"underpowered" monster line?

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 11:38 am
Location: in your chimney

"underpowered" monster line?

Post by nerfman300 » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:06 am

in what way is the monsters line underpowered? i went on isoaker's website and concidering the ratings he gave the monsters, they dont sound underpowered to me. am i missing somthing?
P.S. sorry for newbie questions, but i am a noob after all. :cps2700:

Posts: 4104
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: MI
WWN League Team: Havoc

Re: "underpowered" monster line?

Post by HBWW » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:33 am

All it means is that the series are underpowered for their size. Generally, power refers to pressure, which dictates potential range and output (depending on the nozzle) although iSoaker uses a different definition that factors in the nozzle itself.

However, the concept of being underpowered for size doesn't really mean a while lot. Small blasters can be made to be more powerful than large ones, they just don't have the capacity to hold enough water to use for a decent amount of time at higher output. Thus, water blasters have always had a correlation between power and size, but the notes about the Monsters being underpowered mean that they don't fall into that correlation very well.

Of course, they are still excellent blasters, with some good points over smaller spherical-chamber CPS. (And of course, are still light years ahead of anything you'd ever see on store shelves today.)
HydroBrawl Water Warfare

Discord: g0dSamnit#4723

User avatar
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:37 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
WWN League Team: Catskill Mountain SEALs

Re: "underpowered" monster line?

Post by SEAL » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:25 pm

When they say underpowered, they mean that they're less powerful than other CPS blasters such as the 2500, yet are a lot bigger and more unwieldy. This doesn't really mean that they're bad; I've heard the 2001 Monster is actually pretty good, and I remember my MX having about the same amount of power as my CPS 2700 (which is smaller, but holds more water, and is probably heavier.). Really, I think it's only the MXL that's really noticably underpowered (not when it comes to output though; on dual 11.5X, it puts out as much water as 4 Flash Flood riot blasts.). The other two Monsters are not that bad, and they can all easily go head-to-head with other CPS blasters.

To make it simple, a 34 inch long, 60 oz (dry weight.) blaster can shoot almost 50 feet, while a 38.5 inch, 153 oz blaster can only get around 35. It's all relative.
~Hotel Oscar Golf~

We'll be back...

Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:54 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: "underpowered" monster line?

Post by zeda.beta » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:28 am

Not to mention the fact that these blasters had shorter shot times than some of the CPS' i have right now. Least in my experience, they dominate anything from today or the past few years but are just under par in terms of weight and output compared to the golden generation.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Posts: 3973
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Charleston
WWN League Team: Havoc

Re: "underpowered" monster line?

Post by marauder » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:02 am

Shot time depends on what nozzle you're using. If you are just going for pure shot time then both the Monster XL and Monster eclipse all official CPS guns, sans the Splashzooka and 2700. If you throw in guns that use CPS technology like the SC 600, WWF series, etc. then the Monsters are much further down, but both the MXL and mini Monster (on 2.5x) do quite well on shot time.
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests