iSoaker.net :: Soaking the world!

by **Dacca** on Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:03 pm

My favorite water fight I have ever been in ended up with me getting thrown in a lake. Thats what I got for takeing on my college's football team. as fun as a story as it is to tell, it has little to do with teh current topic, except for this part. at one point during the soakfest I stood before 2 linesmen (they were over six feet tall and over 200 lbs) armed with blastmasters, while myself (5'6, 150lbs) armed with a drilled defender and my baby, a drilled, flashflood STE-CVF. I knew I had them out ranged with my FF so I tried to keep them just in my range. thats when I got hit. I thought to myself, 'clearly they cant have that kind of range on a piston based soaker?' but i was wrong. moral of the story, never under estimate a piston based soaker, or the person useing it (even if they work out).

I remembered this story as i went into toys-r-us to check out what they had in stock. thats when i saw the steady stream, and at $4.99US, i couldnt pass it up. the first thing i noticed when i took it out of the box was how thin it was. at it's widest point it's only two inches wide (or about 4cm). while it is thin, it's overall length leaves it at a mid-range level at only 17 inches. then i filled it with water, and when i picked it up it felt unbalenced. it felt a bit top heavy and back heavy when filled. Due to weather i didn't get a chance to do any range checks, but i still got a chance to fire it out an open window. the steady stream lives up to it's name. with each instroke of the pump, water is drawn into a seperate chamber which is compressed with a spring. the water then exits the chamber and squirts out the nozzle. each pump puts more water into the chamber while the spring forces it out at a constant rate. there is a window on the soaker to watch all of this and i'll admit, its pretty cool. the soaker it self is pretty cool, due to the fact that you can call it a piston soaker with a pressure chamber that forces a 'constant pressure' to the water. in the end, the soaker shoots farther the harder you pump, so preformance depends on the user. the tank empties pretty quick, but still holds a decent amout of water. as for battle worthyness, id compare this soaker to a shotgun, inwhich its good for CQC, but not much else. Id recemend this soaker to other people and ill even say its worth all five dollars i spent on it. and ill never disregard piston soakers again.

:bmhelix:

by **CA99** on Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:31 pm

Sounds very nice for just $5. I might pick one up if I get the chance. (though I've probably exhausted most of my soaker-buying)

by **ZOCCOZ** on Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:32 pm

Dacca, have you had a chance reading my review from last year about the Blastmaster 660?

Blastmaster 660 Review

Or the 2001 battle of the squirt guns article?

Battle of the Squirt Guns

I still consider the Blastmaster 660 the best Overall stock soaker available in contemporary retail(if you have the muscles to power it over 35 feet). It can hold its own against the CPS of the 90s(the good CPSs). So its not hard to imagine what it can do to a post-2003 soaker such as the flash flood. I got 45 feet out of my Blastmaster with a stream that is 2.2X thick. And at close range, the impact is comparible to my CPS10K stream(that is some force). Plus keep in mind, you never have to pressurise, so you can shoot at will with a very good accuracy. One should never underestimate a piston combined with adult muscle strength. Especialy the X-Stream Pistons that have a minimum range of 35 feet.

Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1176489655

by **CA99** on Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:46 pm

Has anyone tried any of the Stream Machines? Not that I'll be getting one (due to price and lack of a reservoir), but I'm thinking of building a homemade pistol shooter (I was already thinking of this after having a look at the SM's), going for design efficiency, decent surface area, etc. (most of all, piston guns are very simple and typically compact)

Edited By C-A_99 on 1176490014

by **SilentGuy** on Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:10 pm

Nice review. About time somebody got one, too.

I'm not strong enough to get good range with a Blastmaster. Guess I'll work on it, but I have a very light build to start off with.

by **Dacca** on Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:23 pm

yeah i read the blastmaster review on isoaker, but i didnt really belive that it could have similar range to a cps. i have seen toys-r-us selling blastmaster two packs so i may have to check it out for myself.

by DX on Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:56 pm

You don't really need strength to use piston soakers effectively, you just need to know how to use the strength you've got well. If you haven't got any strength whatsoever, concentrate your internal energy to produce physical results. Raw energy applied in hard, quick bursts can make up for lack of muscular strength.

Has anyone tried any of the Stream Machines? Not that I'll be getting one (due to price and lack of a reservoir), but I'm thinking of building a homemade pistol shooter (I was already thinking of this after having a look at the SM's), going for design efficiency, decent surface area, etc. (most of all, piston guns are very simple and typically compact)

Stream Machines are ok. I'd personally build a G2 PPP or the LR style presented by Waterzooka. I've been testing pumps for the first piston homemade with an onboard reservoir [my insane-looking N-REV Box of Doom gun], and can say that you can get some really good ranges out of these things.

Going back to the Steady Stream, do you think it can be modded like a Nerf gun? Stronger spring, more springs?

Edited By Duxburian on 1176602271

by **ZOCCOZ** on Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:01 am

yeah i read the blastmaster review on isoaker, but i didnt really belive that it could have similar range to a cps. i have seen toys-r-us selling blastmaster two packs so i may have to check it out for myself.

Sure no problem. As for the validity of my review, I will say that much. Since I own most 90s CPS(including 4 CPS2000s), there would be no need for me to fabricate stats about a non CPS soaker to make my armory look good. :;):

You don't really need strength to use piston soakers effectively, you just need to know how to use the strength you've got well. If you haven't got any strength whatsoever, concentrate your internal energy to produce physical results. Raw energy applied in hard, quick bursts can make up for lack of muscular strength.

There also are certain structual ways how the body can be used like using your chest muscles and hips to make up lack of certain bicepts strengths. of course aiming like that takes some time to get used to.

With the Blastmaster its not just strength alone I think. Its the way its build, especialy the pump. It has the largest pump volume of any resovoir piston that is build solid at the same time. I do have one of those old SS Piston cannons, that have a larger pump volume but not as sturdy in its pump build. Hard to get most of your power out of that thing. The Blastmaster pump on the other hand is very solid and tight that you can get a very good grip and press to the full potential.

by **isoaker** on Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:33 am

I'd have to agree that the Blastmaster 660 is a great piston cannon. Haven't tried out the Steady Stream, yet, but I have full respect for well-made piston-based soakers and would never recommend underestimating their potential power. Piston soakers' main weakness is that they cannot produce a continuous stream (well, until the creation of the Steady Stream :goofy:) and that one must pump to shoot (i.e. can't just pull a trigger). Pumping when shooting does reduce one's accuracy when aiming since you've got, overall, more body motion going on.

:cool:

by DX on Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:40 am

Not being able to produce a continuous stream is only sometimes a "weakness" [I personally no longer use such terms as weak, strong, advantage, or disadvantage when talking about physical items]. Depends on what game you're playing where with who. Always having the next shot just a stroke away has its uses.

I've never shot a Blastmaster, so I wouldn't know its specific pump. However, if you can shoot a 3ft long 3/4" PPP well, then you could shoot almost any stock piston well. IMO, pistons that shoot when pushed away from the body are much more difficult to use well than those which shoot when pulled toward the body.

by **SilentGuy** on Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:34 pm

Yeah, I don't use continuous streams any more!

I'll keep in mind the burst of energy thing. Gotta have the mindset. That's probably why I'm so lousy at sprinting - I take long strides and try to be efficient.

by **isoaker** on Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:22 am

[I personally no longer use such terms as weak, strong, advantage, or disadvantage when talking about physical items]. Depends on what game you're playing where with who. Always having the next shot just a stroke away has its uses.

What terms do you use now, then? ???

As for next shot being just a stroke away, with good CPS-based soakers, a similar effect can be achieved (albeit a shorter burst due to smaller pump volume); one could just be pulling the trigger even if the PC is empty and pump to shoot. Of course, piston soakers have the advantages of having a larger pump volume-to-nozzle size in general and being able to maximize the power of the strength of the user into the stream. The Steady Stream, though, would fall somewhere in-between full user power and power released/stored by the internal spring: the first pump into the Steady Stream wouldn't produce as maximally strong a stream as a pump at a later point when the PC's spring is further compressed.

:cool:

by DX on Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:59 am

Big, small, long, short, more, less, high, low, etc. Neutral words which don't imply that something is better or worse, because there is no such thing without a given situation. Height advantage = high ground, numerical superiority/inferiority = more/less guys, etc.

However, those terms come back if you give a fighting situation. Low range becomes bad range if you're dueling one-on-one in an open field. High ground becomes an advantage if you are ambushing the entire enemy team from a cliff in a bottleneck area.

I'll keep in mind the burst of energy thing. Gotta have the mindset. That's probably why I'm so lousy at sprinting - I take long strides and try to be efficient.

For piston pumping, the burst is incredibly short. For sprinting, the burst has to be long and you've got to keep it going steady the entire time. Hence why I suck at anything higher than a 200m - I can't stay explosive for that long. In the time of my most recent four meets, I've slacked off in the weight room and run as usual in practice, but focused on staying explosive in the races that count. The results in the 200: 26.4, 25.6, 25.1, 24.4, in that order. Before discovering this, I was stuck in the 26s for nearly all of the indoor season!

I may have to buy a Steady Stream. It just sounds too interesting to pass up, especially for $5.

by **isoaker** on Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:55 am

Big, small, long, short, more, less, high, low, etc. Neutral words which don't imply that something is better or worse, because there is no such thing without a given situation. Height advantage = high ground, numerical superiority/inferiority = more/less guys, etc.

I see what you're saying in terms of preference toward neutral words, but I'd still consider not being able to produce a continuous stream when other separate PC and pressurized reservoir soakers can produce a continuous stream as a disadvantage/weakness. The only time I'd consider a continuous stream as a disadvantage is if one cannot stop the stream until a PC is emptied. However, as the bulk of the separate PC soakers have triggers, this point is mostly moot. If a piston pumper could produce its stronger stream continuously if the user desires, that'd be an improvement/advantageous, would it not?

:cool:

by DX on Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:14 pm

It would be neither, since there's no context with it. Now if the user were in a FFA and not able to soak the enemy that well due to not having a continuous stream, then that would be a disadvantage/weakness.

But let's say you're fighting an enemy in a one hit game and both of you have little experience. Your Steady Stream forces you to conserve your water while the enemy's gun, say a CPS 1200, doesn't, so the enemy can take longer shots. Normally, you'd want the ability to sweep the stream, but let's say you're both behind large trees. The ability to shoot longer would just make the enemy waste water in that situation.

Basically, my point is that stats cannot have better or worse properties just by themselves. Without a fighting scenario/situation, they're just stats and nothing more. By giving them such properties like a "weakness", you imply that it is a weakness for all possible uses and scenarios of use for said gun, whereas according to Natural Limits you cannot have weakness without strength and vice versa. Water wars have only one absolute attribute: subjectiveness. This shouldn't be a new concept in the world of reviews, but evidently it is.

by **isoaker** on Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:40 pm

Stats (the numerical numbers) are objective. Other attributes of soakers can have good and bad points. I still stand by the inability of a soaker not being able to fire continuously as a weakness for all equivalent uses compared to a soaker than can either be pulsed/tap shot as well as fired continuously for the duration of its PC. Now, if you want to use a specific scenario where you've got a water wasting user versus a conservative user, the potentially slower rate of water use of a piston-based soaker may seem advantageous. However, one could easily conserve firing a soaker capable of continuous shots as well as one could squander the water in a piston soaker by continuously pumping. As every scenario cannot be considered, I'd rather stick to more likely scenarios in trying to decide whether certain aspects of a soaker would be appealling to those who have not used it.

If a soaker is poorly constructed or has breakable parts, it'd be a weakness. If a soaker doesn't make full use of its reservoir, it's a flaw/shortcoming. If a soaker only has a 0.5x sized stream, it'd be weaker (power-wise) than a soaker offering a solid 3x stream. If a soaker has a small pump volume, that'd be a weakness.

While the perfect soaker depends on the user's desire, there are still better ones and worse ones. If you wish to argue that there is no weakness without strength, this would make reviewing soakers pointless as everything should average out based on that assumption. Should an XP215, XP Backfire, and a CPS3000 all be considered equal due to the various strengths and weaknesses each soaker has?

Only the stats are objective. The remaining properties of a soaker and if they are useful are completely subjective and depend on the needs and capabilities of the user. I'd hate for a review or a description of a blaster to be nothing but stats and a listing of attributes. I write from my own viewpoint and experience, thus reviews include the subjective interpretation of a blaster as well as objective ones. To write in a completely neutral tone would diminish the usefulness and true value of a review, IMO.

:cool:

Edit: actually, some of the numerical stats can also have definite disadvantages. If a soaker weighs a lot on its own, I'd consider that a problem. A soaker of awkward physical dimensions would be problems (i.e. too long making it hard to turn quickly, too wide making it hard to hold, or too tall making it difficult to keep off the ground).

by DX on Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:43 pm

While the perfect soaker depends on the user's desire, there are still better ones and worse ones.

Of course there are, I'm not arguing against that. Citing "the user's desire" gives a context in which better and worse can apply. Basically, my argument is more technical with terminology than anything else. We're really arguing for the same thing just I'm coming from some strange angle like I usually do. Basically, if you can measure it, to a point, it can't have "better" or "worse" outside of a given use. But if the attribute can't be measured [such as versatility, bulkiness, etc.], then it can have "better" or "worse" just alone, but even then, I wouldn't go there without giving the use or reason that makes it such. You can't say that lack of versatility is a disadvantage for all potential uses. Likewise, small pump volume can't be a weakness for all potential uses. Maybe compared to other guns, but then you are using a context to back up your use of the term.

Defects follow the same course. Is a poorly positioned Orca reservoir cap a weakness? Well yes if you want to shoot while refilling, but no if you are just commenting on the gun without mentioning a reason or use. "The placement of the cap is bad...because..._". If anything, this is just a complaint about lack of detail. Why is the placement bad? It isn't bad just on its own.

A soaker of awkward physical dimensions would be problems (i.e. too long making it hard to turn quickly, too wide making it hard to hold, or too tall making it difficult to keep off the ground).

There's the connection between the problem and the use/reason, so there's nothing wrong with it.

If you wish to argue that there is no weakness without strength, this would make reviewing soakers pointless as everything should average out based on that assumption. Should an XP215, XP Backfire, and a CPS3000 all be considered equal due to the various strengths and weaknesses each soaker has?

That's not how the particular limit works. "No weakness without strength" means that a weakness must also be a strength for something. Even an attribute like bulky size must be an advantage to someone for some reason. Perhaps that gun acts as a good shield, or looks intimidating. Likewise, even the worst defect, say a poorly designed trigger like the 4100 mk2's, must have at least one advantage. Perhaps you could say it helps innovation by forcing the user to think of ways of repair. It is not an assumption, it is part of the Natural Limit of Extremes. If something is bad without any possible good, then it can't be bad because there is no comparison to be made and it would revert to being perfectly neutral. Perfect Neutrality is not mentally possible, at least in the Tactical Theory.

by **isoaker** on Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:09 pm

Maybe compared to other guns, but then you are using a context to back up your use of the term.

The "compared to other soakers" is implied. As you noted, you can't say something is weaker unless it is weaker than something. When someone says their soaker shoots far, they don't need to state far compared to other soakers. Soakers obviously don't shoot far compared to water balloon launchers and are basically nothing compared to real guns.

As for lack of versatility being bad, I would say it is bad for most users. Saying "ALL" never works since one can always find an exception, but for reviews and such, I aim towards my view of the average user. If there's some user that loves small volume pumps or would rather use a pump-based soaker when an equivalent power continuous stream soaker was available, that's great for that user, but I would not want to generalize it.

A broken soaker is bad. If you want to argue that it forces a user to learn how to repair or get a different one, that's fine, but I'd be hosing down the busted-soaker user in the meantime. :goofy: I agree in the idea that all soakers have some good uses for them, but some soakers are simply more useful than others for a water fight.

:cool:

by **Dacca** on Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:29 pm

not to be the one who interupts your debate, but the PC on the steady stream is spring based rather then bladder based. although it is a small pc, what would be the pros/cons of a sring based pc as opposed to a bladder based one...

by **isoaker** on Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:21 pm

My guess for the choice of a spring as opposed to a bladder for the Steady Stream are two-fold:
i) the spring system has less dead-volume in it than a similar sized bladder would and
ii) physical dimensions of the PC and the overall shape of the soaker better suit a spring-based design plus it'd be hard to properly clamp a small CPS-type chamber

The problems with a spring set-up are its reliance on the seal of the piston-plug part (the seal may eventually wear down) as well as possible spring damage due to corrosion if a non-corroding metal wasn't used. My main concern is with water getting to the other side of the PC; haven't checked if it drains and whether the spring has a tendency to rust.

:cool:

iSoaker.net :: Soaking the world!

Steady stream - piston based bliss

Who is online