick buck.
I can assure you that that's not a safety feature, if designed as a safety feature it would bulge at the front where the o ring seals, extruding the o ring and releasing the air, as the air arms range are designed to do if there over pressurised, but looking at that the o ring seals at the rear of the plug, so impossible to have any type of safety feature built in, all in all stick to steel or titanium cylinders.
Shaun
Was it worth the trouble, Ah, what trouble