what gas do you use/prefer in your A-5

Cheap, cheap, inexpensive, cheap. Other than that it doesn't require the little additions that CO2 does and I have no experience with N2.

HPA for sure. It holds pressure longer, the fill cost is about the same, its more stable, temp doesnt bother it much, i can use as well in 30 degree weather as in 90 degree weather. Tanks are about double the cost of CO2 but it is worth it. Someone told me you could use N2/Nitrogen in a HPA tank but that is unconfirmed by me yet. I have a 48ci Draxxus air tank that is aluminum and works well, if you have the money, i guess a carbon fiber tank would be lighter but i think the aluminum ones are fine, i got my 48ci 3000psi tank for about 65 bucks so its not too bad.

/Facepalm


Alright, here's the low down:

For all intents and purposes, HPA and N2 act exactly the same. They're interchangeable in the tanks and have no real advantage over one another. The only reason N2 was even used (and it's very rare to find an N2 fill these days) is that N2 is inert while the oxygen and other components in the air we breath aren't. In a atmosphere of pure Nitrogen, it is impossible to make something catch fire. The concerns with early HPA systems and lack of knowledge on the end-user part prompted the industry to initially use N2 to keep any accidents from occurring should someone accidentally put oil into their tank one way or another. With N2, the oil wouldn't do anything under pressure. With HPA, it acts like diesel fuel under pressure and ignites which can cause damage to the tank.

That said, HPA has the advantage over CO2 of not reacting adversely in cold weather. The drop in temperature needed to form liquid N2 or to make some of the gases in HPA liquefy, you'd need immense pressure and temperatures that would freeze you solid almost instantly. This means that you have a constant pressure per volume unit of output. CO2, on the other hand, can be tricky as it takes longer for it to "boil off" when it is cold out, so it can cause issues with poorly engineered markers and wreak havoc on your consistency and velocity. Per volume unit of measure, you get more shots per tank of CO2.

They both have their pluses. They both have their minuses. Just depends on the needs of you and your marker.

defintely hpa because the a-5s are gas hoggers and with co2 u dont last nearly as long as u do with hpa

600? That doesn't sound right... My CPro gets over 1000 easy from a 68/45... are the A5s really that different? I was under the impression the gas efficiency was about the same. Though your right about the CO2/HPA comparison bit.

EDIT: 1000 posts . Didn't notice until I saw 2 stars in my post...


Edited by Ilford Rule - 15 January 2008 at 6:38pm

I was basing the figure off of the standard CVX valve performance at 70*F and no regulation (850psi input or higher).

tallen702 wrote: I was basing the figure off of the standard CVX valve performance at 70*F and no regulation (850psi input or higher).

I'm using the standard valve with no post-tank downstream regulation... 850 PSI labeled output of the tank...

Tang wrote: think tallen702 is realy talking aboot a 68/3000 tank...

yeah.... I put 68/4500 didn't I? Anyway, it still stands.

tallen702 wrote: Tang wrote: think tallen702 is realy talking aboot a 68/3000 tank... yeah.... I put 68/4500 didn't I? Anyway, it still stands.

OK, now I'm not confused

compressed air will ALWAYS do better than CO2, you can get them for really cheap on Ebay when people are just trying to get rid of thier guns and throw thier tanks in for "free"