Antisiphon C02 With Expansion Chamber Or Remote With Expansion Chamber

[Smoothice]

Hello,

I have a 10 year old 68 automag with classic chamber and level 7 bolt.

I want to upgrade it to be a little more dependable without taking the next step to HPA and an X valve.

What would work best to keep liquid C02 out of my automag?

1. Using an antisiphon co2 tank with an expansion chamber

or

2. Using a remote with an expansion chamber. (non antisiphon co2)

Thanks.

[athomas]

Whether to use a remote or on-gun setup is purely dependent on personal preference. Either setup will deliver good results for CO2 stability. If you use an antisiphon tank, make sure it is properly setup for your ASA.

[Smoothice]

Whether to use a remote or on-gun setup is purely dependent on personal preference. Either setup will deliver good results for CO2 stability. If you use an antisiphon tank, make sure it is properly setup for your ASA.

i would prefer on-gun setup BUT am looking for what would work best for keeping liquid CO2 out of my gun.

So from your experience you would say these 2 options are equal?

[Madmarx]

A remote is more dependable. An anti siphon tank only works 100% if you keep the gun vertical. If you tilt the tank too much you'll get the liquid in the tube.

[Smoothice]

A remote is more dependable. An anti siphon tank only works 100% if you keep the gun vertical. If you tilt the tank too much you'll get the liquid in the tube.

Do you mean horizontal? Vertical would be shooting straight up or straight down, right? Any way I get what you are saying. I have never used an anti siphon tank. What range would you have before it starts to suck in liquid? for example (15 degrees up and down from horizontal, 30 degrees up and down from horizontal)

If some did get into the tube would the expansion chamber take care of that little bit?

[PumpMag]

Co2 Pros and Cons

i would prefer on-gun setup BUT am looking for what would work best for keeping liquid CO2 out of my gun.

So from your experience you would say these 2 options are equal?

I used to have anti-siphon bottomline set up with expansion chamber. Both are a must to keep liquid out.

Pros:

1) would get 1000 plus shots from a 20 oz
2) less refilling time compared to HPA
3) CO2 tanks are way cheaper

Cons:

1) rate of fire not as fast - pace the shots to get consistency
2) Poor cold weather performance - freezes your soft parts

In my opinion if you don't shoot more than a case a day and don't want to pay $150 for an HPA tank, then CO2 is fine.

[Madmarx]

Do you mean horizontal? Vertical would be shooting straight up or straight down, right? Any way I get what you are saying. I have never used an anti siphon tank. What range would you have before it starts to suck in liquid? for example (15 degrees up and down from horizontal, 30 degrees up and down from horizontal)

If some did get into the tube would the expansion chamber take care of that little bit?

You'd be fine with a good expansion chamber (multi chamber) and antisiphon.
I just prefer remotes for CO2.

[athomas]

For an on-gun setup, the expansion chamber will take care of most liquid that sneaks into the line. If you fire repeated shots while laying the gun on its side or straight up in the air, then even the expansion chamber will have a hard time with the liquid. A bit of added protection can be had by having an ASA that tilts down just a bit rather than perfectly horizontal.

People mention the added protection from a remote tank but they forget about the problems of the shooter laying horizontal on the ground. This position allows liquid to get into the line the same as an on-gun setup without the antisiphon..

[Smoothice]

Thanks everybody.

I think I am going to go with the on gun setup for a few reasons.

1. It seems that the on gun setup will do just as good as a remote setup with liquid co2.

2. One day I will probably want HPA. This way I can break up the cost of setting up my marker. I can purchase the drop forward / vertical bottle adapter / expansion chamber (even with hpa I would want a foregrip)/ and get my lines all set up.


This should all be in the $100-150 range. Then when (if) I switch to HPA all I will need is the tank.

Is there any negatives to using an expansion chamber with HPA?

Thanks

[Madmarx]

For an on-gun setup, the expansion chamber will take care of most liquid that sneaks into the line. If you fire repeated shots while laying the gun on its side or straight up in the air, then even the expansion chamber will have a hard time with the liquid. A bit of added protection can be had by having an ASA that tilts down just a bit rather than perfectly horizontal.

People mention the added protection from a remote tank but they forget about the problems of the shooter laying horizontal on the ground. This position allows liquid to get into the line the same as an on-gun setup without the antisiphon..

OK I got it...
How about an antisiphon tank on a remote and an expansion chamber!!!!
Yeah that should do the trick!

I don't believe you should have any problems with hpa and the expansion chamber.
At that point it would just be unneeded extra weight. You could just switch to a direct line or gas thru grip.