iSoaker.net :: Soaking the world!

Finally got a moment to do some range testing. Got to test the following blasters today:
Water Warriors
Pulse Blaster
Pulse Strike
Pulse Master
Equalizer
Renegade
Vindicator
[url=http://www.isoaker.com/Armoury/Analysis/2009/wwpowershots.htmlPower Shot[/url]

To make a long story short, all blasters performed very nicely with both the Pulse Master and Vindicator able to push streams beyond the 40' mark. See reviews for more details.

Enjoy!

Some have stated that the Pulse Master shoots a bit further and better than the Vindicator. Perhaps it just has more pressure since it's output is just a bit less. Of course, these stats are also to be taken with a grain of salt. =p

Edit: I also mentioned this earlier but you probably didn't get it.

The Vindicator's design of being "unable" to top off the reservoir is actually a good thing because it makes more efficient use of the entire gun's space. The review should isntead, list it as a pro, stating that "'topping off' the reservoir for maximum capacity is not needed" as opposed you "'topping off' the reservoir isn't possible". After all, if the Vindicator was designed for the PC to use it's own space, it would lower the resevoir capacity, meaning that topping off is necessary for maximum capacity. In their smart design, it's not.

I might reconsider my current "don't need it" position right now and go and try to get one eventually. Or maybe I should wait for BBT to make even better blasters. Either way, I'd definately trade that 2008 Orca for one of these now if the option was there.

It seems that they still use those fan nozzles. Perhaps bore size isn't enough to allow them to use riot blasts, but those do what the fan blast tries to but fails at. Perhaps the Vindicator's fan blast is actually potent and able to soak, I don't know.

I am impressed with the ranges of the two guns aforementioned. I like the looks of the Pulseguns but the smaller firing chambers and low pump volumes make me hesitant to buy. Low pump volumes and small pressure chambers tend to leave you vulnerable for long periods of time. The trombone player from Less than Jake had a Vindicator at Warped Tour on Thursday. He sprayed the crowd with it for about 5 minutes and I got some good (very interesting) pics of it. I'll upload them later.

@C-A_99: I understand your statements regarding whether to consider a PC within the reservoir as a Pro versus a Con and that it does allow a blaster to maximize its effective space. However, to me, I still prefer blasters with truly separate firing chambers since reservoir space is not being limited due to a PC being within. While you'd technically then need a larger blaster to have a larger PC without sacrificing reservoir space, it's still a "Con" to me that one cannot top off a blaster after pressurizing the PC to gain an extra full shot.

As for the Vindicator's fan nozzle, it likely wouldn't be able to drench anyone too quickly and, perhaps, would have been better served by a shot-gun-riot-blast type nozzle instead.

As for range testing overall, I was a little surprised at some of the various blasters' stream behavior and thought some blasters like the Pulse Blaster and Renegade could have gotten better stats had their streams not broken up as quickly as the ones I tested did.

Meh, I still see it as not having to top it off. But that system is not without it's disadvantages: the contraction of the PC requires it's own ventillation, and in the Vindicator, it depends on the reservoir's ventillation (which is limited due to the water to prevent leaks), now THAT is a disadvantage. As for everything else, I suppose it's kind of a pessimist, optimist; half empty, half full type of thing. I take it as half full. (and I take a lot of things as half empty, which you probably know already)

I pretty much assumed the same about the fan nozzle. In general, they're pretty useless overall and even the smallest, lowest range riot blasts (like the 310's) can do better. It's pretty evident that whoever invented the fan blast doesn't know much on combat. (though the same can be said for the CPS 1-3-5 and XP 85 but those are gimmick guns)

As i'm on holiday in America I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the water guns in stock as the U.K has a small selection.
After searching a few shops and websites I found that K - mart are selling the Pulse Master for $13.99.
I'm quite tempted to buy and am wondering if this is a good find.
The range is better than any water gun in the U.K but i'm weary about the short shot times.
Thanks for any feedback.

mkhadem

mkhadem wrote:As i'm on holiday in America I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the water guns in stock as the U.K has a small selection.
After searching a few shops and websites I found that K - mart are selling the Pulse Master for $13.99.
I'm quite tempted to buy and am wondering if this is a good find.
The range is better than any water gun in the U.K but i'm weary about the short shot times.
mkhadem

The Pulse Master is a great water blaster! Don't let the short shot times worry you unless you really need long-lasting streams to get your aim right. I've used mine during a soakfest and was extremely pleased with its performance, particularly on its largest nozzle setting. I could be surgical with my strikes and the fact that the PC is small actually means it can be recharged very quickly and you get a lot of shots per full reservoir. The amount it pushes out in a full shot may be less than blasters with larger PCs, but it's still more than enough water to get someone quite wet; a couple of shots for full soakage.

It looks like the PM gets 5 pumps per PC, and I'd say a tap shot is .2 sec. so that would put nozzle 2 at roughly 8 tap shots and nozzle 3 at roughly 2.5 (which could round to 3). More importantly, that would equal close to 2 pumps per tap shot on both nozzles 2 and 3, so if you keep pumping while blasting away (a pump should take 1/3 of a second I'm guessing), the small PC should be managable. Maybe my rough guessy calculations are way off though.

Thanks for all the advice guys, I went to the local k - mart today and picked myself up an equalizer for $6.99 and also the pulse master for $13.99 as both were on sale and the equalizer would make a good backup blaster. I had a long water fight trying out both thoroughly and was impressed with their range. Tap shots work excellently on the Pulse Master but I've found you could be left slightly vulnerable if you decide to go in the front line with no backup. No problems concerning leakage for me while using both the equalizer and Pulse Master. Glad I got them.

mkhadem

Ok, i've gotten round to testing the range for both the Pulse Mater and the Equalizer. I tested the Pulse Mater quite a bit more than the Equalizer but I found that the range on both were even better than my expectations. As the ground I was testing on had a very slight decline, and i mean very slight, I decided to take a generous 1 foot off all the readings ( excluding the first set of rough results for the Pulse Master which I did on completely level ground).
So, as I said, I did some rough range results for the Pulse Master and then some much more accurate ones. I then did some accurate range results for the Equalizer. For the rough results for the Pulse Master I got the following: Nozzle 1: Level = 29ft, 45 degrees = 37 ft. Nozzle 2: Level = 30ft, 45 degrees = 42.5ft. Nozzle 3: Level = 35.5ft, 45 degrees = 45 ft. These results aren't really that important but I thought it would be interesting to compare these results to the more accurate ones. The much more accurate results for the Pulse Master ( in which I deducted 1 foot off every result because of the reason stated above) are as follows: Nozzle 1: Level = 31ft, 45 degrees = 39ft. Nozzle 2: Level = 31ft, 45 degrees = 42ft. Nozzle 3: Level = 38ft, 45 degrees = 45ft! I was really amazed by the results, i mean i had heard that the PM could shoot a little further than 40ft but I was skeptical. So I decided to make sure that I had made the correct measurements ( I had marked out every 10 ft up to 40 ft ) and the margin of error was only about 2". Taking a look at Isoaker's results, I realised some are quite different. Perhaps my idea of a level shot is different; when I took the level shots I was standing. At first I was worried about the short shot times but every time I use the PM, the more and more I like it. I've realised the short shot times are a very small price to pay and actually means that 1 pump gives you a lot of power. Anyway, for the Equalizer, I only took 1 set of results which I made sure were accurate. The results for the Equalizer are: Level = 34ft, 45 degrees = 40ft. Im very interested to see if anyone has gotten similar results. By the way I'm sorry to create a new post instead of editing my other post but I thought there was too much information to add.

mkhadem

You need to standardize heights from where you fire. The range should be measured from the point of the nozzle to the impact, not from where you're standing to impact. The center of the splash is the range, last drop is farther due to the stream splattering on a flat surface. (measuring to last drop is therefore very misleading) For height, I measure ranges with the nozzle 2 ft above the ground (for space on larger blasters since the nozzle should be on the starting point), but 5 ft is also not a bad level to use.

Don't worry too much about the double posting. If you just edited, chances are that people wouldn't see it. Just don't double post within hours of each other.

I see, thanks for the advice, this is my first proper range tests so i'll definately remeber for next time, although, I did decide to make sure the front of the nozzle was at the starting point not my body making the results a few ft more accurate. For the level shots I would generally hold the PM at shoulder level and for the 45 degrees shots I would aim at the moon every time which seemed to be at pretty much 45 degrees. As for the center of the splash, I see your point. My results should probably have about 1 or 2 ft taken off them as I did measure to the last drops. Nevertheless I am still impressed with the results and the shots from the PM did seem to travel further than most other guns I have fired. Thanks again.

mkhadem

When I measure ranges, I fire at a 45 degree angle holding the soaker how I would in a normal battle. After all, that's how you're going to be using it anyway. As for what I consider range or effective range, I measure at the end the puddle the shot makes. Personally, I find that most effective.

Well, what if you adjust the strap Or what if you don't happen to be using it? All of those factors will affect how the soaker is positioned if you don't standardize a position. And what if you one-hand a blaster and stretch it out? That automatically gives you roughly 2 ft of range. And measuring to the last drop is no good because the only reason the water goes that far is because of how it splatters on the surface when it falls down. I mentioned that earlier and why it's a bad idea.

Looks like we, as a community, need some standards for ranges to avoid bloated numbers or numbers too low. I'd say that a good standard is what M4 uses; position the nozzle 5 ft above the ground to exactly where point zero is. I did the same thing except with the nozzle 2 ft above the ground. 4-5ft would give a more practical number, but is also more difficult to keep steady and exact. Perhaps the best way is to get a yardstick and go with 3ft above ground. Measurements go to the center of the splash puddle; the place where it is the widest. (given your shot is fairly consistent) Unfortunately, it seems that last drop is the most consistently accurate method, despite the bloated number it gives.

This reminds me of how (American) football referees and their aides completely eyeball the marks until they matter – at which point they pull out the yardsticks and pretend to hold it straight. This is also why scientists sometimes use significant figures (although error propagation is better): extra precision means nothing. Try compensating for the wind, different splash shapes, the water gun's mark, and all its idiosyncrasies. It's hard.

Sticking out a water gun towards the target will "increase" range by the length of the humerus, which should be around 1 foot – remember, your forearm is already horizontal. Being a foot shorter than someone else will "decrease" your water gun's range by less than a foot – because the trajectory is relatively steep right before it hits the dirt. Combined, these can only account for two feet of variation. That's less than what we already see as a result of different bladder thicknesses, nozzle variation for homemades, or nozzle roughness if it's my XP 270. And since the difference in range between a mediocre SoakerTag water gun and a high-flow homemade soaker can surpass 30 feet, this variance really isn't too big a deal.

That said, some reported ranges differ quite a bit, e.g. the 15-foot-plus difference between iSoaker's and ZOCCOZ's ranges with the CPS 1200. I, too, am interested in what went wrong there, or if it all came down to things like dud bladders. But some of those suggestions sound pretty persnickety to me.

I don't measure last drops; I measure the end of the puddle. I made a paint image to show you, but I can't upload it so I'll try to do it here.

. . .
' <- Last Drops
. .
.

....... <- Where I measure
::::::::..:: <- Puddle
......

.
.. <- First Drops
:::

Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

If factors such as arm span and height are combined, they can add up, in the most absurd cases, close to 5ft to 7ft of difference. That's where it starts becoming significant. As for the target's height, I'd have to disagree about that affecting range, since if any target is just in range, the stream will hit their feet, regardless of how tall they are. However, taller targets are generally easier to hit and do not require as much precision with angle. All of these other variables are why it's good to include a set standard for measuring ranges. Numbers are more for comparing blasters than for getting an idea of how they'll work in battle; the latter can only be obtained by actual use of the blaster.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll add my methods: stand on top of the line and fire from the shoulder. My water gun might be about a foot ahead of yours, and maybe 4" lower in elevation. All I'm saying is, unless the tester does something stupid (like holding the water gun out at arm's length) or unconventional (like firing from the ground), then there's really not that much error there. Now, that second example has some merit because most people aim for the abdomen anyway (maybe that's why you mentioned the target's height... ), but I don't think we can require it. Make sure it's disclosed when it's used, and subtract 3 or 4 feet when it's not.

Alright, I'm going to remeasure ranges on my 11k holding it approximately 5 feet above the ground at a 45 degree angle. But first I'm going to have to get me some epoxy putty to seal the male adaptor to the 11k: It's coming loose with the electric tape. I've also got a neat idea involving auto 45 degree shooting using that thing you have on a hose that splits one stream of water into two. I'll probably chop off the pump handle or something off of a broken soaker to make a sight too.

When I'm done I'll post about it on my CPS 11k thread.

Adding in my own way of doing stats (as explained on iSoaker.com's Statistics Page):

Range

Guide-sticks are set up along a level firing range to mark off the start and at 10-foot intervals to a maximum distance of 60 feet (as of the time of this writing, no blaster has been able to fire farther than 60 feet). To determine the range of a blaster, the blaster is filled to its maximum capacity (Note: in the case of pressurized-reservoir-based blasters, their reservoirs are filled to 70% maximum capacity based on total reservoir volume). The blaster is then pumped until pumping become difficult and/or a check-valve begins letting water or a pressure gauge reads maximum. Then, the nozzle is held roughly directly over the start marker and the blaster is fired either horizontal to the ground or arced upwards at a 45-degree angle at a height of roughly 1 meter. Angle is determined by holding a leveler along side the blaster and aligning the appropriate read-out. Range is measured approximately by watching where along the guide marks the end-point of the stream reaches. When possible, a second person stands to the side to help determine the stream end-point. Range accuracy is estimated at +/- 12 inches.

--------

For sake of clarity, I try to keep my elbow at roughly 1m off the ground, meaning that for angled shots, the nozzle ends up a little higher off the ground based on my forearm length (~1') and the blaster's length.