Hands-On: Nerf Super Soaker Arctic Shock @ iSoaker.com

[isoaker]

Well, just got a Nerf Super Soaker Arctic Shock today. No major surprises from what we already know about it based on the pictures we've seen. It's got a larger cap to allow one to put in ice cubes, but otherwise it's a pump-action water blaster.

Pics and more thoughts to be posted, though probably not until at least later tonight.

[the oncoming storm]

Well at least it's better than the motorized blasters made last year, but just think isoaker power ratings of just 2 are likely with 5 at best (and that would be very generous) .

Still can't wait for WW to announce there 2013 lineup

[SEAL]

Note what it says on the box: "FREEZE your friends!" Hahahahaha, I don't know why that cracks me up so much. It actually sounds a little morbid, hahaha. It's a bit like saying "Give your friends hypothermia!"

This is basically the same thing as the other two guns, just with a bigger 'reservoir' cap, and without a nozzle selector. (Okay, the sizes might be slightly different, but who cares?) As I said in the other thread, no imagination! I doubt it will perform any better than the Vaporizer.

[isoaker]

I doubt it will perform any better than the Vaporizer.

Just did a little test with the Nerf Super Soaker Arctic Shock - keep your Vaporizer. The pump volume on the Arctic Shock is a mere 13mL and its reservoir holds 800mL - compare to the Vaporizer's pump volume of 22mL and its reservoir volume of 1060mL. Not only that, but since there seems to be more tubing involved due to the use of the clip system, there is a slight pump lag making rapid pumping perform more poorly with subsequent shots stumbling/stuttering due to the lag.

This does not bode well for the other blasters in this year's Nerf Super Soaker line-up.

[marauder]

I'm confused. Does low pump volume mean it's easier to pump? If so maybe they are making it that way so it's easier for little kids to use. Yet their commercials use mostly teens, the designs are much more like real guns than ever before, and they have hosted big battles/giveaways at college campuses over the past 3 years.

I'm not a business or marketing major, but I do know that in marketing you always have a specific target audience. Based off their commercials, designs, etc. I would say that they are primarily targeting 9-13 year old boys and their parents. However, the performance just seems abysmal, almost dollar tree squirt pistol worthy. I would think that kids this old would be smart enough to realize how much these suck and that there's better guns out there.

[isoaker]

Nerf Super Soaker Arctic Shock pictures posted. More statistics need to be measured. Full review to come, but need to do some more testing on it first.

[SEAL]

Just did a little test with the Nerf Super Soaker Arctic Shock - keep your Vaporizer.

I actually want to sell both of them, haha. The Sneak Attack is far better (it's probably the best piston gun I've ever used), and I never use piston blasters anyway. Anyway, sounds like Hasbro has done it again. How could you mess up a piston gun?! That's like a professional gunsmith botching a single-shot bolt-action rifle.

[marauder]

Shot Blast > Sneak Attack



But yeah, it almost seems like they are intentionally trying to destroy the brand. I'm being serious.

[SEAL]

iSoaker got around 32 feet out of his Shot Blast, and you got 36. My Sneak Attack hit 39 when I tested it, and that was when I was a lot younger and not nearly as strong as I am now. The Shot Blast, if it's anything like the Quick Blast (which we measured at like 29'), won't shoot farther no matter how strong you are. Also, iSoaker says the Shot Blast has around 1.5X output, while the Sneak Attack looks more like 3-4X (even though the nozzle is fairly small). The Sneak Attack also holds more water than the Shot Blast. Statistically, the Sneak Attack is better than the Shot Blast. Not sure which is better for battle though; if you still had your Shot Blast we could duel with them and find out.

Anyhoo, we'll see if this new Arctic Shock is better than the old one. I've heard a lot of complaints about the latter, but when I used my friend's it seemed fairly decent. Sure, there are better small air-pressure guns out there, but I don't remember the old AS being all that bad. It seemed to have similar power to my Secret Strike (the one with the downwards-facing nozzle) and Arctic Blast.

[marauder]

Wow, I always thought it was like a Helix or something but slightly better.

[SEAL]

Yeah, I've faught against my brother who was using it. I was using the 270 (which can almost hit 40' if you remember), and I got my ass whooped more than a few times. The stream speed is insane, though the stream does start to break up when you pump it really fast. It actually reminds me a lot of K-modded guns; the more power you give it, the farther and faster it shoots, but the lamintation starts to wain. Maybe drilling out the nozzle will help, but I never use the Sneak Attack anyway, so I probably won't.

I'm looking forward to iSoaker's reviews of the new guns. I recall him saying last year that he would start treating Hasbro like Banzai and other non-name-brand blasters (only picking up the interesting-looking ones) if the former continued to spiral downwards. Have they reached that point yet, iSoaker?

[DX]

I'll only pick up the new guns if they pop up on thrift store shelves. None of them are worth more than $4 to me.

[isoaker]

I'm looking forward to iSoaker's reviews of the new guns. I recall him saying last year that he would start treating Hasbro like Banzai and other non-name-brand blasters (only picking up the interesting-looking ones) if the former continued to spiral downwards. Have they reached that point yet, iSoaker?

While the bottom hasn't quite been hit (and since I've only gotten to try out the new Arctic Shock so far), I've not given up completely on the Nerf Super Soaker line, but the direction is not promising. Will probably review all the 2013 line, but 2014 remains unclear at this point.

[marauder]

I saw an Electrostorm for $5 at Wal Mart today. Passed on that. I did, however, buy a 2 pack of Crickets a few days ago for $9.

[isoaker]

Well, I did a couple of additional tests on this Arctic Shock. One was to hook up their X-Treme Hydro Pack and try pumping. While it's a subjective observation, I did feel like the pump lagged even more than compared to when drawing water just from its magazine. Simply put, forget about trying to do any real rapid pumping with this blaster.

The second thing I did was a first for iSoaker.com reviews; I recorded a video of me firing off a few blasts so I could measure how long each shot actually lasted. Using the video time markers, I measure the duration of three independent streams from first appearance of water to stream termination: got 0.38s, 0.38s, and 0.41s. Together with the Arctic Shock's pump volume of ~13mL, this results in this blaster having an output of ~33mL/s (roughly 1oz/sec) which is what the stream ends up feeling like; it lasts, of course, less than half-a-second so don't expect to be able to seriously soak someone quickly or easily with this blaster.

Working on the review, but won't be able to do range testing yet. My guess is 30'-35' since the stream feels fairly smooth, but may end up less since the stream duration is so short.

[marauder]

So basically this gun shoots less water per pump stroke than an XP 220? Incredible. I seriously am having difficulty convincing myself they are not trying to take the Super Soaker line.

[isoaker]

So basically this gun shoots less water per pump stroke than an XP 220? Incredible. I seriously am having difficulty convincing myself they are not trying to take the Super Soaker line.

Not quite sure what you mean. The XP220 has an output of 11mL/sec versus this blaster's output of 33mL/s. However, the shot time of this Arctic Shock is a mere 0.39s while the XP220 can shoot continuously for roughly 23 seconds.

[marauder]

Output per second isn't that useful if the gun doesn't shoot for an entire second. It actually shoots 13 ml every time you pump it, right? Plus, you said you can't pump it too rapidly. So, practically speaking, the new Arctic Shock could probably put out one good shot per second, which really would be ~13ml vs 33ml for the XP 220.

Just practically speaking this gun's realistic output/soaking ability is less than anything we've seen so far.

I just find it difficult to believe that no one at Nerf has interrupted a meeting and told everyone, "look, these suck, they are no good. Would you actually use this in a water fight?" Either the employees are incredibly far removed from actually using their products or they are purposely trying to kill off the brand by making them suck. I would like to find the sales reports for Super Soaker.

[isoaker]

Output per second isn't that useful if the gun doesn't shoot for an entire second. It actually shoots 13 ml every time you pump it, right? Plus, you said you can't pump it too rapidly. So, practically speaking, the new Arctic Shock could probably put out one good shot per second, which really would be ~13ml vs 33ml for the XP 220.

Just practically speaking this gun's realistic output/soaking ability is less than anything we've seen so far.

Ah, I see. That makes sense and, yes, due to the limitation on pumping speed, it's overall output per second is probably roughly 13mL/sec. Not sure where you're getting the 33mL/sec for the XP 220; if that's from your stats, ok, but my own only seemed to push out at ~11mL/sec.

[marauder]

Oh, you're right. I pulled it out of the thread, misread it. I got 12 ml which is basically the same as what you got. So ok, I was wrong, this gun does actually have a greater output than an XP 220, barely. Either way, the fact that we are seriously comparing a gun with a backpack to an XP 220 tells all. Hahahaha.