Practical Water Gun Guide

Silence · Post by **Silence** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:54 am

I'm just saying that is sounds like the Mk.1 is 6 or 7 times as powerful as the Mk.2.

How good is the Blazer?

Because I'm a bit young to have gotten any CPSs (and my naivety at the time) when they were out, I'm simply disgusted. My retaliation is the use of homemades only--and they destroy CPSs anyway.

Well, I actually have a late-model CPS 4100 from Target--I got it last year. But it is still a ripoff, being too bulky, having no QFD, and having none of the power of the other CPSs.

Hannibal · Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:59 am

I really don't agree with the idea that the Mk.1 has less output than the Mk.1. My Mk.2 shoots for about .8 seconds, and I hear that the MK.1 shoots for 1.2 seconds.

I'll do an analysis here. The Mk.2 has a 22-ounce PC. The MK.1 has a 30-ounce PC. That fits very nicely with the idea that both have the same output. The shot times line up with the PC sizes perfectly. Of course, it is harder to know the exact times. I know for sure my Mk. 2 shoots .8 seconds. That gives it a 26-27x output. iSoaker himself claims his Mk.1 has a 28x output. I'd say they have the same output.

CPS 4100 from Target--I got it last year. But it is still a ripoff, being too bulky, having no QFD

The 4100 isn't at all bulky. It's a little large for its featues and power, but it isn't that bad. As for QFDing, you can QFD through the 8.5x nozzle just fine. Just turn your 4100 to the 8.5x setting, and put the nozzle in the QFD. It fits perfectly.

ZOCCOZ · Post by **ZOCCOZ** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:35 am

That was my theory about the MK.1 shot time also at first. But since isoaker sais that the Mk.1 shot time is about a 0.8-1.00 second long like the Mk.2, and no one else has stop watched an MK.1, the equal output per second of both soakers is only theoretical. Now having said that, the Mk.1 versus Mk.2 review awhile back mentioned that the Mk.1 had a longer shot time, so both guns may very well be equaly as powerfull only differentiating in shot time.

Personaly, I don't know anymore. I am leaning towards the equal output theory, but at the moment officialy I still have to give it to the Mk.1 due to isoakers account. On the other hand, he could do us all a big favor and time his Mk.1 a few times with a stop-watch so we all know for sure.

Silence · Post by **Silence** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:31 pm

Hannibal (Post #51)

I really don't agree with the idea that the Mk.1 has less output than the Mk.1. My Mk.2 shoots for about .8 seconds, and I hear that the MK.1 shoots for 1.2 seconds.

Should that be, "...the Mk.1 has more output than..." I don't know the exact figures, so I'll just take your word for it...

I didn't know that you can use a QFD on the 8.5X nozzle. Sure, it's a bit bulky, but I'll try it.

Actually, I was comparing the CPS 4100 to the Monster X with that point. They are almost identical, but one of the differences is that the Monster X has a real QFD, while the CPS 4100 doesn't. Taking that feature off makes the CPS 4100 a ripoff.

_____________________________________________________
EDIT: Even if the Mk.1 and the Mk.2 have equal output (which may not be true), as you've said, the Mk.1 has a much larger PC. That's an advantage in itself.

DX · Post by DX » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:55 pm

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the lack of a QFD makes the 4100 a "rip-off." I've never used a QFD in my life, I probably never will, I don't even know how to.

They have absolutely zero function in our wars, as do all guns dependent on hoses or other technology dependent on a source of constantly pressurized flowing water. Plus, most of my team has learned to use tap/pump, so it would actually take less time to pump than to pressurize via QFD, a lot less time.

Silence · Post by **Silence** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:01 pm

No, QFD is actually supposed to be quite quick. Of course, I expect all of your methods to be effective, so I will take it for granted (at least for now) that QFD is ineffective.

Assuming that QFD is ineffective, you must also realize that I posted other reasons for calling the CPS 4100 a ripoff. It has inferior qualities compared to most other CPS guns, yet it is much bulkier (it even has a small reservoir). Homemades are the way to go.

DX · Post by DX » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:13 pm

The main reason my team never uses QFDs is because they would be useless. We fight in the best forested parks we can find, where man-made technology is non-existant and where one must fill from streams/ponds, use natural cover, and fight a war the old fashioned way.

Tap/Pumping requires only 1-5 pumps to return to full pressure. The user can get a quick shot off, then take another 1-5 pumps, another swift shot, etc.

The 4100 is an ok gun against other CPS guns, great against anything post- 2002.

Silence · Post by **Silence** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:55 pm

Well, I noticed that it is decent against post-2002 soakers. However, most of the people I play with don't have access to CPS, and they are too outclassed to want to play. Anybody who has a pre-2003 soaker can crush me. I've turned to homemades to keep myself alive among the more hardcore guys, and I will give a few to each side when I play local, more informal people.

Flannel · Post by **Flannel** » Tue May 02, 2006 2:48 am

This site has alot of great content. But that top picture...

Its a little strange. I mean odd or something like that. It just strikes me that way. It just seems out of place.

I like the electric gun section, and overall the site has such a wealth of information for a newb like myself.

So thanks for the hard work.

And I do like the history!

ZOCCOZ · Post by **ZOCCOZ** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:11 am

Oh you mean the classical CPS 2000 nude model. There actualy is a backstory behind it(nothing dirty), but I will safe that for the full CPS 2000 review.