Yes. They changed the design for the 250 bar guns. It will fail safe in a different manner. Like I said, there are now vent holes on each end of the tube.
Upvote 0
Air Arms Why you shouldn’t overpressurize your S4xx/5xx
- Thread starter Sawney Bean
- Start date
That is called "experience"
Always amazed I made it through my twenties, I was rolling in experience.
Upvote 0
I fill my regulated 2023 (250 bar operating pressure) S500 to 240 bar. How do you know what incoming pressure was? How fast was air coming in? The manual says to trust the air source tank's gauge more than the S500's gauge due to it lagging the fill pressure.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I used the gauge on my compressor. It's a gx cs4, so the fill rate is fairly slow, way slower than from a tank. I had the cut off set for 250 bar, but it hadn't reached that yet when it let go. Maybe 230 bar. I'm guessing the damage had already started beforehand though as I was losing air between fills.
The gauge on the gun now only reads the regulated pressure. I'll be adding a second gauge along with a new fill port when I replace the reservoir.
Upvote 0
These come with a lower profile un-threaded stainless steel probe now. Already has a Foster fitting machined into it.
Air Arms Quickfill & Pressure Gauge Units, CNC'ed In England by Lane Regulators. | eBay
This quickfill unit can be installed in to and is compatible with all Air Arms versions Series Listed Below By Lane Regulators - Manufactured in the UK. ane Regulators, Regulator Parts & Kits. Air Arms - Regulators - Spares & Accessories.
www.ebay.com
Upvote 0
UNACCEPTABLE response, are you forgetting the industry standard that any pressure vessel should handle 3x its rated fill pressure? Yikes.
This is the only airgun I know that doesn't meet or exceed that standard, and their newer version's design was likely changed, and if not, shame.
-Matt
Upvote 0
You are just wrong. It does exactly what it is designed to do.
It is an idiot proof design that prevents someone from trying to over fill, by three times, to test your nonsense standard.
Upvote 0
I'm not wrong. If I was then ALL AIRGUN MANUFACTURES WOULD DO THIS, explain?
Nonsense standard you say? https://www.osha.gov/pressure-vessels/standards
https://www.airgunnation.com/threads/leshiy-2-explodes.1284424/ read more here.
If ANY corrosion occurred on those threads or damage external to the tube, they would fail A LOT sooner than their recommended fill rate...how's THAT for a fail safe?
Upvote 0
Why don't you ask them?
It doesn't matter what you think it should be. AA has their design. It is what it is.
It doesn't matter what you think it should be. AA has their design. It is what it is.
Upvote 0
I'll tell you why, because they are meeting the design criteria required for storage pressure vessels. https://www.osha.gov/pressure-vessels/standards
What about corrosion, cracks, scratches, dings, dents? Oh that is right, they are designing them to withstand those as well, as per industry standards. Do more research.
-Matt
Upvote 0
I guess you should sue them. Get them to comply!
Their 25+ year old design is obviously faulty.
I'm done with this dead horse.
Their 25+ year old design is obviously faulty.
I'm done with this dead horse.
Upvote 0
If air tubes of this size had to succumb to the vigorous pressure tests that bigger tanks do, they would fail inspection...skirting regulations doesn't make it acceptable.
*edit* If/when you get your cf and scba tanks tested that have burst disc as you mention, they remove the disc and replace it with a plug and still test it to 1.5-1.66x its working pressure...
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You are already famous, Stubbers.
You are absolutely right that designing dangerous PCP air tanks is unacceptable. But, these are not the droids you are looking for. Let me interpret that for you: AA air tanks are not dangerous, because they leak slowly when over filled, by design, rather than explode.
You are absolutely right that designing dangerous PCP air tanks is unacceptable. But, these are not the droids you are looking for. Let me interpret that for you: AA air tanks are not dangerous, because they leak slowly when over filled, by design, rather than explode.
Upvote 0
How's that subscriber? Also if I already am, then why did you say "I'm about to become".
I never claimed they were dangerous or a threat, I stated I find this practice unacceptable and I am unaware of any other manufacturers who deploy the same techniques in their vessel design. To which I am ecstatic to be able to state confidentially.
Did you watch the video where Lloyd pressure tested an aluminum marauder tube to failure at 10k~ psi? It didn't explode either...
Not every failure = explosion.
*edit*
Add to that OP only exceeded the stamped working pressure by ~20-30%, far below any standard I am aware of for such designs. Designing pressure vessels goes beyond just material thickness, it includes all components while in working condition. I am not the only person in this thread who thinks these thin margins are worrisome. A burst disc would be a much better approach as this wouldn't destroy your air tube upon a 20-30% over fill which can be not only at fault of a user, but of faulty gauges and/or changes in temperature.
-Matt
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Give it a rest, Stubbers. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself:
Lloyed's pressure test to failure was performed with incompressible fluid. This is done to prevent the explosion that would occur with a compressible gas when the tube ruptures, should you pressurize the gas to the point of rupturing that tube.
It is because of explosion hazard that we have safety factors on gas pressure vessels. If avoiding such hazards were not the point, then what on earth are you complaining about? You never claimed the AA tube is dangerous or a hazard? Whining about AA "ignoring" the industry standard 3X factor of safety is implying a hazard - that is why it is called a "factor of safety".
Your signature line proclaims the value of thinking in the grey. I agree with that, but clearly you are unable to think in anything but black and white absolutes. You cannot read between the lines either. Let me explain it for you:
You are about to become famous for being banned from AGN, again, if you don't stop confrontational posts that add zero value. I have just shown you with this reply that you missed the point about hydro testing. It is intended to prove that there is no risk of explosion with air at the assumed operating pressure, without actually blowing up a tube with air - because that is extremely dangerous. And when it comes to arguing for a factor of safety, the point you are arguing is safety - as in freedom from hazard. In that, you have contradicted yourself. So, not only do you make meaningless arguments with others, you make arguments against your own statements.
I would be happy to help you embarrass yourself further. Then I will help you pick out another user name. I don't mind people laughing at me. The snag is, most of the people reading this far, are laughing at you. Stop throwing boomerangs at me. You are just denting your own reputation. The more you try to attack me, the more fun I am going to have pointing out the holes in your logic - simply by quoting you.
The joke is that you are always right. But almost always about something irrelevant. Give it a rest. You can't win; except when it comes to the number of user names you have had, on so many forums, because you had to point out how ignorant people are, and they did not appreciate it.
Upvote 0