CPS 1500 Marks

[Poseidon2000]

I'd like to know the marks **visually** of the CPS 1500. SSC says there's 4, but I think the 2 major ones are the first and the last. May I please have pics of the sticker swap, and can you identify which mark each is?
Are these 4 marks truly far inferior, inferior, superior, then FAR superior? Sounds like a big difference, but I'm not sure.

T
H
A
N
K
S
!

[Fishfan]

I can't help in this situation, but it is very hard to read the bright green letters. Could you change the color to red or black?

[Poseidon2000]

Editing done. It would be much help if I knew the marks.

[marauder]

Every CPS 1500 I've ever encountered was very powerful. I've tested 4 and all shot between 44 and 46 feet. This includes the version where the nozzle cover pops off and the version where it's glued down. I've also tested 2 CPS 1700s and both shot 45 feet. Both had nozzle covers that pop off. DX says the version where the nozzle cover is removable is more powerful. If this is true, that still doesn't mean the other versions are low powered. I've never seen a 1500/1700 shoot less than mid 40s.

[Poseidon2000]

Hmm... The one I'm getting is probably Mk. 1 or 2, it has no nozzle covers. One of the first mod threads was one imported from iSn i believe, with someone removing their 15/1700 nozzle cap. They said it shot 5+ feet further.

[DX]

I checked my 6 1500s and found that there are 4 possible combinations:

Pump cap screws off, nozzle cover is glued
Pump cap screws off, nozzle cover is not glued
Pump cap does not screw off, nozzle cover is glued
Pump cap does not screw off, nozzle cover not glued

Unfortunately, I cannot test most of these as I have few working 1500s. However, if you guys can test your 1500s and report on what type of combo they have, we could find out for sure. If there is no consistent performance difference, I would move that we no longer use the MK system to differentiate 1500s. Else, there are at least 4 marks. The no air shots thing on SSC appears to not be a reliable indicator, nor the stickers being on one side or the other.

[isoaker]

This thread reminded me of Dx's "Ultimate" Marks thread.

I never particularly liked the whole "Mark" business and can't say I've bought any deeper into it now. Naming aside (I prefer "Version" over "Mark"), unless there are definite physical differences (e.g. reduced PC size on the later CPS2000s or the shorter nozzles and resevoir on the later-released Monster Xs and Monster XLs) or if there are many (>10, preferable >30) specific variants tested for their performance, I really don't like the idea of trying to tie in improved or reduced blaster performance compared to some manufacturing variations. As there is already a good amount of performance variability within the same version of a blaster, whether or not the differences between "marks" is real becomes somewhat debatable.

I'm all for people reporting the ranges and stats they measure on their blasters, but since our sample sizes are still rather small, trying to draw any more definitive conclusions about performance based on other minor attributes on a blaster may be misleading. Things would get even more confounded if you try to match actual date of manufacture, amount of usage a particular blaster has seen, how blasters were cared for/stored over time, etc. All these additional variables can have a profound effect on how well a blaster performs currently and are, for the most part, unaccounted for. We have people testing blasters that were otherwise NIB, used a bit before testing, used heavily before testing, or even bought from another with an unknown history.

Again, I'm all for people reporting as much info and stats they can about the blasters they have, but am wary about drawing too many conclusions about the "average" blaster based on even our entire group's findings.

[soakinader]

Again, I'm all for people reporting as much info and stats they can about the blasters they have, but am wary about drawing too many conclusions about the "average" blaster based on even our entire group's findings.

I concur. However, there is no need to draw, well, any conclusions. For soakers that don't have a lot of data for a particular mark, clearly some skepticism is required. But there is a lot of hard data on CPS 2100's, 2000's, and Monsters that says different marks are different. IE, If the majority of CPS 1951's with a screw-on cap and smaller reservoir have faulty triggers, than that would be useful to know (if the CPS1951 existed). I think that standard deviation will eventually win. No, we don't have a lab with 10-30 of each mark of each super soaker available and ready to test (You don't... right?) but I know that I don't, and I would like to see as much information as I can. I hate statistics sometimes. But mathematical fact is that the more numbers we have, the closer the approximations we can make.
On another note, I would be interested to see a page where people could submit their recorded stats for the different marks.

In the end, though, the only mark I really care about is the CPS 2000, and the color/shape variations. (which is a personal preference anyways).

[marauder]

DX, here's the details on the 1500s I've tested:

CPS 1500 (I need to get the # off it when I get home): Pump cap screws off, not sure about nozzle cover: 46 ft 5x, 44 ft 10x
CPS 1500 same as above: 46 ft 5x, 44 ft 10x
CPS 1700 (didn't write down #): Pump cap screws off, nozzle cover is not glued: 45 ft on both nozzles (10x seemed fuller and output was slightly greater than the above 1500s). This is the gun I made Tribulation out of.
CPS 1500 Pump cap screws off, nozzle cover is glued: 45 ft both nozzles

I may have tested my cousin Andy's 1700 and my neighbor's 1700 but I would have to check my computer when I get home, cuz that's all the stats I have in my notes online. The crazy thing about the stats above is that... as you all know, 1 of the CPS 1500s was at the bottom of the lake for almost a year - fully pressurized. It horrifies me just to think about it, but the gun still shot the same distance! Absolutely insane. The stream isn't as laminated as it used to be, but it still shoots 44-46 feet. Absolutely impressive, and this is why I am a 1500/1700 man and not a 2500 man.

There are 2 noteable differences between the 2000 marks: PC size, and length of decorative piece underneath the clear "PC gauge." In terms of power, testing has shown that on average the mk1 shoots further than the mk2, but also that this is not the case with all CPS 2000s. DX has tested 5? mk2s that shot anywhere from 47 to 53 feet, compared to an mk1 that shot 51-52 feet. In testing, individual guns didn't always shoot the same range, but individual variation was usually within 1 ft and never more than 2 feet. His averages (50 feet for mk1) and 52 feet for mk2 were exactly what I found in the CPS 2000s I have tested. The mk2 being Armageddon, originally owned by Commander Dave, and then the mk1 being my current CPS 2000. iSoaker's tests fall within this bell curve.

In my experience, the guns with the most variation, in performance, by "mark " are the 2100, 1200, and 600. For instance, I have tested 6 SC 600s (4 were NIB) and every mk1 shot 33 feet and every mk2 shot 37. There are many guns where I have tested various "marks" and the results were so close that I am skeptical of even calling the differences a "mark." See CPS 1000. Typically we have defined a mark as physical variant in a particular model which has a corresponding deviation in performance. iSoaker's term, "variation" or "variant" seems like it would be much more appropriate to guns like the CPS 1500 where you have some guns with pump caps that unscrew, and others that don't; or XP 70s where the original features pipes that are placed together using O-rings, and later releases where the pipes are actually glued together - yet in both cases there is very little performance variation. On top of all this, some guns seem to vary in performance much more than others, and yet, we can't seem to identify any patterns that correspond to the variation. For example, we have 3 different releases of XP 150s, each with physical traits which make said release unique. However, in all my testing of XP 150s I have not found any correlation between mark and performance. I've tested 150s that shot anywhere from 30 to 37 feet. My mk3 (ugh why'd it break) shot 37 feet... but I only tested 1 mk3... what's not to say that it's just a statistical outlier? And since we can't seem to link the variation in performance to the 3 releases of the XP 150, should we even call the 3 releases "marks?" Things like this are probably better explained by individual wear and tear on the weapon.

Wow, that was a lot. *deep breath*

The best thing we can do is to test and then talk about it. I encourage everyone to test their guns and then post their findings in SEAL's testing topic. I have a statistical database on Hydrowar, which is going to be expanded greatly during the off season. I have over 20 more guns to add to the various databases, and I'm contemplating putting up shot curves and graphs that the public can look at. I was inspired by SSW's power drop off graphs for CPS, XP, and Max D blasters.

I am always open to people providing their stats and experiences with blasters. I would love to add everyone's test to my database and my reviews. The reviews and updated database will inform the reader how many guns of said particular model were tested, the variation, average, etc. as well as if anyone other than me provided data. The requirement, of course, being that you provide me with the method you used to measure said range (I'm also open to shot time). Providing a video would be even better (you can be private about it and not show your face). You can also provide a submitted review to iSoaker.com or if you feel doing a lot of work you could make a table on the wiki - but I suggest just having a links page instead that links to the testing topic and my statistical database. Also, DX is in the works regarding something on this subject, but I won't spoil the surprise... just wait til New Years.

[Poseidon2000]

Mine is like a SSC 'marks for CPS1500' mixup:
pump cap screws off
nozzle cap hopefully screwed off.
pump is newer version
Stickers on clean side
Plastic is bright[er?]

... ...

[soakinader]

I have a really weird CPS 1500. From the inside out, it has a lot of differences from my other 1500's and my 1700.
First clue: On the outside the reservoir cap is different.

Then there is the nozzle cover. As it turns out, it has these stealthy little plastic pieces on the front that you can yank out, then unscrew the cover, allowing you to open the gun without breaking it and still having it held together strong. I unfortunately had no idea and broke the thing. I always thought it was either glued or not glued. And the pump cap pops off, not screws.

On the inside, note the rust-less trigger wire, the oddly shaped reservoir, and the plastic bracket below the reservoir.

I opened this gun to repair it, but I don't know if it is even possible. The trigger valve pin is rusted, and water leaks like crazy around it. The plastic isn't cracked or anything, and the spring does need a little help to close the valve (but again, it leaks so much this doesn't matter yet).

Help? I can open up the PC but I don't know if replacing the seal is enough, the pin is pretty loose in the plastic.