Been talking with one of our new guys about how we propel out BB's. He asked me about using HPAC instead of CO2. I informed him that we only use CO2 and that's what has been tested and accepted throughout the hobby. When it was decided to go from Freon to CO2 it was a 2 year process while safety rules, components were found and the logistic transition took place. So it was not a fast transition. I know some of the battlers on the west coast use HPAC. So for an ignorant old battler can someone tell me the benefits/drawbacks of HPAC and if it is worth examining if this could be a viable cousin to CO2 or not? We would use both CO2 and HPAC if it is viable and pending group vote. We battle Treaty out here so with that our volumes are less along with our rate of fire. Any help would be appreciated in understanding this. Thanks, Eric
HPA would work fine, basically the logistics make CO2 easier for our scale/usage. Take a look at this thread for more of info https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/co2-vs-compressed-air.442324/
