CPS 2000, 1st gen vs 2nd gen? - CPS 2000

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
Alljayevryjay
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Alljayevryjay » Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:58 pm

Hey everyone, I'm new here.

anyways, I'm in high school, and my track&field season has come to an end. Everyday basically now, we just sit in the stadium of our school, doing nothing, and will continue to do so until the 21st.

I've had a CPS 2000 ever since i was in the 1st grade, and it was powerful then, and still powerful now.

Since I couldnt find an e-mail to which i could send a question to, I just made a topic here.

By looking through the armoury, it seems like the specs on the CPS2000 are from the 1st gen, and I would REALLY like to see a comparison to a 2nd gen (with the shorter firing chamber).

IF i were to sell it, how much would the going price be?

Thanks for lookin

-J

N1GH7M4R3
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by N1GH7M4R3 » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:01 pm

hey, i'm new here too.

i don't know how much the original retail cost or anything for the cps2000 was, but i'd be interested in buying it.

ZOCCOZ
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:09 pm
Contact:

Post by ZOCCOZ » Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:39 pm

Original retail price was $30-$40 US. Fat chance getting it for that price now NIB.
Both versions sell for about the same on ebay, which is around $200 US during summer season.

As for the difference, distance would be the same I would say around 55 feet. The differences in distance would be more of a model thing, instead of a Mk. version thing.
As for output, opinions differ. To some the Mk.1 has a 28X, while others ay it just has a few milliseconds of a longer shot time so also just 22X. The first Mk.1 versus Mk.2 review I read mentions that the MK.2 has shorter shot time. So you decide which story you prefer.

Also, according to some old WWN rumors, the CPS 2000 Mk.1 has a more fragile rubber making the Mk.2 more durable. So its larger PC versus PC durability.




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1149378147

Alljayevryjay
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Alljayevryjay » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:38 pm

^^^ thanks ZOCCOZ. Thanks for the input but I dont understand some of your lingo. What do you mean by 28X, 22X, WWN, and PC?

Croc
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Oakville Ontario
Contact:

Post by Croc » Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:50 pm

PC is pressure chamber. Almost all guns, except for piston and pressurized resevoir guns have one(at least)
22X- The output rating of the nozzle- this specific one means 22 ounces/second
28X- same as above, just means 28 ounces/second
I have no clue what WWN is though

DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:04 pm

WWN was once the largest and most active forum in soaking. The demise of WWN resulted in the iSoaker Community Forum being opened, which is this board.

Prices for the 2000 have been going up, $275 was the highest I saw last year, with $305 the highest so far this year. If you have one, this is a great time to sell.

Mark IIs are more common than Mark Is. For some reason, when a user with both compares them, their results differ from that of other users. It's a problem that still has yet to be solved by a definative answer.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

User avatar
urbanfighter7
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Santa Cruz CA.
Contact:

Post by urbanfighter7 » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:11 pm

Yeah i would sell it on e bay. You could make some money like Dux said.But if you are interested in soaking I would keep the 2000. :D :cps2500:
My Armory:
CPS 1000
CPS 1500
CPS 2500
Douchenator
APH!

Croc
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Oakville Ontario
Contact:

Post by Croc » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:24 pm

an Mk2 is more common because most people, if they have an Mk1, will not sell it, as they have the most powerful gun in existence(sp?) and would rather keep it. MkII is just not as powerful, so you will see more on the market

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:22 pm

I'd recommend check out this article on the CPS2000 Mk1 vs M2 written by TAKrogoth. 'tis a good article with pics showing the differences between the two. Doesn't include original prices, though, but the above $30-$40 USD range is about right.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

SilentGuy
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Virginia

Post by SilentGuy » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:52 pm

Nice article, but I don't understand one thing: If the Mk.2 has a thicker bladder to allow for more durability, then if should provide much more power than the Mk.1 does. I understand that the two models are very close, but all the stats point to the Mk.1 as having more performance--and we're talking about power, not shot time.

Is there a difference in the number of pumps required in each model? If the pump volume is the same, then a different number of pumps should indicate different shot times.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:53 am

I think that while the Mk.2 may have a thicker bladder, note that the Mk.1 can stretch its bladder 33% more than the Mk.2 can. Also, depending on the manufacturing process, perhaps the Mk.1 bladders used just had better elasticity than those found in the Mk.2.

I believe the Mk.1 requires mroe pumps to fill the PC than the Mk.2. Shot time, though, really depends on how quickly these PC push their contents. As both shots are within or below the 1 sec mark, I've found it extremely difficult to do accurate time measurements on either blaster's shot.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

ZOCCOZ
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:09 pm
Contact:

Post by ZOCCOZ » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:26 pm

Yep, that was the article I was talking about. The original link was no longer acytive, so good thing that it still exists on isoaker.com.
From the review: The MK1 has only a slight advantage in the area that it shoots for a fraction of a second longer than the Mk2.


That statement makes makes the MK.1 versus Mk.2 output more complicated.

Alljayevryjay
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Alljayevryjay » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:38 am

WOOPS false alarm... didnt read to the bottom of the page.



Edited By Alljayevryjay on 1150007978

sbell25
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:45 am

Post by sbell25 » Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:04 am

Have a look at This Page. As you can see, actual proof that the Mk.1's PC is thicker than the Mk.2's.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests