Arctic Shock question

General water gun discussion.
New Guy
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:34 am

Arctic Shock question

Post by New Guy » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:40 am

I'll be honest. I'm really more of a car guy. Then someone in a class at school held the class "hostage" with a couple of buddies and some Nerf guns... For a class project, of course. My response? I went and bought the biggest, baddest Nerf gun I could find.

Anywho, my question shouldn't be too bad and I hope it won't bring out anyone's fiery feelings about things. I notice that quite a few people are not fond of the Arctic Shock (not the Arctic Blast) but I can't find any reason behind this- my old one was a reliable blaster and had decent range for a manufactured soaker at about 40 feet. The new one performs similarly but was missing a couple bits of internal bracing that the older model had- that, and there was a minor design flaw with the ball valve-looking assembly, as the screw that retains the operating lever had too small of a flange and things would pop out of alignment. I pulled a screw out of the old one and installed it and the blaster has been reliable since.

I have all of the parts save for two 3/4" check valves to build my own spin on the basic "APH" design of home-made blaster.

I seem to be rambling and it's 4:39 in the morning where I am. I'll ask my question and continue my ramblings in the introductions section if there is one.

Why do people hate on the Arctic Shock so much? I don't see anything wrong with the internal or external design and it feels well balanced.


Edit: I have no idea how I missed that in the rules last night. I apologize.
Last edited by New Guy on Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

atvan
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by atvan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:28 pm

First off from the sscentral rules page-
Do not post about using water guns as flamethrowers.
With that cleared up, welcome to the forums!

The Arctic Blast does seem to have excessive hatred against it. It does, however, have a Max-D mechanism that is prone to breaking, and a fairly small stream for its size. Many at this community also dislike gimmicks, like the ice core, especially when used to sell the blaster instead of performance.

User avatar
wetmonkey442
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:00 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by wetmonkey442 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:36 pm

^Second atvan's warning: Posting about that sort of stuff will get you banned without warning. One of the reasons for this (besides the inherent danger), is that the majority of members here are younger and may be inspired to undertake similar projects without understanding the risks.

The Arctic Shock is treated with disdain not because it is a bad blaster relative to the other blasters released that year, but because it has a small reservoir, pressure chamber, weak trigger mechanism, and under-powered stream compared to many older (and even more recent) water guns.
Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today!

User avatar
C-A_99
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by C-A_99 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:06 pm

Every Arctic Shock I've used was piss-weak and requires a ton of pre-pumping to get more than squirt gun range. I'd have to say that it's probably more useful as a heap of scrap than for the majority of water wars. Maybe the ones I tried were defective somehow, but they had enormous dropoff. It would shoot well at about 30-35ft for a small fraction of the shot. The rest of the shot it almost immediately drops down to below squirt gun range and pisses out the stream. With 35 pumps of pre-pressurization, it didn't help all that much; shot time was considerably lower after pre-pumping too. (The pump volume is tiny [a problem also present on the FF] thus cannot push much air in at a time which is a huge issue for a blaster that needs pre-pressurization so badly.)

If the blaster melted, you probably did something wrong. All I'll say is, be absolutely sure that you know what you're doing and be safe, or best of all, don't do it at all. Either way, water warfare forums aren't the place for that sort of thing.
Last edited by C-A_99 on Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

New Guy
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by New Guy » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:04 pm

Sorry, I guess I missed the part in the rules about the now-unmentionable thing... I was posting at 4:something in the morning, my mind wasn't at peak functionality.

Mine has a bit of dropoff, sure, but has significantly better range than even my friend's old CPS super soaker, though his is quite old and heavily used... But it takes all of maybe 15 pumps despite the small pump size and it's ready to rock and roll. Maybe altitude has an effect on performance? I'm at nearly 7,000 feet where I live, so perhaps that is what changes it.

Either way, I'm going to give the forum rules a thorough re-read now that I'm awake and alert and see if maybe I catch everything this time around.

Edit: I'm kind of fond of the ice core idea, as it means you have a nicely sized reservoir when you don't insert the core. Also, the gaping hole in the back of the blaster makes for quick refilling, if you've got quick hands with unscrewing things. I kept the threads and rubber seal greased up on my old one and could have the large cap off the rear quicker than most of my friends could use the silly quick-fill top or just unscrew the top.

User avatar
C-A_99
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by C-A_99 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:30 pm

Which CPS does your friend have? Most likely the CPS is still far better for combat, particularly with better stream velocity and output. Or perhaps its defective.

New Guy
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by New Guy » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:05 am

I'll have to take a look, he's out of town at the moment for some school trip.

I don't know if this is allowed or not, but I found a link to a picture of one that looks like his.

CPS 1500

His is missing the stickers, though, and I think it may either be defective or perhaps plugged up. The water here is notoriously bad.

User avatar
C-A_99
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by C-A_99 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:29 am

The 1500/1700 is by far one of the most popular and best blasters ever designed. I've yet to own one myself though, but I'm pretty certain that one working normally will always outrange an AS.

If the bladder is mucked up, it can be argumented or replaced with 12" latex party balloons.

User avatar
-G-JiV-
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by -G-JiV- » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:19 pm

My opinion on the Artic Shock:

If you see through the Max-infusion-backpack adapter(which means someone can add a 3 Liter reservoir, which is nice), there is really nothing good at this Soaker. The pump volume is bad, the PC is very small and so weak. The pressure drops off quite fast, the pump sometimes block or stuck too. It is quite heavy for its size and performance. THe stream is no XP stream and not thick either. I sold this gun after one day of using. What a bad Soaker, just another bad Soaker of Hasbro... !
A gunner has to do what his Soaker requires...

New Guy
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by New Guy » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:28 am

Well, I drilled the nozzle out to I want to say 3/32" and it works quite well, and while it doesn't blast for long I don't mind actively pumping to squirt people. I suppose part of it is that I grew up with the off-brand soakers, as we could never afford the "good stuff."

Admittedly, I've got a couple ideas for turning it into more of a CPS style blaster and the internal design makes it look like it won't be terribly difficult...

User avatar
C-A_99
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by C-A_99 » Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:21 pm

You might as well make a homemade instead. The design of the AS does not lend itself to higher performance at all; internal diameters are almost certainly too small, and obviously there's no room for a PC expansion or replacement even. Overall it's not worth bothering at all with, though you may be able to get slightly closer to XP or higher performance with more minor changes, such as replacing the PC with a soda bottle positioned appropriately. However that's still more work than its worth.

New Guy
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by New Guy » Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:02 pm

Well, all I need to put my homemade together is two 3/4" slip on check valves. Really, this is all more of a "what if?" type game to me, so I don't mind doing a lot of work for not much gain.

uberninja333
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:36 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by uberninja333 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:51 am

i hate it when people dis this gun. shur it isint very powerful, but it is fun to use, and it was cheaper than most others. it is still better than half of the new 2011 supersoakers, like the tornado strike and the thunder storm and the point break. my theore is that if it works its good enough. weaker gunss con be good fun to, and several wars have taken place in milnor north dakota using only weaker guns such as the artic shock, splash fire, and the oozinator. if you want a gun to truly hate, try to shoot the splash fire. it sucks worse than a squitr gun. hate the realy bad ones, not ok guns like this, and just learn to have fun. and any one who says that this gun sucks can learn to not be snobs that just care about range and stream size. dont be a hater. peace out suckers.
Last edited by uberninja333 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why the f*** dose it seem like i'm the only one in north dakota on this site. if you live in sargent countty send me a message.


squad of 3 beats an army of one

atvan
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by atvan » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:12 pm

@uberninja333- from the SSCentral Rules-
Be courteous. Respect others. Argue with the post, not the poster. Debating a topic is fine, but avoid personal attacks.
and
Use understandable spelling and grammar. Spell check is provided.
To explain our dislike, a quote from this very thread-
The Arctic Shock is treated with disdain not because it is a bad blaster relative to the other blasters released that year, but because it has a small reservoir, pressure chamber, weak trigger mechanism, and under-powered stream compared to many older (and even more recent) water guns.

uberninja333
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:36 am

Re: Arctic Shock question

Post by uberninja333 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:06 am

i am sory that i was so rude in the last post. it was late, and i was a little angry. but i still think that almost every body is still dissing the artic shock for pretty much no reason at all. so it isn`t that good for mods, has an under powered stream, and you have to pump it a ditle. it still is fun and cheap, unlike most of the 2011 line, most of wich are over priced, and under powered. my philosiphy remains the same. if you have fun, then it's good enough. the wars i have fought with one have mostly been close quarter brawls. i hardly got wet in those, because i had some skill. those were fun. thats what its all about, not how far you can shoot. would you rather be abled to use any gun, and dodge the enemy mattrix style, or get soaked from a distance. wich is more fun. i thought so. also, if you want to cool the water in this thing fast, dont use the ice core. use ice cubes. put 5 cubes in where the core should go, and fill the gun about 7/8 full. then shake the gun. once again im sorry about any spelling/grammer errors i make. i'm typing this from a dsi.
Why the f*** dose it seem like i'm the only one in north dakota on this site. if you live in sargent countty send me a message.


squad of 3 beats an army of one

Locked