swc 300 vs. swc 300a help please

[tareef]

i will be buying one of these two next week and would like some input on them. the 300 is rated for more gallons than the 300a. the 300 uses two pump that draw less watts and make more air than the 300a's single pump. also the 300a has a little bigger footprint than i have space, i have 14 3/8 X 18.

The tank will be a 220 actual gallons, bare bottom sps with some lps, lots of fish and i feed heavily.


Thanks

[sjm817]

The 300 has always been a weak skimmer. The 2x Sicce 2500s are not enough. That's why they have the 350 with 3 pumps. The 2500s are not great pumps. If you aren't open to other choices other than those two, I would pick the 300a assuming you can fit it.

[tareef]

what other choices are there for the 600$ price tag, my last skimmer was a giant diy skimmer and i have been out of the hobby for 4 years.
i just re-measured the sump, 14 1/4 x 18 1/2, could make it 20" if i take out a baffle.
thanks

[sjm817]

Super Reef Octopus 5000 for $500 would be one option. For a 220, I would think the SWC 250a would also be fine.

[96gts]

Will the swc 300 cone fit in your sump?

[tareef]

i have read a few different sizes on it and it looks like if it did it would be ultra tight or not it, too close to gamble on, the width is the killer for me. Are cones really that much better, not trying to de-rail this thread on that debate either.

[sjm817]

Originally Posted by tareef

i have read a few different sizes on it and it looks like if it did it would be ultra tight or not it, too close to gamble on, the width is the killer for me. Are cones really that much better, not trying to de-rail this thread on that debate either.

IMO and IME, no.

BTW, here are footprint specs on the SRO 5000.

RO-PS-5000INT Dimensions: 18”x12”x24”
Footprint: 18.5" x 12.5"
Body: 10" Neck: 6"
Rated up to 400gal. (300gal Heavy)
Features the new Bubble Blaster HY5000S (50w/PF 70+) Air intake up to 2400lpm

[tareef]

ok so why go with the 5000int when the 5000sss is rated the same gallons. i kinda like those skimmers, how does that bubble blaster compare to the swc pumps

Thanks

[sjm817]

The SSS may be a good option for you with tight sump space. I prefer the pump external to the body for ease of maintenance, but that's just my preference.

The BB pumps have been pretty good. Very powerful. Not as quiet as the Askoll based pumps, but good.

[tareef]

ehhh getting confusing now, was so simple when i was set on the swc, now the sro5000 looks kinda good, doesnt the swc allow you to run it in recirc mode??? may be the deal maker for me...

[sjm817]

Recirc will take up more space and it still needs to be in sump.

[tareef]

well for the recirc option i will take out a baffle if needed to fit it, the performance, IMO, is much greater with recirc and pushing the proper amount of water through the skimmer

[sjm817]

SWC with the Askoll is nice. My only complaint is the volute is all one molded piece. To clean out the air nozzle you have to remove the pump from the skimmer and take the volute off the pump. The BB pump you can just unscrew it from the pump while it is still on the skimmer body.

[sneaton]

swc all the way....you dont want the loud growl of the bubble blaster

[huskysglare1]

I got the SWC 300 Cone and it's terrific. The pump is dead silent. All in all, SWC pays more attention to detail then the SRO. for an extra $25 i would definitely pick SWC.

[SNAKEMANVET]

I just got a swc 300a with askoll pump,dead silent and is really pulling some nasty skim.