In addition, any side mount manometer (as you describe, or the Pardini K10 version on the end) makes filling the cylinders MORE dangerous. As someone mentioned earlier, the energy stored in a full cylinder is way more dangerous than the airgun itself. It is very important to fill the cylinder while watching the gauge to avoid over-pressurizing (from a higher pressure scuba tank, and/or from the heating caused by the fill). A side mount gauge may end up at an awkward angle when attached to the fill tank. This could result in accidental but still dangerous over-pressurization of the cylinder.

Imagine the bezel surrounding the gauge is transparent, like the face of the gauge, instead of opaque steel.  Now extend the end of the needle so that it can be seen through the bezel – perhaps by putting a small ninety degree bend at the tip.  Now place calibration markings in a ring around the cylinder.  Get it?  Achievable with no change in balance whatsoever.

But as soon as you become convinced that you have achieved perfection, you lose perspective, and fall into error.  I am sure there are a great many designs still in our future, that will make this gun look very silly to the professional shooters of tomorrow.

The night before, I filled both cylinders for the pistol with my scuba tank and adapter, using the gauge on the end of the cylinder to measure the pressure. This has to be done twice for each cylinder, because they heat up when filled, and the pressure drops some when they’ve cooled.

When I arrived at the competition the next day, I checked the pressure of the cylinder when I removed the pistol from the case. On my pistol, you store one cylinder detached from the gun, the other attached. I managed to look at the gauge without pointing the muzzle at my face. Phew! I then competed in the match, firing 60 record shots, and about 10 sighter shots. I checked the air pressure again as I put the pistol away. Again, I managed not to shoot myself in the face.

Several other people were there too. One had a Morini 162ei like mine. Two people had Styer LP-10s, plus several more models. All of them had the pressure gauge on the end of the cylinder. No one shot themselves in the face.

1) as far from the user as possible
2) mounted on the side facing away from the user
3) next to where the pellets come flying out.

I mean, isn’t this just going for two bites at the cherry here? It’s wrong because people will look at it and it’s wrong because no one will look at it.

Assuming that people using a $1,500 competition level air pistol know what they’re doing seems a bit like assuming that everyone using a 1960s supercomputer had a computer science degree. They should probably check that assumption at sale, though.

@ jere7my: No, the 80° viewing angle is so that you don’t have to point the canister at yourself to check its pressure. The canister itself is more dangerous than the gun (obvious, if you think about it — the canister contains energy for many shots, whereas the gun fires one shot at a time).

Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him!!

Why, then, is there a gauge on the cylinder at all?

You could have a gauge on outlet of the supply cylinder to tell you what the pressure is during filling and then a handheld gauge to check pressure after you remove the cylinder for transport or whatever.

I like to know what the pressure of my bicycle tires is from time to time, but I don’t expect there to be a permanent pressure gauge on each tire valve.

“Mark W Shead uses the terrifying design of this air pistol (you have to point is straight at your face to check the pressure)”
Also,for those of you that are so passionate about this, perhaps it would be worth sending any suggestions to the manufacturer at info@feinwerkbau.de? 

The author of the original blog post, Mr. Doctorow who re-posted it, and the vast majority of the commenters here are endowed with almost complete ignorance about target air pistols. They don’t know what the pistol is, what it is used for, how it is used, who uses it, or why it was designed the way it was. Yet, they insist on making strong statements on its design, using it as an example of lack of “domain knowledge” on the part of the designers. In the process, they unwittingly reveal their own lack of said “domain knowledge.”

When informed of the purpose and use of the pistol and the reasons behind the design choice by people who actually use the pistols for competition, they still “stick to their guns,” so to speak. This is more than just a lack of knowledge, it’s the apex of arrogance.

If that thing was properly designed, the gauge would be unreadable while attached to the pistol.

1. Moving the gauge to the side would add off-center mass, making the left-right balance of the pistol poor.

2. Adding a complicated lockout system would add overall mass, particularly mass to the end of the pistol. This is undesirable.

3. Lockout mechanisms will reduce reliability. Failure during a match would be very bad. Note: these guns do not even have safetys.

4. A safe procedure for checking the manometer on the gun during use exists.

5. (probably the least valid, but still exists): The end mounted manometers are standard, low cost parts. A different solution would require a custom gauge, which would significantly increase cost in an area not considered of note to the users of these pistols.

One of the pistols I mentioned earlier does have a slightly different design. The Pardini K10 does have a gauge at the end of the cylinder, but the needle is visible from the side. This pistol is not particularly popular, because the manometer position is not considered an issue by those of us that actually buy and use these pistols.

http://www.pardini.it/immagini/testata_k10-ing.jpg

It’s a compromise, not a feature.

Yes, but they don’t require you to reach through whirling blades to access the off switch.

Imagine a 1/4″-wide transparent strip running around the circumference of the cylinder, flush with the surface, with a gauge visible beneath it. The needle would be parallel to the axis of the cylinder. You could read the gauge from the side — and, if you put one on each side, it would actually have better balance than the current design, in which the weight of the tip of the needle swinging from one side to the other has doubtless cost many an Olympic hopeful their gold.

Seems like this thread could be managed better by supplying some of those reasons. I haven’t seen any in the thread so far, just people spouting off about how dum dum we are and we don’t know anything and if we did then we wouldn’t think this was so funny. Teach, dude, don’t lecture.

But I’m no gun designer, and I’d expect to ponder on the conundrum for more than a few minutes on a message board – so I’m still confident there’s a workable solution somewhere in that area :)