Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Co2 vs compressed air

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
kronoff View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 28 November 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kronoff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Co2 vs compressed air
    Posted: 28 November 2009 at 6:04pm
Hey guys, quick question here. I currently have a alpha black tactical, with egrip, and I have a Co2 tank with it. I have only used it once so far, and my friends all recommended me using a compressed air tank as opposed to the Co2 tank I had, so I rented one for the day.

Now, they kept telling me all these reasons on why to use compressed air for my gun instead of Co2, but it sounded like another language to me =P

So, for the alpha black tactical with e-grip, that I usually use only semi-auto, and only sometimes burst, should I be using compressed air (in that case, have to go out and buy a tank) or should Co2 be just as fine? And why?

Thanks much guys!
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 November 2009 at 7:03pm
Short version; when both are available compressed air is the better choice because of consistency although CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

This question is covered in the stickied posts and has been discussed at length.  Reviewing the stickies and doing a search will provide much more info than what I posted above.
Back to Top
kronoff View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 28 November 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kronoff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 November 2009 at 7:11pm
Right on, ill check them out. Sorry I did not check out the stickies, new to the forums.

Thanks!
Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 December 2009 at 4:57am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

CO2 tanks are pressurized to 1800 psi. 
HPA tanks are pressurized up to 4500 psi. 

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 

Back to Top
Yomillio View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Retard

Joined: 31 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yomillio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 December 2009 at 6:22am
Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

CO2 tanks are pressurized to 1800 psi. 
HPA tanks are pressurized up to 4500 psi. 

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 



CO2 enters the tank as a liquid and expands.  HPA stays gas the whole time.  You can't argue efficiency on what they are pressurized to - seeing as you have two different things happening.

For size comparison -


Number 1 is a 50 ci HPA tank, and number 5 is a 20 oz CO2 tank.  The CO2 tank is only a touch larger, but you will get a fair amount more shots.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 December 2009 at 9:04am
Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

CO2 tanks are pressurized to 1800 psi. 
HPA tanks are pressurized up to 4500 psi. 

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 

You get 3000 shots out of a 90/4500 with a Tippmann marker? I've never heard of that type of efficiency out of one. I ran my A5 on HPA and barely got through 500 balls on a 68/3k.
 
Typical approximation used for  quantity/tank is 10x the cubic inch on 3k tanks and 15x on 4500.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 December 2009 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

CO2 tanks are pressurized to 1800 psi. 
HPA tanks are pressurized up to 4500 psi. 

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 



Originally posted by Yomillio Yomillio wrote:

CO2 enters the tank as a liquid and expands.  HPA stays gas the whole time.  You can't argue efficiency on what they are pressurized to - seeing as you have two different things happening.


^^^This.

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

You get 3000 shots out of a 90/4500 with a Tippmann marker? I've never heard of that type of efficiency out of one. I ran my A5 on HPA and barely got through 500 balls on a 68/3k.
 
Typical approximation used for  quantity/tank is 10x the cubic inch on 3k tanks and 15x on 4500.


And that approximation is based on an efficient marker which, courtesy of the CVX valve most Tippmanns use being designed to minimize CO2 related velocity/freezing fluctuations, stock Tippmanns are not.  The numbers mentioned by oldpbnoob for his A5 are par for an unmodified Tippmann.  While some of the newer electropneumatic markers are reported to get slightly better than the 15 shots per cu. in. on 4500 psi tanks, nothing gets more than twice that amount.  (I.e. 3000 shots out of a 90/4500 equates to 33 shots per cu. in.)  I' m throwing the BS flag on that specific claim.

The description of the tank located here lists 1500 shots as its approximate capability.  (Exact wording is "Gives you 1500+ shots per fill depending on marker")

Since we're comparing tanks capability, lets look at what a 20 OZ aluminum tank can provide; link from the same store.  (The 1100 claimed seems a little high, but it is an approximation.)

Does this mean that the compressed air tank still actually provides more shots out of the same sized package since 1500 > 1100.  No, it doesn't.

The given dimensions for the air tank in the link provided above are 12" long and 4 inches in diameter.  (Not sure if regulator was included in this length.)   The comparable measurements for an aluminum 20 OZ are 11 inches in length (including the reg) and a diameter of just under 3".  (Not being able to find a web listing for this I just measured one of my tanks; an easily repeatable experiment for anyone else who is interested.)  So, the tanks are not the same size and there is at least an inch in length difference.  (Granted, some tanks, such as the chrome-moly ones may vary in length; however, there is more to size than just length.)

But external size is not what really matters when comparing shot capability.  While the smaller package may be handier for some players, the true comparison is in internal capacity.  The volume of the 90/4500 Ninja is obviously 90 cu. in.  The volume of a 20 OZ CO2 tank as given by this site (near the bottom of the page) is 51 cu. in. 

When you do the math and break down shots by cu. in. of volume it works out to approximately 15 for the compressed air tank and 19 for the CO2 tank.  (Based on 1000 shot capability / 51 cu. in.  Actual result is closer to 19.6 shots per cu. in.  The difference is even greater when you use the 1100 shot capability claimed by the link to the CO2 tank above.)

Edited Addition:  Of course, this is assuming warm weather; everything changes when it gets colder.  (And while I feel compressed air provides superior performance, that isn't much of an advantage if refills are not easily available.)




Edited by Mack - 04 December 2009 at 2:17pm
Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 12:57am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

CO2 usually gets more shots out of a comparably sized tank. 

CO2 tanks are pressurized to 1800 psi. 
HPA tanks are pressurized up to 4500 psi. 

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 

You get 3000 shots out of a 90/4500 with a Tippmann marker? I've never heard of that type of efficiency out of one. I ran my A5 on HPA and barely got through 500 balls on a 68/3k.
 
Typical approximation used for  quantity/tank is 10x the cubic inch on 3k tanks and 15x on 4500.

I never said anything about using  Tippmann. Tippmanns are notorious for being gas hogs. I used a 98c for 7 years but not anymore. I bought an X7 and to make a long story short, I'll never buy a Tippmann gun again. Now I use an Azodin Blitz and a Proto Matrix Rail. My 98 sits in my closet in case both my other guns break or if someone wants to play that doesn't have a gun. I did these comparisons with the Azodin. I play in Wisconsin. I have a remote coil with a pressure gauge. I watch the gauge go up when it gets like 90 degrees. We paintballed in sub-zero temps once and I watched a full tank go to nothing in about 50 shots. I came back inside and in about a half an hour my tank was about 3/4 full again after being warmed up. Because the CO2 shrinks in cold, it takes more CO2 to shoot the same shot when it is cold than when it is warm.

Weather aside, liquid CO2 is not good for air efficiency. Your gun can suck the liquid CO2 directly into the gun. There is a lot of waste when your gun does this. An HPA tank will never have this problem. If you shoot fast, which I assume most Tippmann owners don't, a CO2 tank will get very cold thereby decreasing the air efficiency. This effect would be similar to the effect I got when I played in extreme cold.

You arguments about air efficiency would be fine under optimal conditions. 70 degrees and semi-auto shooting. If it is cold or you shoot faster than semi-auto, you would get nowhere near the air efficiency you are supposed to get. 

By the way, if you want a B.S. flag, try your claim about 1100 shots out a 20oz CO2 with a Tippmann. The average is between 700 and 800. The new math comes out to 14.7 for the CO2 and 16.7 for the HPA.
750 shots out of 51 cu. 1500 shots out of 90 cu.
My tests would have the CO2 tank at 29.4 and the HPA tank at 33.3. 

HPA is also cheaper to fill. Most courses have you pay once all day no matter how many times you fill.
CO2 filling is paid by the ounce every time you fill. 


Edited by buhju1 - 07 December 2009 at 1:15am
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 1:13am
You haven't heard of the Montneel, have you? It's a gun designed to run on siphon CO2, that is it deliberately draws CO2 into the marker. Since it runs on liquid, the gun has incredible consistency since it can never "spike." Also, it is a great cold weather performer since the gun is already charged with liquid, and the cold temps won't affect it. It also gets great efficiency since the phase change from liquid to gas transfers a lot of energy.

On that note, I 90/45k is a HUGE tank. Heck, a 68/45k is larger than most 20 oz. CO2 tanks, so that takes us back to the "comparatively sized" thing.
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 1:30am
I have heard of guns like that but never that particular gun. To my knowledge, that type of gun is no longer in production. Not many people playing would still have that gun and even if they did they probably would have upgraded by now. This particular gun was made for liquid CO2. Newer Tippmanns, along with every other gun made today, are not made specifically for CO2. They are made for a gas propellant. Tippmanns and guns like them are made to be able to CO2. 

Because this gun is no longer in production and there are no guns like it that are, this reference is irrelevant.

Also, I believe the size was already thoroughly discussed. There is an inch in length and diameter. It looks big, I'll admit, but if you put it on your gun, you don't notice it. I have a carbon fiber tank and the weight is close. I'm not sure which one is more but with Tippmanns, weight is not issue. People buy Tippmanns for the look. In order to get that look, you need to add things to it which all add weight.
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 1:48am
Well, if the player REALLY likes Tippmanns, there's always the 68 Special, which runs on siphon CO2. And I'll argue that just because a gun is old doesn't mean it's out of commission. I myself own and have owned many guns from the 80's and 90's. Also, I have heard of setting up newer Tippmanns, such as the A-5 or 98, to run on siphon CO2. While I have not tested this, I have hear that the CVX valve will handle it.

And the size is very much an issue. I've got a 1999 Shocker that LOVES CO2 (gas hungry sunuvagun), and I have an older 68/3k I was going to convert to CO2 for it. I have calculated that to be around 32 oz. I couldn't imagine what a 90 c.i. tank would be. Weight is not the issue, it's physical size. The size of the tank affects how a marker feels. I don't mind bigger tanks (since I'm a scenario baller, I actually prefer them), but the larger tanks definitely are harder to get properly situated. I'm debating running my 'cocker off CO2 for the gain in efficiency with a tank that is smaller than my 68/45k. With a properly regulated system, the performance for CO2 is not too far off of HPA. Also, I live in Texas. Cold is like 50*...

Edit: The Montneel reference was not irrelevant. It shows the capability of CO2.


Edited by DeTrevni - 07 December 2009 at 1:50am
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 2:10am
Originally posted by DeTrevni DeTrevni wrote:

Well, if the player REALLY likes Tippmanns, there's always the 68 Special, which runs on siphon CO2. And I'll argue that just because a gun is old doesn't mean it's out of commission. I myself own and have owned many guns from the 80's and 90's. Also, I have heard of setting up newer Tippmanns, such as the A-5 or 98, to run on siphon CO2. While I have not tested this, I have hear that the CVX valve will handle it.

And the size is very much an issue. I've got a 1999 Shocker that LOVES CO2 (gas hungry sunuvagun), and I have an older 68/3k I was going to convert to CO2 for it. I have calculated that to be around 32 oz. I couldn't imagine what a 90 c.i. tank would be. Weight is not the issue, it's physical size. The size of the tank affects how a marker feels. I don't mind bigger tanks (since I'm a scenario baller, I actually prefer them), but the larger tanks definitely are harder to get properly situated. I'm debating running my 'cocker off CO2 for the gain in efficiency with a tank that is smaller than my 68/45k. With a properly regulated system, the performance for CO2 is not too far off of HPA. Also, I live in Texas. Cold is like 50*...

Edit: The Montneel reference was not irrelevant. It shows the capability of CO2.

Again you state CO2 efficiency on 10+ year old markers. You may have and use old guns, but not many others still do.
I started paintball in 2000 when I bought the 98 Custom. At that time, it had just come out. I used it for 7 years.  I bought the X7 in 2006. I bought the PMR in 2007 when I got rid of my X7. I say 7 years of use for the 98 because I used the X7 and the 98 the year I bought the X7 and I bought the PMR at the end of the following paintball season. I bought the Azodin Blitz in the spring of 2009 because I blew an o-ring on my PMR the day of a tourney that I was registered for and my store didn't have spares. 
Most paintball players are like me. They might still have their old guns, but they would have upgrade since then and probably don't use them anymore.

http://www.ansgear.com/Ninja_Carbon_Fiber_Air_Tank_p/ninjatank-50.htm 
HPA tanks can be small too. Here's a 50/4500. This tank was nicknamed the "stubby tank." It is smaller than a 20oz CO2 tank.


Edited by buhju1 - 07 December 2009 at 2:15am
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 2:23am
True. I just wanted to throw it out there that I like old stuff. :)

Anyway, let's use a more modern, CO2 friendly marker. The PMR is not CO2 friendly, which means if you do run CO2 on it, you run the risk of blowing the 'noid or frying the board due to condensation. I'm assuming you are aware of this. If the PMR can't be run on CO2, how can we use it to compare the performance of CO2 to HPA? I'm not too familiar with the Azodin. If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to be an improved Spyder clone, or just a stacked tube blow-back. Also, if I'm still not mistaken, it uses a pressure-balanced poppet style valve, which means it  was also designed to run on HPA. So we can't use that one either...

What about autocockers? My mainstay. Despite what people say, they perform quite well on CO2, and are exceptionally efficient. If we put a CO2 tank and a competitively sized HPA tank on there, I'd put forward that the CO2 tank would get more shots. That said, this is under optimal conditions, I admit, but a majority of players will only play in "optimal conditions," air source notwithstanding. Not a lot of players are too willing to go out in subzero temps. Of course, I DO live in the south. It may very well be different up north.

As an aside, the Tippmann Model 98 came out in 1998.

Edit: Sure that stubby is smaller. I also bet it gets less shots than a 20 oz.


Edited by DeTrevni - 07 December 2009 at 2:26am
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 2:40am
Originally posted by DeTrevni DeTrevni wrote:

True. I just wanted to throw it out there that I like old stuff. :)

Anyway, let's use a more modern, CO2 friendly marker. The PMR is not CO2 friendly, which means if you do run CO2 on it, you run the risk of blowing the 'noid or frying the board due to condensation. I'm assuming you are aware of this. If the PMR can't be run on CO2, how can we use it to compare the performance of CO2 to HPA? I'm not too familiar with the Azodin. If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to be an improved Spyder clone, or just a stacked tube blow-back. Also, if I'm still not mistaken, it uses a pressure-balanced poppet style valve, which means it  was also designed to run on HPA. So we can't use that one either...

What about autocockers? My mainstay. Despite what people say, they perform quite well on CO2, are exceptionally efficient, and perform really well. If we put a CO2 tank and a competitively sized HPA tank on there, I'd put forward that the CO2 tank would get more shots. That said, this is under optimal conditions, I admit, but a majority of players will only play in "optimal conditions," air source notwithstanding. Not a lot of players are too willing to go out in subzero temps. Of course, I DO live in the south. It may very well be different up north.

As an aside, the Tippmann Model 98 came out in 1998.

Edit: Sure that stubby is smaller. I also bet it gets less shots than a 20 oz.

The Azodin is like a Spyder but there are no plastic parts, metric fittings, or male and female fittings. It has been described as a Spyder made the right way and with quality parts. It's a very nice gun for $170. As I stated, I did the tests with my Azodin. I know better than to put CO2 into my PMR. The Azodin is a blowback style gun. It's not a poppet.
I paintballed yesterday (12/5/09) with my Azodin and HPA tank. (I don't use my PMR in the cold) It was 15 degrees and there was snow and ice on the ground. When you really want to paintball, you have to ignore the temperature. Otherwise you can paintball 6 months and put the gun in the closet the other 6.

I'll be honest. I know almost nothing about cockers as I have had no experience with them nor have I looked into them at any depth. I have used/tested most of the Smart Parts guns, most of the Spyders, most of the Tippmanns, the proto rail and slg, some piranhas, some BT guns, and I shot a Bob Long Etek once. 

The model 98 came out in 1998. The Custom came out in 2000. I have the custom. Had I known then that there is very little difference, I would've bought the model 98 which was cheaper. 

The stubby is rated for 900. I would assume the real efficiency is about the same as a 20oz, maybe a little less. The stubby is an HPA tank when you want an extremely short tank that allows you to get very close to the back of your gun. It was/is designed for speedball. Since I don't play speedball other than tourneys, I'll buy the 68/4500 for the same price or the 90/4500 for $5 more.



Edited by buhju1 - 07 December 2009 at 2:51am
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 2:49am
Actually, a Spyder is a poppet. A poppet style valve is no more than a hammer/valve setup. In paintball, you really only have two types of valves, poppet and spool. A Spyder is a mechanically operated poppet, but a poppet nonetheless. The Intimidator, which is what I believe you are referring to when you say Bob Long, is an electropneumatically operated poppet. In a Spyder, a spring-driven hammer hits the valve. In a Timmy, an air ram-driven hammer hits the valve. Once again, I'm assuming you know how a Spyder and a Timmy works. Point is, they are both poppet valved markers.

And I'm referring to what I think the majority of players are, based on what I've seen. A majority "play 6 months and put the gun in the closet the other 6." Under these conditions, negative weather shouldn't affect the whole CO2 vs. HPA. My position is simply this: CO2 should not be discredited simply because it's CO2.


Edited by DeTrevni - 07 December 2009 at 2:50am
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
buhju1 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Auf wiedersehen

Joined: 26 March 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote buhju1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 3:13am
I refer to the Spyder guns as being blowbacks because when I think poppet, I think Bob Long, Ego, etc, and none of these are capable of shooting CO2. I should call them electro-poppets and mech-poppets but I don't.

A scenario player has no season. There are winter tournaments almost every weekend. Speedballers do have a season. Blow-up bunkers aren't made to be full of ice and snow. There are certainly less people that play in the winter, but if no one came to the tournaments, they wouldn't be scheduled. You almost have to use HPA in the colder months. If I had to guess, I would say 1/4 of all paintballers here play in winter. 

I can see where you are coming from. You like CO2 and have no problems with it. Why would you? The temperature isn't cold enough to have an impact on CO2 pressure. I don't know how good your consistency is but I'm sure there isn't much difference from there to here in the summer. CO2 tanks also cost less. 

My point. Where I live, HPA is a year-round option. CO2 is a 6 month option. 
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 3:32am
Well, Spyders are blowbacks. They are also poppets. Blowback is their means of operation. Poppet is their valve style.

When I refer to the majority of players, it's not "speedball or woodsball." It's recballers. Recballers make up 75% of all of paintball, easy. A big scenario game is ~300 people (D-Day notwithstanding), and they happen only a few times a year. I've never done a tourney, but I can't imagine it being too much larger, ignoring professional paintball (which is on the decline). Recreational paintballers flood the fields EVERY WEEKEND, depending on hours. With that said, a majority of players are not the die-hard scenario ballers, but the casual weekend warrior.

Actually, I prefer my 68/45k. I just play devil's advocate. :)
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 9:35am
Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

I have a Ninja 90/4500 and I get over 3000 shot out of it. I get about 1000 out of my 20 oz CO2 tank with the same gun. The only difference in size between this and my 20oz CO2 tank is width and the HPA tank still fits perfectly under my X7 stock. The two are the exact same length. 

Originally posted by OPBN OPBN wrote:

  You get 3000 shots out of a 90/4500 with a Tippmann marker? I've never heard of that type of efficiency out of one. I ran my A5 on HPA and barely got through 500 balls on a 68/3k.

Originally posted by buhju1 buhju1 wrote:

I never said anything about using  Tippmann.
 
You can see where the confusion may have been.  I have no idea about the marker you are talking about, so I can't speak of it's efficiency.
 

Originally posted by bhuju1 bhuju1 wrote:

By the way, if you want a B.S. flag, try your claim about 1100 shots out a 20oz CO2 with a Tippmann. The average is between 700 and 800. The new math comes out to 14.7 for the CO2 and 16.7 for the HPA.
750 shots out of 51 cu. 1500 shots out of 90 cu.
My tests would have the CO2 tank at 29.4 and the HPA tank at 33.3.
I never made such a claim. It was mentioned in a link that Mack referred to, and a Tippmann marker actually wasn't mentioned.  And I no idea what you are doing with the numbers here. I will say that I found myself getting more shots out of a 20oz CO2 tank than I typically got out of a 47ci/35 tank that was comparably sized on the same marker in warm weather.

Originally posted by bhuju1 bhuju1 wrote:

HPA is also cheaper to fill. Most courses have you pay once all day no matter how many times you fill.
CO2 filling is paid by the ounce every time you fill. 
While true at the fields you play at, it may not necessarily be true in other areas. I've found that it varies from field to field.  The field that I play the most at, charges a flat fee for all day air/CO2. Another I play at, offers the option of all day air/CO2, but you can also pay for individual fills. In this case they do charge more for CO2 than HPA.  Something to consider though, is HPA is not readily avialable in all areas. I run HPA in my markers and unfortunately, the closest fill is nearly an hour away, each way. Makes it difficult with tinkering.
 
 
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
mr 400 View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 26 June 2009
Location: california
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mr 400 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 5:50pm
i like tippmannsClap
i like co2Tongue
i like like paintball how bout you?
mr400
Back to Top
MeanMan View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MeanMan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2009 at 11:33pm
A few random things here....
First off, Bob Long does not make the Etek.
Next, the PMR is NOT an efficient gun. 3000 shots? My god, maybe if you fill it up a few times. I know it's been covered, but, wow, I got a good laugh out of that. Really good guns get about a case off of a 70/45, such as MacDev guns. PMR =\= MacDev.

hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.