Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Very interesting to see.
All I can say is... you're not walkin' the talk unless you put it onto a car and use it. ( : < ) I've fired 1941 dated ammunition that seemed to be fine. But would you go into combat with 1941 ammo if you had a choice? Even if you had popped a few caps previously? I wouldn't and neither would I use a poorly stored oil filter (for more reasons than age.. in general, the filters of today are better)if I had a choice.
My uncle used WW2 surplus rifle ammo until maybe ten years ago, when the supply simply dried up. It was perfectly reliable.
My comment was not that it wouldn't "work" but whether a wise person would take it into combat, putting his life, the lives of his men and the success of the mission at jeopardy when new ammo was available. Anyone who would say "yes" to that probably shouldn't be leading men into harms way on missions that matter. I too have used a lot of WWII ammo and other than the issue of corrosive primers, it was pretty reliable overall. I did find it was often a bit erratic sometimes as to accuracy, but most of it went "boom."
Tying it back in to the topic, I restate that the risks of failure increase (perhaps dramatically) with an old filter and, if you have a choice, it's best to go with a new one. Plus a newer filter will allow you to take advantage of whatever benefits there might be in materials advances, such as improved media, silicon ADBVs, etc. I also restate that it may not be possible to accurately judge the viability of a 20 year old filter by a quick look
The filter may work adequately well, maybe as good as new. It's simply a matter of assessing the risk. All I know is that several industry experts and some industry info leads one to believe that some degradation happens to a stored filter. Until and unless someone does some testing, which maybe the filter manufacturers have done, we simply can't assess the risk involved in using a 20+ year old filter. I would welcome any guinea pigs out there willing to do so and reporting on the results. If we could built up enough anecdotal info, it could raise or lower the risk potential. I do not volunteer to be a guinea pig, however.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Very interesting to see.
All I can say is... you're not walkin' the talk unless you put it onto a car and use it. ( : < ) I've fired 1941 dated ammunition that seemed to be fine. But would you go into combat with 1941 ammo if you had a choice? Even if you had popped a few caps previously? I wouldn't and neither would I use a poorly stored oil filter (for more reasons than age.. in general, the filters of today are better)if I had a choice.
My uncle used WW2 surplus rifle ammo until maybe ten years ago, when the supply simply dried up. It was perfectly reliable.
My comment was not that it wouldn't "work" but whether a wise person would take it into combat, putting his life, the lives of his men and the success of the mission at jeopardy when new ammo was available. Anyone who would say "yes" to that probably shouldn't be leading men into harms way on missions that matter. I too have used a lot of WWII ammo and other than the issue of corrosive primers, it was pretty reliable overall. I did find it was often a bit erratic sometimes as to accuracy, but most of it went "boom."
Tying it back in to the topic, I restate that the risks of failure increase (perhaps dramatically) with an old filter and, if you have a choice, it's best to go with a new one. Plus a newer filter will allow you to take advantage of whatever benefits there might be in materials advances, such as improved media, silicon ADBVs, etc. I also restate that it may not be possible to accurately judge the viability of a 20 year old filter by a quick look
The filter may work adequately well, maybe as good as new. It's simply a matter of assessing the risk. All I know is that several industry experts and some industry info leads one to believe that some degradation happens to a stored filter. Until and unless someone does some testing, which maybe the filter manufacturers have done, we simply can't assess the risk involved in using a 20+ year old filter. I would welcome any guinea pigs out there willing to do so and reporting on the results. If we could built up enough anecdotal info, it could raise or lower the risk potential. I do not volunteer to be a guinea pig, however.
