Expansion Chamber Vs Regulators

regs on every level possible

I'd go with a Palmers, work well with HPA or CO2.

DsXz wrote: btw i never knew why some regs work with co2 and some dont? ne1 care to explain?

It isn't exactly that some work and some don't work with CO2. If all regulators saw only gas, whether CO2 or air (nitrogen), all would work just fine. The problem is that with some designs the regulators are actually damaged if, and when, any liquid CO2 gets to them. The Palmer Stabilizer is not damaged by liquid getting to it. But, even the Palmer cannot do its most accurate regulation if liquid CO2 gets into it.

Many tout the Palmer as all you'll need for good CO2 regulation. But, even though the Stabilizer actually does a pretty good job of letting a liquid expand to gas and then controlling the pressure, there is a better way.

The choice always seems to be EITHER an expansion chamber OR a regulator. The facts are for best CO2 pressure regulation you need both. An expansion chamber should be mounted in the line to allow full evaporation of any liquid into gas before it makes it to the Stabilizer. Then the Stabilizer can do its best possible job on controlling the pressure to the power valve. Palmer actually recommends that CO2 users install an anti-siphon tube to reduce those occasional slurps of liquid CO2.

Strictly speaking, no regulator on the market designed for paintball marker installation can full regulate pressure if liquid makes it into it. It is just that some will survive the gulp of liquid and some will not. The Palmer handles the occasional gulp of liquid CO2 with no damage. Many other brands will not.