CPS 2000 Mk1 VS CPS 2000 Mk2

[GJIV]

Hi there. FInally I found a CPS 2000 Mk1 in nearly new conditions for a great price.

After a lot of tests I would like to discuss the differences and I want to make CLEAR WHAT ARE THE REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Mk1 and Mk2.

First of all, I would like to know who got a CPS 2000 at all, and wheather Mk1 or Mk2 and also what you think of the blaster itself.

For my thoughts:

I have got both CPS 2000 Mk1 and Mk2. The power is different. Mk2 got MORE pressure in the PC as the pumping is more exhausting in power. Also it seems that there is a louder sound when firing the Mk2.
As the Mk1 bladder is so smooth and expandable, it is easier to pump up, just a little bit but noticeable. It packs more water in it's PC, while it is pressurized just as fast as the Mk2(funny thing^^). THis can be also the result of different conditions, as the Mk1 is nearly new and the used Mk2 is in "worse" conditions, related to the mk1.
Range of the Mk1 is about 1,5 meter further( right, or farther ? ) as of the Mk2. Which is about 5 feet. Not much, you might think, but false! The effectiv range is about 1,5 meter further too! About 10,5 Meters at 0° is crazy. The stream fires so far and hits in no time the target, with incredible pressure. It packs the best recoil of all guns(original SS guns). Also the stream is CLEANER as there is litte less pressure in there, I believe^^

In case I can choose a Mk1 or a Mk2, I would prefer the Mk1 over the Mk1. But the fact that the Mk1 is so rare and difficult to get, I would better use a Mk2 in a big battle, so I do not have to worry about any broken things^^ A broken Mk2 can be replaced but replacing a Mk1 could last for years...

All in all, using the CPS 2000 is a great thing. The fact that its range is so big brings a big advantage with it. The power is crazy and the soakness insane, one good hit will end the game. One hit right into the face will end the battle for days... Having some different nozzles would be a nice feature though, but the original insane nozzle just acts great enough and makes this gun os special. I love it and as the Mk1 is pressurized so fast, there is also no problem since the PC is used up so fast. I can pressurize my Mk1 two times than my opponent can charge his Flash Flood hahaha

What about you ? CPS 2000, a great gun ? Better use a Mk1 or a Mk2 in battles ? -->owners of Mk1/mk2 : Do you recognize the same differences ?

@ isoaker I will make a DETAILED REPORT between Mk1 and Mk2 for the wiki, with photos, to make things clear to everyone out there... good idea ?

[isoaker]

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

I'd definitely welcome another article/review comparing the CPS2000's two versions. If you hadn't seen it before, there is already another who wrote up a comparison of these two blasters before.

IMO, the CPS2000 Mk2 behaves like a CPS2500, but with a bigger/better nozzle system. Pumping of the Mk1 does feel smoother, but as both of these blasters are rather rare, few these days will be lucky enough to be able to experience firing either of these great blasters.

I still fear for the day that the PCs age to the point they get too brittle and can no longer be used.

[GJIV]

I do not know whether I am right here or not, but I think, it is GOOD for a CPS gun to refill and pressurized the PC one a period of time, may onces every 6 months at least. THe longer the PC is not forced to be expanded, the more power is needed to get it expand, which might end into a ruptured bladder. Every now and then I take out all CPS guns and just fill, pressurized and fire them, in order to check whether they are working well and to expand the PC

I believe this works, also all valves and the trigger-systems will say thanks for using every now and then. I do not know but this feels right somehow.

[thelaminator]

you said "In case I can choose a Mk1 or a Mk2, I would prefer the Mk1 over the Mk1." so, i take impression of the fact that its a split desicion for you . anywho, i only used/owned a Mk 1, but i'd think that it performs similarly to a 2500 w/ the nozzle selector stuck on "20x".

[GJIV]

the CPS 2000's nozzle is rated at a "stuck" 30 X::

[marauder]

I know I'm digging up an old post here, but I was going over some mods I had done this summer and things I discovered seem relevant to what you wrote.

Thanks for sharing your experiences!
IMO, the CPS2000 Mk2 behaves like a CPS2500, but with a bigger/better nozzle system. Pumping of the Mk1 does feel smoother, but as both of these blasters are rather rare, few these days will be lucky enough to be able to experience firing either of these great blasters.

I still fear for the day that the PCs age to the point they get too brittle and can no longer be used.

Ironically, the 2000 may be one of the guns you least have to worry about becoming harder and harder to comeby/fix. Wayne Schmidt put together a really good page on how to fix a CPS 2000 with a busted reservoir

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/cp2000.htm

The same process, or one slightly modified will also work for CPS 2500s and 4100s. I tried to do something similar with an SC 600 (I got 3 mk2s NIB) for a power mod. I bought the same parts from McMaster-Carr as used in the 2000 repair, thinking that replacing the pressure chamber with something thicker would give me more power (or at least it would combined with a nozzle mod). My 600s have a trickier shaped pressure chamber and I was unable to perform the mod I wanted to do. It would take a lot more time (in my opinion) to replace the 600's firing chamber than the 2000's or 2500's.

The guns you probably have to worry about most are the ones with cylindrical pressure chambers. Unless we can somehow figure out how to mold rubber replicas I don't know how we could replace them.

Fortunately, these guns seem to last a long time. My 600s perform like new, and while technically they are, they've been sitting on a shelf somewhere since 1999 so they really shouldn't be. I tested 37 ft from all 3 on multiple occasions (5 ft better than the mk1s I used to have) which really made me happy. My new WWF Stone Cold also performs rather well, the 2000s at the war all worked beautifully, and do I even need to repeat my story of my sunken 1500? Haha.

I understand your concern, but I'm not terribly worried, and if I have a concern for anything it's a slight concern for guns with spherical rubber firing chambers.

[DX]

The guns you probably have to worry about most are the ones with cylindrical pressure chambers

You mean spherical I hope? The McMaster cylindrical rubber is not sufficient?

One of the 2000s I loaned out at the community war has a hairline now, so I have to epoxy the trigger, but I was planning on doing that anyway. Those three are the guns I'm most interested in increasing the longevity of for obvious reasons, they rock. I don't agree with the 2000 MK2 == 2500 thing though. 2500s are noticeably weaker. Shoot one on 20x and it lacks vitality and doesn't kick nearly as much as a 2000. The 2500 stream doesn't have that power arc that you see in a picture of a 2000 stream. 2000 MK2 is also a step up in quality - how many 2500s suffer from loose trigger valve seals? Lots. How many 2000s are found with those alignment issues? None that I know of. The possibility of 2250ing it up or otherwise putting a selector on a 2000 also makes it more useful to retain 2000s than 2500s.

In theory, spherical PC's could be replaced using balloons the way a balloon CPH is made, ie a K-mod with nothing underneath. In theory, you could use a blown spherical bladder as the seed and then remove it once there's enough balloons fitted to work with. I say in theory because it sucks to perform this method to the amount of balloons you'd need to replace the whole functionality of the original bladder. It's like fragile K-modding. It also potentially requires maintenance if the balloon bladder shifts, warps, or comes off. All three of those can occur in heavy K-mods, so they could occur in balloon bladders. However, the advantage to this would be materials - cheap and easy to find locally.

[marauder]

Thanks for pointing out that error DX, I edited my post.

I used to own an mk2, and I own a 2500 now; but I've never shot them side by side. I do feel strongly that my mk2 shot about 5 feet further than my current 2500. I tested my 2500 3x at a 45 degree angle on each nozzle and got 45 ft on every nozzle. I'm pretty sure my mk2 shot about 50 feet, and I know it felt more powerful. I would like for someone to do a side by side comparison between the CPS 2500 and CPS 2000 mk2.

What broke on Andrew's 21k? That was the only gun we really had break that I remember. I don't think it was the pressure chamber. I've never had a spherical pressure chamber burst; but yeah it would be much more difficult to repair.

[DX]

That sounds about right for the ranges, except that 10x is usually the longest ranged nozzle on a 2500. I know for sure that my 2000 MK2's still go further by a good amount. If I could get my 2500s fixed up, I could do testing. My only good 2500 has an alignment problem with the seal inside the trigger valve. 2nd one actually works, but the nozzle selector area was sawed off because of some problem that couldn't be fixed at the time. So, it only has the full size nozzle and nothing else, kind of like a 2000. Third one doesn't have a working trigger valve. Completely forgot that I even had the 2nd and 3rd 2500s, they were buried at the bottom of a box of guns I never use. If those could be fixed up, I'd have 3 2000s and 3 2500s to test against each other, which would have good results. Those damn trigger valves, though...I have no way to open them cleanly.

I don't remember what went wrong with the 21K. It was back for the actual war, so it was something fixable on the field, evidently. The only other thing that broke was one of my XP 150s that Andrew was using in the 1st air pressure round. I shot it after the war and it was being weird. The pump seal wasn't sealing that great anymore, hence it wasn't drawing in water unless pumped fast/hard on the backstroke. All of my XP 150s now work because of that knowledge, where 3 of them were considered broken before. They just need to be pumped with more force to make up for the less effective seals.

[thelaminator]

I would prefer the Mk1 over the Mk1.

me too!

[atvan]

You already said that. Just because nobody laughs at you jokes doesn't mean you shoud restate them.





Jk

[GJIV]

I would prefer the Mk1 over the Mk1.

me too!

haha, at least I have to laugh ANd about my own grammar-mistake But in fact there is nothing wrong at all, although it does not make much sense...

[Jeffman3]

"In case I can choose a Mk1 or a Mk2, I would prefer the Mk1 over the Mk1. But the fact that the Mk1 is so rare..."

I think he's trying to point out another accidental grammar deal and not being terribly polite about it.

I have copied and pasted the section he's referring to in my post- I think GJIV was meaning to say he would prefer a Mk1 to a Mk2 but typo'd. Happens to the best of us.

[atvan]

With English being a second language, I'd say it's pretty good. Now we just need to see him around more.