iSoaker.net :: Soaking the world!

by **Wild Boys** on Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:44 pm

Ok, After managing to win a CPS 2000 Mk2 off eBay for an extremely low price, if you don't believe how low the price was, checkhere.

Right, now I know a lot of people will think "Another CPS 2000 Mark comparison" But I'm just trying to help and get some good reliable readings on this theory between the two CPS 2000 Marks.

Despite when it came today it was pretty worn and old by the looks of it, even in the description it did, it still works well and isn't actually too bad, I just need to smoothen out the pump and perhaps replace the trigger spring, but I'll do that at a later date.

Anyway, now that I've got both versions, I can compare them, but I'm afraid that won't be until I have more time and until the weather gets better, I'm enjoying the snow at the moment. After doing a brief test, I can see that the CPS 2000 Mk2 does NOT shoot as far as the Mk1 does, other people may think different, but these are the results that I am getting. I also noticed that the stream that the Mk2 gives out does actually look bigger and a little more juicy, with shot time being a little less than the Mk1.

Well, that's all for now, I'll see if I can verify more things between the two marks, and I'll post them later, which I'm sorry may be a while.

Well, see you for now, and hope you all had a good Christmas!

Happy New Year!

Hopefully there will be better soakers out, but I'm not building my hopes up.

:soakon2:

by **ZOCCOZ** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:24 am

Comparing different Mk.s reviews on the net, the average ratio seems to suggest that power and distance is aproximatly the same. Different models outperform the other and vice versa. The only comon denominator is, that the Mk.1 has abit more shot time, which is logical due to the longer PC. Which also would suggest that in 1 second the MK.1 does NOT shoot 30X since the shot time would be some miliseconds longer than 1 second. Just long enough to shoot out the remaining 250ml. Your comparison would support my theory.

by **isoaker** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:41 am

ZOCCOZ wrote:Comparing different Mk.s reviews on the net, the average ratio seems to suggest that power and distance is aproximatly the same. Different models outperform the other and vice versa. The only comon denominator is, that the Mk.1 has abit more shot time, which is logical due to the longer PC. Which also would suggest that in 1 second the MK.1 does NOT shoot 30X since the shot time would be some miliseconds longer than 1 second. Just long enough to shoot out the remaining 250ml. Your comparison would support my theory.

In the case of the Mk1 and Mk2 CPS2000, due to errors in time measurement, there is also the possibility that the Mk2 shot is just slightly shorter than 1 sec and that the Mk1 manages to spit out its full PC in 1 sec allowing both outputs to be rated ~30x. Output might be the same between both if measured more accurately. However, the Mk2 definitely spits out less water per full PC than the Mk1 does.

:cool:

by **Hannibal** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:42 am

So the Mk. 2 might not actually shoot farther than the Mk. 1?

I am personally inclined to believe the Mk. 2 that I have has a slightly smaller nozzle than 30x. But I could be wrong. :cps2000: My Mk. 2 doesn't quite shoot for a full second, and if the Mk. 1 shoots over a second, then my nozzle is 30x.

Also, I once saw a pic of the box (I forget where) that said the CPS 2000 had a 10x nozzle. And when my gun shoots, the stream looks as big as the 10x on my 1700! So I would believe that the 2000 has the width of a 10x nozzle, but a much faster stream speed!

At iSoaker: Do you have both versions for a comparison of general stats?

by **ZOCCOZ** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:01 pm

Hannibal wrote:So the Mk. 2 might not actually shoot farther than the Mk. 1?

I am personally inclined to believe the Mk. 2 that I have has a slightly smaller nozzle than 30x. But I could be wrong. :cps2000: My Mk. 2 doesn't quite shoot for a full second, and if the Mk. 1 shoots over a second, then my nozzle is 30x.

Also, I once saw a pic of the box (I forget where) that said the CPS 2000 had a 10x nozzle. And when my gun shoots, the stream looks as big as the 10x on my 1700! So I would believe that the 2000 has the width of a 10x nozzle, but a much faster stream speed!

At iSoaker: Do you have both versions for a comparison of general stats?

The mk.2 shoot time is just about as long as the 2500, so about a second or 1.12..-1.25... seconds. The 2500 perhaps a few miliseconds more. I can say that the 20X nozzles have the same size. If the Mk.1 would shoot with a 30X nozzle and also longer than the Mk.2, then it would have to at least have a PC bigger than 250 ml over the Mk.2 I would say. Buts since it is not, the 250ml would be the only good explaination of the longer Mk.1 shot- also suggesting that it doesn't shot 30X in 1 second since its shot is abit longer than the Mk.2 upon average.

Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1138397200

by **isoaker** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:00 pm

...when shot times are in fractions of a second, I tend to wonder about the accuracy unless you're using a light-based timer that senses the presence or absence of a stream. As the decimal point really affects nozzle rating in this range, the error in timing will result in dramatic differences in output calculated. From my own 'feel', I feel that CPS2000 Mk1 could push out its entire PC in 1 sec (or even just a touch less). I found the CPS2000 Mk 2 fired similarly in terms of length of shot time, but as its PC is shorter, its output is less. Perhaps they fire equivalently, but unless someone's got a much more accurate way of timing a short shot, I can only believe output calculations for the CPS2000 up to a point.

Some want to say 20x... I feel it behaves like a 30x shot... in a water fight, will anyone really FEEL the difference?

:cool:

by **Hannibal** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:16 pm

The stream feels like a 30x - a bit better kick than a CPS 2500 - I've shot a 2500 before, my first kick I've ever felt. Man, that was cool, brings back memories, even though it was only 6 months ago,

Anyway, the stream on my Mk. 2 lasts a bit less that a second, maybe 0.8 seconds. So it might very well be a 30x.

by DX on Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:49 pm

30x would not be unreasonable. It sounds like a lot, but since some homemades can support 50x, 60x or even higher riot blasts, that 30 seems right for a CPS 2000. I've seen a 2000 and 2500 shot side by side, and the 2000 stream is larger than the 2500's 20x.

by **ZOCCOZ** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:46 pm

I stop-watched two Mk.2s and one CPS2500, and it looks I stand corrected:

MK.2 #I= 1.04
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.96

MK.2 #II=0.85
1.01
1.07

CPS2500=0.99
0.86
1.05
0.98

So in that case, if the Mk.1 shoots out everything in 1-1.10 seconds, it very well shoots 30X. If someone would be kind enough to stop-watch their Mk.1, then we know

by **isoaker** on Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:52 pm

When I did output measurements on my CPS2000 Mk.1, I was getting ~0.98 - 1.2 seconds depending on my reflexes during the really fast stream shot.

As I said, though, that since it's a short time being measured, the error from timing results in more dramatic differences in calculated output. 30x just feels like a good number for how the output feels compared to other streams. Might be a touch more or a touch less,but for sake of argument, it feels right. :goofy:

:cool:

by **LIGHT ANNIHILATOR** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:49 am

This whole argument is pointless, all we have proven is that the mk1 has more out-put, we have known that for years people. Both are good gun's and a difference of four-hundreths of a second won't make a difference when shooting someone. Cps 2000 are overrated, 2500's and monster's own. :cool:

by DX on Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:39 am

This whole argument is pointless, all we have proven is that the mk1 has more out-put, we have known that for years people. Both are good gun's and a difference of four-hundreths of a second won't make a difference when shooting someone. Cps 2000 are overrated, 2500's and monster's own.

The argument is far from pointless, as the mark comparisons have been disputed for years. Last year it was believed that the mark II had more output by some. There has never been a cohesive agreement about the output and range of mark I vs mark II 2000s.

When used correctly, a CPS 2000 is a formidable weapon. Overhyped maybe, but not overrated. Don't get me started on the Monster line, and how that is grossly overrated. ???

Edited By Duxburian on 1138462809

by **ZOCCOZ** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:47 pm

LIGHT ANNIHILATOR wrote:This whole argument is pointless, all we have proven is that the mk1 has more out-put, we have known that for years people. Both are good gun's and a difference of four-hundreths of a second won't make a difference when shooting someone. Cps 2000 are overrated, 2500's and monster's own.

have we known that? The only full extensive Mk.1 versus Mk.2 review on the internet I have read only mentioned that the Mk.1 has 3 feet more distance and shoots a fraction of a second longer. No ml-second ratio stats or nozzle diameter comparison between the marks. The absense of actual stats makes people assume things very quickly.

I'm not that impressed by the CPS2000 power and I consider it extemely overrated according to ebay prices and certain myths, but all things considered, its stream speed gives it an edge over any other soaker. While only having 1 second of shot time, it is harder to dodge. As far as I'm conerned, the CPS2000 Mk.2 would mercylessly crush the CPS2500 head to head. Monsters are no contest in crushability. I used to believe differently, but things have changed after more hands on analyses.

Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1138492486

by **LIGHT ANNIHILATOR** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:21 pm

ZOCCOZ wrote:As far as I'm conerned, the CPS2000 Mk.2 would mercylessly crush the CPS2500 head to head.

Not in 1HK which is what most of us play, and you have completley forgotten about tactic's and experience. If the 2500 user has more experience it would be the complete opposite.

by **ZOCCOZ** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:14 pm

LIGHT ANNIHILATOR wrote:
ZOCCOZ wrote:As far as I'm conerned, the CPS2000 Mk.2 would mercylessly crush the CPS2500 head to head.

Not in 1HK which is what most of us play, and you have completley forgotten about tactic's and experience. If the 2500 user has more experience it would be the complete opposite.

Wouldn't distance and stream speed be more usefull for 1Hk battles? Elements in favor of the mk.2 over the CPS2500. (Unless short bursts on the 20X are not possible to conserve water). Your argument suggests that every Mk.2 guy automaticaly has less experience over the CPS2500 dude. I might aswell ask "what if the mk.2 guy has more experience?" It will have no general meaning in a model versus model comparison and pushes the focus from model versus model to a "what if external influence" discussion. Lets assume both users are equaly skilled as in any good competition(olympic athletes don't underestimate tools themselves, since seconds sometimes determine victory or defeat) , which would help to determine the better tool of choice.

Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1138498624

by **Hannibal** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:48 pm

I must say that if you would like to sacrifice power for more options and shot time, get the 2500. If you want more power and range and soakage, get the 2000. I personally love my 2000, and would never trade it for a 2500 any day (ignoring the fact that the 2000 fetches twice as much on eBay).

by **LIGHT ANNIHILATOR** on Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:31 pm

The difference in output between the 2 is minimal the range difference is more substantial

Wouldn't distance and stream speed be more usefull for 1Hk battles? Elements in favor of the mk.2 over the CPS2500.

Not alway's true, sure the 2000 has more range, but it takes more pumps with less shot time. Granted the 2500 has bad shot time with alot of pumps, but on 5x has 3 seconds as opposed to less than 1 second for the 2000. I also heard that the 2000 isn't one of the best guns for 1hk. :cool:

by DX on Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:50 pm

As far as I'm conerned, the CPS2000 Mk.2 would mercylessly crush the CPS2500 head to head.

Wouldn't distance and stream speed be more usefull for 1Hk battles? Elements in favor of the mk.2 over the CPS2500. (Unless short bursts on the 20X are not possible to conserve water). Your argument suggests that every Mk.2 guy automaticaly has less experience over the CPS2500 dude. I might aswell ask "what if the mk.2 guy has more experience?" It will have no general meaning in a model versus model comparison and pushes the focus from model versus model to a "what if external influence" discussion. Lets assume both users are equaly skilled as in any good competition(olympic athletes don't underestimate tools themselves, since seconds sometimes determine victory or defeat) , which would help to determine the better tool of choice.

Ok, Nibordude and I proved last summer that when 2 users of equal skill go head-to-head using a 2000 mk2 and a 2500, there are 2 possible outcomes:
A: Complete stalemate
B: The longer the battle, the greater the odds swing to the 2500, because no matter what you do, it holds more tap shots and will simply outlast the 2000. You can take 2 tap shots to the CPS 2000's every 1 and still have more water left at the end of the duel.

I'm not that impressed by the CPS2000 power and I consider it extemely overrated according to ebay prices and certain myths, but all things considered, its stream speed gives it an edge over any other soaker. While only having 1 second of shot time, it is harder to dodge.

You are confusing shot time with stream speed, two totally different stats. A soaker can have all the shot time in the world, and killer stream speed. Likewise, a soaker can have less than a second of shot time and incredibly slow stream speed. A 2000 has about 2x the stream speed of a normal soaker. The 3-4x speed of any modded gun blows that away. An 1100 has about 3, 3.5x stream speed, yet carries a 4 second shot time! The two stats have little relation to each other, it all depends on the power and size of the pc.

Distance and stream speed are more important in 1HK, you've got that right, but you've mixed up the stats.

I also heard that the 2000 isn't one of the best guns for 1hk

It isn't, but a skilled user can pull off 6-7 tap shots in a normal shot. So that makes it better than some other CPS guns if you have a choice.

My Mk. 2 doesn't quite shoot for a full second, and if the Mk. 1 shoots over a second, then my nozzle is 30x.

Yes and No. I am pretty sure that the formula for x rating is 30mL/second = 1x. Therefore, you need to take into account the amount of water shot and the speed at which the stream comes out of the nozzle, not just how long water comes out. :cool:

Edited By Duxburian on 1138506473

by **ZOCCOZ** on Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:41 am

Duxburian wrote:
I'm not that impressed by the CPS2000 power and I consider it extemely overrated according to ebay prices and certain myths, but all things considered, its stream speed gives it an edge over any other soaker. While only having 1 second of shot time, it is harder to dodge.

You are confusing shot time with stream speed, two totally different stats. A soaker can have all the shot time in the world, and killer stream speed. Likewise, a soaker can have less than a second of shot time and incredibly slow stream speed. A 2000 has about 2x the stream speed of a normal soaker. The 3-4x speed of any modded gun blows that away. An 1100 has about 3, 3.5x stream speed, yet carries a 4 second shot time! The two stats have little relation to each other, it all depends on the power and size of the pc.

Distance and stream speed are more important in 1HK, you've got that right, but you've mixed up the stats.

I don't see how you interpred from my quote that I confuse them. If anything, it suports your reply. Stream speed is the projectile speed when the stream leaves the nozzle. I think of it as FPS/Feet Per Second(from my airsoft days). Me mentioning the low shot time is to prove my point that its FPS will make up for its shot time. I know they are not the same( again in airsoft the spring pistol shot time itself is a very tiny millisecond while the projectile speed is 240 FPS), but one strength of the CPS2000 will make it up for the other short coming.

Not alway's true, sure the 2000 has more range, but it takes more pumps with less shot time. Granted the 2500 has bad shot time with alot of pumps, but on 5x has 3 seconds as opposed to less than 1 second for the 2000.

The Mk.2 has 18-20 pumps, making it identical. The longest reaching setting on the CPS2500 so far on all of my past models was 10X. The 5X was a few feet less.

Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1138519117

by DX on Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:16 pm

I don't see how you interpred from my quote that I confuse them. If anything, it suports your reply. Stream speed is the projectile speed when the stream leaves the nozzle. I think of it as FPS/Feet Per Second(from my airsoft days). Me mentioning the low shot time is to prove my point that its FPS will make up for its shot time. I know they are not the same( again in airsoft the spring pistol shot time itself is a very tiny millisecond while the projectile speed is 240 FPS), but one strength of the CPS2000 will make it up for the other short coming.

But again, a stream can have fast speed and tons of shot time! Low shot time has nothing to do with the speed. What I'm really getting at is the 2000 doesa NOT have such a fast stream. Faster than most other stock guns, yes, but slower than anything better than a stock gun.

iSoaker.net :: Soaking the world!

CPS 2000 Mk1 vs CPS 2000 Mk2 Comparison

Who is online