MK-19 in the US

[rhwestfall]

Just curious why the MK-17 is, and the MK-19 isn't?

 

[SCUBAPRO Harry]

The MK19 was discontinued in 2010. The USA opted not to carry that model given that the swivel regulator of choice by Dealers and consumers has been the MK25; the MK19 being larger and bulkier.

 

[mictrik]

I think that at least 70% of the people who purchase the MK-17 regulator in the USA would of purchased the MK-19 if given the choice.

 

[SCUBAPRO Harry]

Interesting data; from where have you received this ?

 

[mictrik]

Interesting data; from where have you received this ?

I lived and worked in Europe for a number of years and I knew the MK-19 when it was out. Here in the states when someone was contemplating (or stressing) between the MK-17 & MK-25, i often ask the question; "What is it about the two units that makes it hard to decide between the two?". Most often it is the lack of swivel on the MK-17 that seems to be the "stumbling block"; so my data is personally derived and empirical in nature.
So the decision & contemplation is between a sealed design for very cold water or the swivel design, as far as i can tell. The flow rates are rarely the point of contention as both valves provide very high flow rates with the MK-25 obviously holding the top spot. Much has been written or said about free flow conditions from the MK-20/25, however, I am not sure just how valid the stories are... I know many who use the MK-25 design in 45º water and colder including myself with perfect results. The MK-25 is a wonderful design, providing very high flow, IP stability, easy consistent lockup, and long seat life in a rock solid relatively simple design. It is just that the MK-17 happens to also be a fantastic design for a diaphragm based 1st stage. My guess is the MK-17 was released to address the very cold water market of Northern Europe. I Know in the past that many have used the MK-10 environmentally sealed with great results in freezing conditions. This environmental seal that you used to call "SPEC" allowed later versions of the MK-5 & MK-10 to compete in extreme cold water with brands like Poseidon. I think that the MK 17 does a great job in this market too but I also think (but could be wrong) that an environmentally sealed MK-25 would do as well. This would allow you to market a classic, ultra reliable super high flow piston with swivel for the extreme cold water market. I am sure this was thought of and for some reason (maybe a very good one) this idea was discarded. My speculation is that the reasoning had something to do with the cost of oxygen compatible lubricant to seal the chamber. Forgive me for the long winded somewhat tangential answer...

 

[PfcAJ]

Harry, I think a mk19 would be sweet. Hodgepodging them together is too much of a PITA, I'd love to see them come back on the market. And don't forget about the colored frame/ faceplate thing we chatted about at the Ranch!

 

[lowviz]

...//... "What is it about the two units that makes it hard to decide between the two?". Most often it is the lack of swivel on the MK-17 that seems to be the "stumbling block"; so my data is personally derived and empirical in nature. ...//....

I put my 25's on my bottles and upgraded to 17's on my back due to the MK-17's superior hose routing ablilities (see pic) and its cold water performance. Whoever thought out the HP and LP port placements on the MK-17 had their brain engaged. Nice blinking job! No interest whatsoever in a 19, why add a movable part to something that doesn't need one?

Being a cold water reg, shouldn't one be diving two of them? Using either a single tank with an H-valve or doubles, you still should have two first-stage regulators. Same hose routing. So don't confuse things with hose routing for cold water diving using only one first-stage, that is a warm water argument.

Diving a single tank in warm water using a high performance second-stage on the MK-25's high efficiency port is a whole different ballgame...

 

[mictrik]

Sure the MK-17 can be well configured with doubles but the swivel provides more options especially when diving single. I have not heard of any failure of the swivel feature from the MK-5 to the MK-25. I am sure that occasionally an over zealous tech may over torque the retainer but I have not heard of an in water failure. Could it or has it happened, maybe? The hose routing of the MK-25 is also very well suited for doubles as it is in a single tank config...

 

[lowviz]

I found the posts to be much more crowded by my 25's than my 17's.

Just me, but how does that configuration look well suited for doubles? You have your wing and your backup on the two "high performance" LP ports. You could swap the long hose with the backup, but then you would be breathing the wrong post. I will agree that it is the best routing scheme you can find using 25's. I used exactly the same config for the same reasons. Treat yourself to a pair of 17's someday but keep the 25's -they are really nice regs.

 

[mictrik]

I have Mk-17's, a MK-19. That picture i copied off the Internet and is not one of my rigs, I through it up as an example. I have never noticed a difference using the end port of a MK-10 or MK-25. I understand that it will flow more given it's lack of a secondary 90º bend but these regs provide so much air and lockup so fast that I don't think it comes into play under 200 FSW. I still think the MK-25 or MK-19 with the swivel is more versatile when switching between single & double configurations, albeit splitting hairs. By orienting the first stage you can setup the MK-25 to take advantage of the "high flow" port in either single or double configs without being subject to sloppy hose contortions. For me I would have the "long hose" and the "backup swapped", I would also be using an AIR2, so both spares would come off the left post and the primary the right post "high flow". Hose routing for doubles is excellent on the 17's but it's main advantage is really in freezing waters. The MK-25 & the MK-17 are both top notch 1st stage designs!