Medium Rifle Comparison

General water gun discussion.
User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:52 pm

I've been completing my collection of soakers lately, with a few medium rifles being shipped from ebay at the moment which will complete my collection of the basic grunt weapon class. The medium pressure chamber design having proved itself as the backbone and workhorse of any water combat team, it has enjoyed the longest run of any soaker class starting from the SS 100 in the classic series to the Max-D 6000. I haven't seen any modern Super Soakers or Water Warriors that fall into this class, so my comparison is only for those in the golden age of soakers. But what I was really wondering is which medium rifle is the best of the bunch. My preference has always been for the XP 150, but I wonder how they all stack up to each other.

Looking at performance and capacity from iSoaker.com:

rifle - res - PC - output - range
SS 100 - 51oz - 14oz - 0.9oz/sec - 36ft
XP 150 - 50 - 17 - 1.7 - 30
XP 105 - 31 - 10 - 2.3 - 30
XP 110 - 40 - 12 - 2.2 - 38
XP 310 - 49 - 12 - 2.2 - 33
Max-D 6000 - 53 - 9 - 2.4 - 39

Looking at the numbers, the PC/res capacities favor the XP 150 as the best capacity with the SS 100 a pretty close second. The XP 105 is the weakest of the lot on capacity. The 105 is larger than the light rifle class, but small for the medium class, it really is more of an intermediate rifle between the two classes. The Max-D 6k is another oddball in this class, with the largest reservoir in the class but with a pressure chamber that really belongs on a light rifle.

The Max-D 6k outperforms all the soakers in output and range.

Reliability-wise, the XP 150 and SS 100 are the only ones with a tracked pump. The XPs all have the more reliable valve. The XP 150 and SS 100 have screw off tanks, which provide a place for wear. The XP 150 is also an easy soaker to repair, and has plenty of internal pics online for it. So I would probably rate the XP 150 highest in the reliability/repairability category.

Then there is also the extra features which some might prefer:
SS 100 - bare bones
XP 150 - bare bones
XP 105 - pressure gauge
XP 110 - pressure gauge, attached and transparent reservoir, tethered cap
XP 310 - pressure gauge, attached and transparent reservoir, tethered cap, adjustable nozzle
Max-D 6000 - pressure gauge, attached and translucent reservoir, tethered cap, adjustable nozzle

Obviously the XP 310 and Max-D 6000 have the most bells and whistles.


If I were doing one of those educational channel countdown shows, I think I would rate the soakers as follows:

#6 - XP 105: the dwarf of the class, but good output
#5 - SS 100: the original, but weak output and fragile
#3 tie - XP 110 and 310: 110 excels in range, while 310 has adjustable nozzles and larger capacity
#2 - Max-D 6000: best range and output, but able to be adjusted down for conservation, most options, but small PC and trouble prone valve, the M16 of soakers
#1 - XP 150: The best combination of reliability and capacity, the AK-47 of soakers

How would everyone else rate them?
Last edited by Hawk on Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:19 am

My comparison got me thinking about modern soakers again. I noticed the odd PC/res ratio on Max-D, which represents the final year of the Larami LTD crew. I didn't really compare shot time between the soakers, but you can see the difference between the PC sizes. The XP 150 with nearly a 2x stream for 7sec compared to the MD6k with over a 2x stream for 3sec. The clear advantage would seem to be the 150 with it's long shot time, which could be hosing down the MD6k for another 4sec while it's repumping after the 3sec of firing. The Water Warriors seem to have an even lower ratio between PR/res than the MD6k. Which is why I don't include any as a medium rifle class water gun.

I have to ask, AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE?!!!

It seems like the Larami team has purposely scaled down the PC size over time. Is there some advantage to this that I'm not seeing? I look at the WW Xenon with almost as much reservoir as the XP 150, but only 1.4x stream, and it has 4oz PC. That's just under 1/4th the size of the 150 PC. The Renegade on water saver has the same stream size and a slightly larger reservoir than a 150, but it's 7oz PC only provides 3sec of firing versus the 150's 7sec. The only thing I can think of that might be an advantage is the reduced amount of pumping to pressurize the soaker, but with that goes a reduced shot time, so I don't know how that is an advantage?

I just don't understand why they are making such underpowered guns these days.

User avatar
isoaker_com
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by isoaker_com » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:46 pm

Hawk wrote:I have to ask, AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE?!!!

...The Renegade on water saver has the same stream size and a slightly larger reservoir than a 150, but it's 7oz PC only provides 3sec of firing versus the 150's 7sec. The only thing I can think of that might be an advantage is the reduced amount of pumping to pressurize the soaker, but with that goes a reduced shot time, so I don't know how that is an advantage?

I just don't understand why they are making such underpowered guns these days.
I did a quick comparison between the Super Soaker XP150: Classic Series and the Water Warriors Renegade

XP150: CS - PC=500mL, Output=52mL/sec, Shot Time=~7s, Max Range=~9m
Renegade - PC=210mL, Output (smallest)=56mL/sec, Shot Time=~3s, Max Range=~9m
- Output (largest)=111mL/sec, Shot Time=~1.5s, Max Range=~10m

While the Renegade's PC limits its shot time, its available power is more-or-less on par with the XP150's if not a little more when on its largest stream. The main thing lacking in the newer air-pressure-based blasters is larger PCs. Then again, the Renegade is 8cm shorter in length and 9cm shorter in height while being 2cm wider than the XP150 so one is getting a decent-performing blaster in a smaller overall package. Interestingly as well, the Renegade has a larger reservoir capacity than the XP150 despite being smaller! While an XP150 user might have more shot time, the Renegade user has access to slightly better ranges as well as more water overall. I think I'd feel quite confident challenging an XP150 user if armed with a Renegade. I rated the Renegade's Power Rating as 75 while I gave the XP150:CS an 80, but that's also taking into account the Renegade's smaller PC capacity.

That said, it's neat to compare how things have changed over time. I'm just hoping we're at a turning point and we'll start seeing some improvements in power/performance from future stock water blasters. Time will tell...

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com / iSoaker.net ::

User avatar
cantab
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:35 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by cantab » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:06 pm

My guess is the maker's don't consider PC volume all _that_ important. To an extent I agree. A larger reservoir makes a gun go longer between refills. A thicker and more powerful stream soaks quicker. A larger pressure chamber does allow you to keep shooting longer, but also needs more pumping, while a smaller pressure chamber needs less pumping, takes up less space (thus allowing a bigger reservoir, given most people don't know the fill-pump-fill trick), and done properly can still power a good stream.

Shot time doesn't seem to be a major marketing thing at the moment. From Super Soaker it's aesthetics and gimmicks. The Overload and Aquashock Secret Strike spring to mind. Their pressure chamber is undersized, oddly shaped, and poorly positioned, in order to give the blaster a distinctive shape and look. (For what it's worth the design also gives good physical balance, it's very easy to hold and aim. But that's not marketed.)

From Water Warriors we see power, capacity, and also the 'only X pumps for MAXIMUM POWER' on the AquaMaster and Pulse ranges, which necessitates small PCs.

Maybe things will change. "Shoots for SIXTY SECONDS without repumping!" could be marketable.
I work on Windows. My toolbox is Linux.
Arsenal:
Super Soaker: XP215, 2xXP220, Liquidator, Aquashock Secret Strike M(odded), Arctic Blast M, CPS1200, CPS2100, SC Power Pak, 3l aquapack, 1.5l aquapack
Water Warriors: Jet, Sting Ray M, Shark, Argon M, Tiger Shark, PulseMaster
Others: Waterbolt, The Blaster, Storm 500, Shield Blaster 2000, generic PR gun, generic backpack piston pumper (broken), 3l garden sprayer M, 10l water carrier:

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:19 pm

I think I've hit upon a definition for medium rifle based on what I'm hearing. I've looked at PC size as the indicator for class. But given that the designers have seemed to prefer downsizing PC size, I guess reservoir capacity is the better indicator as to what to compare modern soakers against. I guess a range could be created using my list of older soakers to try to figure out which modern SS and WW fit the category:

light rifle: 30oz (XP 70) to 36oz (XP 95)
medium rifle: 40oz (XP110) to 53oz (Max-D 6000)
heavy rifle: 66oz (CPS 2100) to 81oz (SS 250)

However these categories leave two guns in an odd limbo. The XP 105 at 31oz falls into the light rifle category, while the XP 270 at 41oz falls into the medium class. Also the CPS 4100 then falls from a light canon to a heavy rifle. So some refining of the cutoffs is probably needed, or perhaps some overlap.

As to the incredible shrinking PCs, I think ammo conservation is that heart of it. The trend post XP 150 was to shrink the medium rifle PC to 12oz then down to 9oz before the Hasbro takeover. Since then, the Hasbro and Water Warrior has reduced PC to 5 or 6oz.

I understand from training new recruits that they want to pull the trigger and hold it, wasting ammo. But once they are trained to use short aimed shots as their primary technique, and only use the PC capacity with long sustained shots for counter-ambush or cover fire for withdrawal, the waste is abated. But with a small PC soaker, the extra training is not necessary, but the cost is the loss of the ability to unleash sustained fire in the more hairy situations. I liken it to the changeover in the US Army from the M16A1 to the M16A2, which went from full auto to 3 round burst. The M16A1 was used primarily in semi-auto mode and full auto only in responding to ambushes or covering withdrawal. However in combat, soldiers still tended to "spray and prey". With the M16A2, ammo discipline was forced on the soldier, but at the expense sustained cover fire. That's why special ops stuck with full auto on their weapons, and relied on their training to ensure its proper use.
Last edited by Hawk on Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
isoaker_com
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by isoaker_com » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:33 pm

Thing is, if one prefers a larger PC, there's always blasters like the Water Warriors Vindicator that sports ~580mLs and carries twice the amount of water in its reservoir than the XP150 while being overall more compact. There's also the Water Warriors Expedition (formerly the Blazer) that is roughly the same overall size as the XP150, though bulkier) and holds ~740mL in its PC, but actually holds less than the Vindicator in its reservoir (but still holds more than the XP150).

Of course, what is missing from the current crop of stock water blasters are larger air-pressure-based water blasters as well as larger CPS/elastic-based blasters. Power in the current blasters are good for their size, but people tend to want to see improvements which partly explains why people think power has been dropping. Well, that and the lack of BIG blasters. I keep hoping and trying to persuade those I know to reconsider, but market pressures are the main culprit behind larger, more powerful stock water blasters not being available in stores.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com / iSoaker.net ::

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:17 am

I've been reviewing the Water Warriors' lineups, and giving some thought to the classification system, and I think I have come up with a system built on the Larami era.

First, it came to me looking at the newer soakers that none of the post-Larami soakers had a 10x or larger stream size. Seeing as how the CPSs were not classified as a canon if they had a max stream of less that 10oz/sec, I figure that anything less than that output should be classified as a rifle. Secondly, I decided to make sure the SS/XP 300 still falls into the canon class with its 6x output, I'm also going to define anything as a canon that has a backpack reservoir due to its encumbrance. I also took the reservoir sizes I listed above and decided to make the light rifle class from 30 to 40 fl oz, with some flexibility to accommodate the XP 270 and XP110 overlap, and then just call the XP 105 a light rifle. And then I decided to make the cutoff at 60 fl oz, since the Blazer/Expedition appeared to be intended as a heavy rifle that was succeeded by the Orca.

So a rifle is soaker with an on-board reservoir that fires a stream of less than 10oz/sec. Rifles can be broken into three classes based on reservoir size:
Light Rifles - 30 to 39 fl oz (around quart size)
Medium Rifles - 40 to 59 fl oz (around 3 pints in size)
Heavy Rifle - 60 fl oz or more (2 quarts or more)

So for a little history, medium rifle soakers came into existence in 1991 with the Larami SS 100, which set the standard for using an air pressure chamber (PC) with separate 3 pint reservoir. The introduction of the XP 150 with a 2x output followed, and replaced the pinch valve with an XP valve. Larami continued to produce XP soakers through 2000 based on this layout. Although heavy rifles and canon-class soakers were introduced with CPS technology which used an elastic pressure chamber (EP), the medium rifle remained a PC design making it the largest PC soaker available after 1998. The Max-D 6000 introduced the first change in the valve design with the use of a ball valve, but continued with the trend in downsizing the PC. With the end of Larami, Hasbro and Water Warriors continued to shrink PCs on medium rifles to 5 or 6 flu oz. Hasbro made gimmick themed soakers with the Arctic Shock and Aquashock Secret Strike being the only medium rifle class soakers. Water Warriors released the Xenon and then the Renegade as their PC medium rifles, but also released the first PR medium rifle with the Equalizer. Water Warriors also introduced the first EP medium rifle with the Tiger Shark.

Basically there are four lines of medium rifles; the original Larami large PC ones, followed by the smaller PC ones by Water Warriors and Hasbro, the Water Warriors PR model Equalizer, and the WW EP model Tiger Shark.

I wasn't quite sure about calling the Blazer/Expedition as a heavy rifle. The reservoir would be the smallest of the heavy rifle class, but its PC is larger than all of them, which really rules it out as a medium rifle. And its successor is the Orca which received a biggest in class reservoir, but had its PC shrunk although it's still the biggest after the Blazer/Expedition. The Tiger Shark definitely falls with the size of medium rifles, but its predecessor, the Lightning/Piranha, has a light rifle sized reservoir but has a PC larger than most medium rifles.

Anyone think I've wrongly included any soakers as medium rifles, or left any out?
Last edited by Hawk on Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cantab
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:35 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by cantab » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:36 pm

When you refer to quarts and pints, are those Imperial or US? US pint is 16 fl oz, Imperial pint is 20. (though the fluid ounces are slightly different, but only by a few %).

Personally I don't use those sort of classifications at all.
I work on Windows. My toolbox is Linux.
Arsenal:
Super Soaker: XP215, 2xXP220, Liquidator, Aquashock Secret Strike M(odded), Arctic Blast M, CPS1200, CPS2100, SC Power Pak, 3l aquapack, 1.5l aquapack
Water Warriors: Jet, Sting Ray M, Shark, Argon M, Tiger Shark, PulseMaster
Others: Waterbolt, The Blaster, Storm 500, Shield Blaster 2000, generic PR gun, generic backpack piston pumper (broken), 3l garden sprayer M, 10l water carrier:

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:05 pm

cantab wrote:When you refer to quarts and pints, are those Imperial or US? US pint is 16 fl oz, Imperial pint is 20. (though the fluid ounces are slightly different, but only by a few %).

Personally I don't use those sort of classifications at all.
Good ole US volumetric measurements. I'm not sure who uses Imperial pints and quarts these days, but I've noticed them on gas cans and in owner's manuals in the US. Super Soaker capacities were always listed as fl oz along with the stream size here in the US, so it requires conversion to ml if American's want to be metric. But switching back and forth between ml and fl oz is a headache, they don't convert well. However quarts and pints are easy to ballpark into liters, as a quart and a liter are roughly equal and a pint is about 1/2 a liter. So I like to think of capacities in that size, just to make it easy for me to convert on the fly if I have to.

It's also handy that the SS 50 had about 1 quart for a reservoir, while the SS 100 had about 1.5 quarts or 3 pints as a reservoir, and the SS 200 was nearly 2 quarts; which gave us a good standard to go by for rifle size.

User avatar
cantab
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:35 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by cantab » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:40 pm

Hawk wrote:I'm not sure who uses Imperial pints and quarts these days,
The British. Mainly for beer and milk.
I work on Windows. My toolbox is Linux.
Arsenal:
Super Soaker: XP215, 2xXP220, Liquidator, Aquashock Secret Strike M(odded), Arctic Blast M, CPS1200, CPS2100, SC Power Pak, 3l aquapack, 1.5l aquapack
Water Warriors: Jet, Sting Ray M, Shark, Argon M, Tiger Shark, PulseMaster
Others: Waterbolt, The Blaster, Storm 500, Shield Blaster 2000, generic PR gun, generic backpack piston pumper (broken), 3l garden sprayer M, 10l water carrier:

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:22 am

Well it's been about a day, and no one has suggested any additions to the medium rifle list. So I'm going to throw out the question, how would you rate these soakers?

Larami SS 100
Larami XP 150
Larami XP 110
Larami XP 310
Larami Max-D 6000
Hasbro Arctic Shock
Water Warriors Xenon
Hasbro Aquashock Secret Strike
Water Warriors Tiger Shark
Water Warriors Equalizer
Water Warriors Renegade
Water Warriors Pulse Strike

User avatar
cantab
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:35 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by cantab » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:32 pm

Aquashock Secret Strike...probably a light rifle - the reservoir is on the large side, but the PC is small, and it doesn't seem all that powerful. Its close cousins the Overload and Incredible Hulk Blaster are definitely not medium rifles when backpackless.

I don't think you can call everything with a backpack a cannon. The Overload is no cannon, nor is the Devastator. When you consider guns where the backpack can be removed, eg the Max Infusion range, I don't think the mere addition of a backpack should change something from a 'rifle' to a 'cannon'. The term cannon creates visions of something with a fat stream.

Thus, I'd say backpack weapons of small calibre should probably be called backpack rifles.

The Tiger Shark - medium rifle sounds reasonable.

The Arctic BLAST I guess I'd call a medium rifle. Though if you use the big blast a lot then it's more of a shotgun.
I work on Windows. My toolbox is Linux.
Arsenal:
Super Soaker: XP215, 2xXP220, Liquidator, Aquashock Secret Strike M(odded), Arctic Blast M, CPS1200, CPS2100, SC Power Pak, 3l aquapack, 1.5l aquapack
Water Warriors: Jet, Sting Ray M, Shark, Argon M, Tiger Shark, PulseMaster
Others: Waterbolt, The Blaster, Storm 500, Shield Blaster 2000, generic PR gun, generic backpack piston pumper (broken), 3l garden sprayer M, 10l water carrier:

User avatar
Hawk
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by Hawk » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:25 pm

cantab wrote:Aquashock Secret Strike...probably a light rifle - the reservoir is on the large side, but the PC is small, and it doesn't seem all that powerful. Its close cousins the Overload and Incredible Hulk Blaster are definitely not medium rifles when backpackless.

I don't think you can call everything with a backpack a cannon. The Overload is no cannon, nor is the Devastator. When you consider guns where the backpack can be removed, eg the Max Infusion range, I don't think the mere addition of a backpack should change something from a 'rifle' to a 'cannon'. The term cannon creates visions of something with a fat stream.

Thus, I'd say backpack weapons of small calibre should probably be called backpack rifles.

The Tiger Shark - medium rifle sounds reasonable.

The Arctic BLAST I guess I'd call a medium rifle. Though if you use the big blast a lot then it's more of a shotgun.
Are you talking about the Max-D or Aquashock Secret Strike (stupid Hasbro, names different soakers the same thing)? The Max-D one is a small rifle, but the Aquashock has a 2.77oz stream on it. I do not have any Hasbro soakers, so I really can't compare their power, I'm just going off the iSoaker.com numbers.

Yeah, the backpack soakers are all over the place. Splitting out the CPS backpacks from the air pressure leaves the Overlord and SS/XP 300 together, which seems like an odd pairing too. And since the Overlord can work separately, is it a backpack rifle or a light rifle (or listed as both)? The Max-Infusion line kind of puts a spin on that definition.

No the Soaker Tag Elite: Arctic Shock, not the Aquashock Arctic Blast (stupid Hasbro and its long ass repetitive names). The Arctic Blast is definitely in the light canon category (a comparison for a later date).

User avatar
cantab
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:35 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by cantab » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:25 pm

I mean the Aquashock Secret Strike. The one with a nozzle selector. Yeah it does have about a 3x stream on it - but it feels weak - though precharging helps. Your definitions are mainly on reservoir size - the Secret Strike is at the low end of the medium category by that. However, I think it'd have a disadvantage 1 on 1 vs an XP 310, and maybe even vs an XP 105.

Yeah, I'd list the Overload as backpack rifle when it is, light rifle when it isn't.

You could call the Arctic Blast a light cannon I guess. But the limited range of the flood nozzle means it can't really go against the true CPSes.
I work on Windows. My toolbox is Linux.
Arsenal:
Super Soaker: XP215, 2xXP220, Liquidator, Aquashock Secret Strike M(odded), Arctic Blast M, CPS1200, CPS2100, SC Power Pak, 3l aquapack, 1.5l aquapack
Water Warriors: Jet, Sting Ray M, Shark, Argon M, Tiger Shark, PulseMaster
Others: Waterbolt, The Blaster, Storm 500, Shield Blaster 2000, generic PR gun, generic backpack piston pumper (broken), 3l garden sprayer M, 10l water carrier:

User avatar
isoaker_com
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Re: Medium Rifle Comparison

Post by isoaker_com » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:50 pm

While I see the fun/amusement of working out water blaster classifications like these, I really don't see them so useful from a practical standpoint. Few have access of blasters more than 5 years old and others just are unlikely willing to add one more thing to remember about a particular blaster.

I know some like making these sort of additional classifications, but I just don't see it being that useful in general.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com / iSoaker.net ::

Locked