After using a Primus 8R for 50 years, I decided to take a Svea 123R on a weekend trip. I picked 0ne up on the Bay a few years ago, but never before took it into the “wild.” Well, it must be just me, but with all the faffing about with the windscreen, I must say I found it somewhat annoying! Does one light the primer with the screen off, then attach it before lighting the burner? Or prime, light the burner, and carefully drop the screen over the blue flame? Or add primer and light that with the screen in place? I’m sure it’s not as difficult as I’m making it out to be!
Though I've used 123s and 123Rs innumerable times, I've always used them with a Sigg set and never have ignited a 'free standing' one with the brass windshield. But I'd use a similar method. Leave the windshield on, squirt some alcohol in there, and light it off. It all burns off and does the job.
I use Svea 123 and 123Rs in the field often, and without much trouble. I always prime with alcohol and with the windscreen on. I also use a carbon fibre or fibreglass wick in the priming dish of all of my outdoor stoves including Svea 123, Optimus 8R and Optimus 111, as the wick concentrates the flame around the burner. I’ve never much liked using the gasoline to prime, but have done so when I’ve lost or forgotten the alcohol. Cheers Tony
The purpose, to me, of the accessory pump, is to simply provide enough pressure, in the tank, to push just enough fuel to prime with. An eyedropper, or straw, can do the same. Carefully blowing into the tank, with the valve open, can do that too. There are many ways to prime the SVEA 123(R). Having the windscreen in place, when priming, increases the efficiency of the prime.
Before I put some stove rope in the priming “dish” I would put the alcohol in the “dish” light it and then put the windshield on - I have the key attached to the windshield not the burner so there’s none of that threading the key through malarky. The reason for that is because it is difficult to see how much alcohol you’re adding with the windshield on and you inevitably end up overfilling and squirting it places you don’t want it to be! Now I have stove rope in the “dish” I just keep the windshield on at all times (except when filling of course!) as the rope catches the alcohol you squirt in and stops it spilling and going everywhere.
I prime with the wind screen on. I expect some of my priming fluid to run down the side of the tank, etc. & place the stove accordingly. Lately I have been using a small dropper bottle (think Visene or similar eye drops) which allows some squirtability. That seems to help. I use the same setup with my 8R. A straw or similar might work better but I prime with alcohol so I need a separate container anyway.
Yes, the Svea 123R with separate windscreen can be annoying to light when compared to the 8R. This little brass beauty is what it is and does require couple extra procedures to light. I usually prime the cup, feed key and chain through hole in windscreen while twisting it on then light. If stove is on flat surface DNA will stay in cup and all is good. If stove needs second prime that's when foul language starts. As you mentioned several methods work. Try them all several times and us what you like best. I stay away from the ones that can burn my fingers. The above @Ziradog method is easiest and works well.
Ditto Alcina's advice. To me the obvious question is: why does the 123 not come with the key attached to the windscreen? Forgive me, but this is a no-brainer. Same with adding a stove rope or some other wicking material to the priming tray, as well as insulating the handle of the key so it can remain attached to the valve for a quick shutoff incase of an emergency. These common-sense measures make the stove much easier to use and also much safer as well. You would think that the threat of product liability alone would warrant it.
It shouldn't, but the lady who sued McDonalds over the cup of coffee she put on her lap would disagree.
I let the windscreen sit on. Pour alcohol into the burner bell and look careful for no overfilling the priming cup. Then I lit it throug one of the openings in the windscreen, and set the kettle on top of the stove. Then I open the valve and it will begin to roar. Just as easy as a LPG-cartrige-stove
Of all the weird places for that long-dead story to turn up. Go read the details of that case. I can't imagine a better example of genuine product liability. There were rules. They knew the rules. They broke the rules deliberately. A person was seriously injured as a result. Seriously: surgical interventions required, essential bodily function disrupted. A fair bit more trouble than burning your thumb by ignoring the rule to not leave the key attached.
1. If you use your 123 with a pot set (e.g. Sigg Tourist), attaching to the windscreen makes it difficult to nest the pots for packing. 2. I first saw the use of stove rope as a wick on this site, decades after the 123 was introduced. 3. Ditto with insulating the handle. In my own use of the 123, I've never had a problem with the key attached to the valve stem, or (after one negative experience) with a hot key. A lot of this just comes from habit in handling the stove. I have found a priming wick very helpful, and so I've adopted that. Obviously, you or I are free to use (or not) any of these methods to make our experience better. ....Arch
Actually, the coffee lady illustrates my point precisely. I don't know what the product liability rules are like in the UK, but on this side of the pond a product should be designed so that somebody seriously lacking in common sense can use said device and not injure themselves. Case in point: most people know that the first step in making a cup of coffee involves boiling some water. So coffee starts out as a seriously hot commodity, and one would think that putting a poorly sealed container of said substance between your legs is asking for trouble. So, yes, I know that the McDonald's crew broke their own guidelines by giving her a cup that was hotter than it should have been, but her lack of common sense also was a major factor in the accident. None of that mattered to the jury, who "wanted to send a message" (actual quote). So imagine, if you will, a family on a camping trip where the cook decides to boil a rather large pot of water on his (her) prized Svea 123. Either because the cook forgot, or was worried that the water would boil over and needed to be able to turn the stove down quickly, the key was left in place for the half hour it takes to boil the water. So, when they grab the key they now: 1) have serious second or third degree burns on thumb and forefinger, and 2) are left with a pot of furiously boiling water balanced on a stove they can't turn off. One could also imagine in their surprise reaction knocking the pot of water off the stove and spilling it all over grandma, who is sitting nearby and still experiencing PTSD from that time she place a cup of coffee between her legs at the McDonalds, years before. Were the stove instructions ignored in this case? Yes. Would it matter to a jury? Maybe not. Especially when the solution of providing an insulating cap to the key is such a simple design fix. A sharp legal team doing their homework might also look up postings on this very forum and claim negligence on Svea's part by failing to implement a safety feature "already well known to the user community* ". All that is required is a jury "wanting to send a message". If nothing else, adding that little feature would enable Svea to slap that coveted "NEW AND IMPROVED!!" moniker to the label. -Paul *OK, maybe not actually well known, but lawyers exaggerate.
I defended many dozens of product liability cases in my career, which basically spanned the rise of such litigation beginning in the mid-late 1970s and probably peaking by the '90s. I went to trial on a number of such cases. They ran a wide gamut. Plywood and sawmill machinery. (Every imaginable type of injury.) Isocyanate-based aftermarket automobile paints. (Respitory failures.) Chlorinated hydrocarbon paint strippers (which produced phosgene gas if heated). Belt dressing (applied to the nip points of slipping conveyor belts). Bags of lye poured into hot water. (Explosion and blindness.) These come to mind right now and there were many more. If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard about the McDonald's coffee case, I'd have several bucks. I wouldn't be surprised if there has been campstove litigation over the years. I always looked at Coleman's redesigned tank, which cannot be refilled while attached to the stove, as probably related to accident claims, though I don't actually know that to be the case. One thing that is not widely known to the public is that it is defendants, not plaintiffs, who always demand jury trials in personal injury cases. I always did, and I was always on the defense. One reads about large jury verdicts, but never about modest ones, or about defense verdicts, because they are seldom newsworthy. But there are lots and lots of those.
I understand about product liability, and that devices need to be made "fool proof" (to protect fools from themselves.) Nonetheless, I feel that the Svea 123 is made for people who are not lacking in common sense. For those lacking that commodity, there are many stoves that are safer to use. I would point such a person towards an isobutane stove with a built-in igniter. Preferably one of the more recent models that have a valve in the tank that shuts off the fuel when the stove is disconnected. For extreme cases, suggest they hike out and visit the MacDonalds in town. ....Arch
