Seriously, I'm shocked at how much mk10's can go for on ebay. I'm watching one right now that is at 137$ and I'm sure that price will jump in the last seconds. I still have my original mk10 g250 that I bought back in the early 90's for full retail and shocked at how much they have retained their price. They reissued the g250 would anybody be interested in a mk10v re-release from scubapro is the mk25 that much better?
mk10 getting really expensive on ebay
- Thread starter Candiru
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
halocline
Contributor
A re-issued MK10 would be an interesting move for SP. I think the bushing system of the MK20/25 is probably here to stay; it makes them much more idiot-proof to service and it really handles high pressure. I also suspect the rounded piston edge is here to stay; it does lock up great on the MK25, improves air flow over the piston edge, and would allow SP to use the MK25 seats. So, basically what you'd be seeing is a re-issued MK10+ with the current bushing system and a groove for a SPEC boot. Sound familiar, atomic owners?
I'd like to see it.
I'd like to see it.
R
redacted
Guest
Do you think they are twins: Scuba Diving Regulator ScubaProMK10 MK 10 Dive 1st First stage pro | eBay
I wonder what is going on here!!!
Same bidders for the G250. either they got some one or we might see that G250s twin next.
The Mk 10 was a child of neccesity, not an ideal reg.
The Mk 5 had potential issues as the piston stem passed through the hole in the center of the reg body and the piston head moved in the swivel cap. To make that work the hole in the reg body had to be perfectly aligned with the swivel cap, meaning the cap had to be machined perfectly from the threads to the bore where the piston head rode. That was a challenge in the pre-CNC era and the needed level of precision did not always happen and misalignment would lead to all kinds of issues from excessive wear, to piston vibration, to seating issues.
The Mk 10 simplified production as it put the piston bearing surfaces all in the reg body where they could be aligned off a single hole, ensuring near perfect alignment with fairly simple tooling. However that came at the cost of having to use a piston with a smaller head, and while corrosion in the ambient chamber affecting the piston ehad bearing surfaces with a Mk 5 was easy to fix (just replace the swivel cap - a part with about a $10 production cost), that same issue in the Mk 10 would require replacing the entire (very expensive) first stage body.
The Mk 15/20 and 25 went back to the separate swivel cap and the lareger diameter piston as newer production technology eliminated the alignment issues. The Mk 20 and 25 in particular are also easy to produce as the bushing system means that the hole in the reg body is just a straight end mill process that can be done in basically one operation.
But on the other hand, the Mk 10 was smaller, lighter and, especially in the later larger bore piston, concave seat versions, and Mk 10 Plus versions, offerred more than enough flow for pretty much any technical dive application. In that regard, I'd love to see a Mk 10+ "Vintage" using the basic Mk 25 internal arrangement with Mk 25 bushings, seat and swivel cap - but using a smaller piston head, in a smaller piston MK 10 sized package. If they added a christolube filled SPEC system for coldwater (as atomic basically did) that would be icing on the cake. The problem is that there is no real upside for Scubapro so there is no incentive for them to produce it. And it woudl be admitting the Mk 25 is over sized, over weight, and generally overkill.
The Mk 5 had potential issues as the piston stem passed through the hole in the center of the reg body and the piston head moved in the swivel cap. To make that work the hole in the reg body had to be perfectly aligned with the swivel cap, meaning the cap had to be machined perfectly from the threads to the bore where the piston head rode. That was a challenge in the pre-CNC era and the needed level of precision did not always happen and misalignment would lead to all kinds of issues from excessive wear, to piston vibration, to seating issues.
The Mk 10 simplified production as it put the piston bearing surfaces all in the reg body where they could be aligned off a single hole, ensuring near perfect alignment with fairly simple tooling. However that came at the cost of having to use a piston with a smaller head, and while corrosion in the ambient chamber affecting the piston ehad bearing surfaces with a Mk 5 was easy to fix (just replace the swivel cap - a part with about a $10 production cost), that same issue in the Mk 10 would require replacing the entire (very expensive) first stage body.
The Mk 15/20 and 25 went back to the separate swivel cap and the lareger diameter piston as newer production technology eliminated the alignment issues. The Mk 20 and 25 in particular are also easy to produce as the bushing system means that the hole in the reg body is just a straight end mill process that can be done in basically one operation.
But on the other hand, the Mk 10 was smaller, lighter and, especially in the later larger bore piston, concave seat versions, and Mk 10 Plus versions, offerred more than enough flow for pretty much any technical dive application. In that regard, I'd love to see a Mk 10+ "Vintage" using the basic Mk 25 internal arrangement with Mk 25 bushings, seat and swivel cap - but using a smaller piston head, in a smaller piston MK 10 sized package. If they added a christolube filled SPEC system for coldwater (as atomic basically did) that would be icing on the cake. The problem is that there is no real upside for Scubapro so there is no incentive for them to produce it. And it woudl be admitting the Mk 25 is over sized, over weight, and generally overkill.
Zung
Contributor
Hello DA, do you know if the MK2x caps are compatible? There's the the lastest MK25 (2009), 10.713.102, the earlier MK25 (2004), 10.600.102, and the MK20, same part number but smaller holes. The swivel retainers are the same.
The latest ones are quite a bit cheaper, possibly because they have a single row of dual purpose ports/recesses for the pin spanner: easier to make.
The latest ones are quite a bit cheaper, possibly because they have a single row of dual purpose ports/recesses for the pin spanner: easier to make.
As far as I know they are all compatible from a mechanical perspective.
The older Mk 20s morphed into the the first Mk 25's and I had one of the last Mk 20's that looked identical to one of the first Mk 25s - the only differnce internally or externally being the adjustable seat retainer. The late Mk 20s incidentally also came with the Mk 25 style DIn or Yoke retainers so the recall did not technically apply to them.
The older versus newer (borg turrets for the finned swivel caps) LP port turrets are different and it may not look great to have an old/new combination, but they should all work ok together.
The other style related caution is that that the current Mk 25s are shiny chrome, so one of those shiny caps would look 'interesting' on a brushed/matte chrome Mk 20 or 25.
In terms of swivel cap progression there was the:
1. small round holed Mk 20 cap (identical to the Mk 15 and used the same SPEC boot)
2. Oval holed late Mk 20/early Mk 25 cap
3. elongated oval hole Mk 25 cap
4. finned Mk 25 cap
5. shiny bling Mk 25 cap
The older Mk 20s morphed into the the first Mk 25's and I had one of the last Mk 20's that looked identical to one of the first Mk 25s - the only differnce internally or externally being the adjustable seat retainer. The late Mk 20s incidentally also came with the Mk 25 style DIn or Yoke retainers so the recall did not technically apply to them.
The older versus newer (borg turrets for the finned swivel caps) LP port turrets are different and it may not look great to have an old/new combination, but they should all work ok together.
The other style related caution is that that the current Mk 25s are shiny chrome, so one of those shiny caps would look 'interesting' on a brushed/matte chrome Mk 20 or 25.
In terms of swivel cap progression there was the:
1. small round holed Mk 20 cap (identical to the Mk 15 and used the same SPEC boot)
2. Oval holed late Mk 20/early Mk 25 cap
3. elongated oval hole Mk 25 cap
4. finned Mk 25 cap
5. shiny bling Mk 25 cap
Zung
Contributor
Thanks DA, in particular for the style part that I overlooked.
Similar threads
