An irrigation monkey compares the 1812 sam/prs to Hunter 12" Institutional

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

I decided to do a study over the differences. I had to stick an 1812 sam/prs in a sea of Hunters so I figured why not see how they perform ala CONSUMER REPORTS. The Hunter has A LOT more flow by on both going up and retracting. It leaves visible pools of water. They tell me this is to help flush potential debris. The RB comes without a side mount (now) which eliminates the possibility of a newbie using it for installation. Hunter has made a big ad campaign of how their caps seal and RBs leak from the threads. Albeit this is one RB versus many Hunters but from previous exposure I can say that Hunter failed miserably in this category. It was necessary to crawl through plants and wet ground with two angle pliers to tighten down many Hunter caps. Hunter has a shorter spring (about 25%) shorter and this shows in the several times Hunter heads failed to seal against their internal check valve. It was not consistent from one head to the next. Pressure readings were about the same from the internal pressure reducers.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

The Hunter is the shorter of the two springs. I guess you could fix a Hunter retraction problem by buying a RB 1812 sam/prs and robbing its spring to replace the Hunter spring.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

I've always been a thread counter. The more threads the better. RB has one more thread on their body and does not depend on its one piece cap to seal against it but a green internal o-ring. Seems like a better set up to me. Hunter uses its two piece cap and it appears to need to be seated tightly against the body ring to avoid cap leakage.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Vitually the same. No difference in this category.