A strange new Water-Weapon.

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
WaterWolf
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: Central Vermont.

Post by WaterWolf » Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:16 am

Has anybody here seen this before?

http://www.firstlineindustries.com/spatbewacasp.html

It looks like an interesting mix between water-warfare and paint-ball.
The obvious problem of corse, would be losing the "Splash Balls" in the middle of a fight and it would be a real pain to have to go searching for them.
On the up-side, the high range of 50-feet is about the same as a CPS-2000 and the Splash-Balls make it easy to tell when a hit has been scored.

Discuss...
The Maple-Mountain-Marines.

Terrifying, but oddly refreshing.
-B.D.

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

Post by isoaker » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:04 am

Interesting, but requires eye protection to make use of. The need for additional safety equipment is something I've always debated about: should organized water fights have a requirement for eye protection? I'm still not sure about having soakers that require players to definitely wear goggles.

Interesting find, though I do feel I've seen either this or something like it before.

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

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:55 am

This water gun isn't very impressive to me.

It says it shoots a foam "Splashballs" 50 feet, which isn't that great for a solid projectile launcher. Most older Nerf guns will beat that. This is something that should be comparable to a water balloon launcher in range, but it doesn't even compare to the CPS 2000.

It even says it launches a water stream too, but only a lousy 20 feet. And I bet that's an exageration.

Combine that with only half a gallon of capacity in what appears to be a pressurized reservoir water gun. Combine it with the $40 on sale price tag. This isn't a very good deal. You'd be better off getting a Blazer as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: Sports Authority sells this water gun for $30 for those looking to get it cheaper than its outragerous price.

As for safety and protection...

As I already pointed out, this water gun is very underpowered even on the projectile launcher and likely won't cause any bodily harm unless someone was trying hard to hurt someone. Playing unresponsibly is always a possibility, but we shouldn't suffer because some people do something stupid. Responsibility covers most safety concerns in water guns, Nerf guns, Paintball guns, Airsoft guns, real guns, and such. The problem is, not everyone is responsible, but again, I don't feel we should suffer for their stupidity.

In my opinion, water warriors should use some level of eye protection to begin with because any shot in the eye isn't pleasant and potentially damaging. I wear shop or sunglasses on all my water fights anyway to give me an edge in the inevitable accidental face shot which is almost always from a distance and the result of bad aim, wind, or any other factor. A splash in the face isn't damaging, just unpleasant. Most water fights are on sunny days anyway, so asking for sunglasses isn't being unreasonable. I personally feel that is where safety equipment will end however. The most powerful water guns have too much of an appetite for water to be useful on the field. And it takes a water gun as powerful as a fire hose to bruise people. Bruising won't happen unless someone uses a water gun that gets over 100X output on a stream. Most any water stream is completely safe from a distance, but up close can be a problem. So I don't think any necessary protection will ever surpass simple sunglasses even for the most paranoid.

Most people who argue about "safety" aren't really familiar with what actually will happen. This is something I feel very strongly about. Most safety issues are overblown. They do happen, as does anything, but it won't end the fun for people as some want. I've had several people email me asking whether or not I would "be happy" as some put it if someone used one of my water gun designs to shoot someone in the eye. I don't see how shots in the eye are something I'm not supposed to be able to respond to as a homemade water gun designer. Eye shot problems are an issue in any toy projectile gun. Shooting anyone in the eye with anything will cause damage. Shooting an XP 70 point blank in their eye will probably hurt a lot more than a CPS 2000 due to the pressure in the shot from the small diameter stream. Neither will be pleasant. At the same time, you must remember that if that was a Nerf gun, spud gun, or anything else comparable to a water gun, that person would face the very real chance of losing that eye. The problem is that the CPS 2000, homemade water guns, and other powerful water guns have an unjustified reputation for being dangerous that is based on assumptions and not facts. So, I'm arguing that more powerful water guns aren't much more dangerous than other water guns. As one of the few with experience with these devices, I ask for everyone to take my word on it. Others simply I believe assume too much about more powerful water guns due to their lack of familiarity. If a picture is worth one thousand words, actually experiencing something is worth one million words.

We're talking about water here. Big Bee has told us safety wasn't an issue in why water guns were getting less powerful. When are people going to believe it? I think some people wish safety was an issue in some sick way. That's probably where the CPS 2000 myth comes from: some sort of sick wish that they had a water gun that could blow someone's eye out.

So that's my big safety rant... in summary, water guns are safer than some will attest, and eye protection isn't unreasonable. No water gun that will be usable in a water fight will ever require eye protection between responsible people aside from accidents. Every water gun will require protection between unresponsible people. If someone wants to shoot someone in the eye, blame it on them, not the water gun.

Edit: Removed an absolute from my rant.




Edited By Ben_ on 1167443415

Dacca
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: Boston

Post by Dacca » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:42 pm

nice rant. I usually wear either sunglasses or tinted goggles, but thats mostly to protect my eyes from the sun. as for the soaker, it might be underpowerd but it is still a cool concept. the potential to deliver water is a solid projectile rather then a stream projectile has its advantages, but this does seem like a water powerd nerf gun almost. i dont know if there have been other designs like this in the past (sponge launchers) but the way this blaster aproches it is still kinda nifty. small sponges the size of paintballs, waterball indeed. the face that it can, i dont see that it will do it that well, shoot paint balls to is also a plus.
more reliable then a max-D trigger

Image

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

Post by isoaker » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:04 pm

No water gun that will be usable in a water fight will ever require eye protection between responsible people aside from accidents. Every water gun will require protection between unresponsible people. If someone wants to shoot someone in the eye, blame it on them, not the water gun.


It is easy to talk in abstract injuries until someone you care about is involved in an "accident". I love water weaponry, but also respect their power. If being concerned about user safety were ever a sick obsession, I'd rather suffer from that than erring on the other side.

Suggesting that everyone should wear some level of eye protection is good, but many would feel somewhat restrictied if they felt they needed to wear something (though I, myself, prefer having sunglasses on).

The problem is, not everyone is responsible, but again, I don't feel we should suffer for their stupidity.

That is exactly the problem, but the thing is that we do suffer for other people's stupidity and unless this fact of society can be changed, I'm preferring to lean on the side of safety. Stock soakers, even the CPS2000, are not likely able to cause irreversible bodily damage unless someone really intends to use them to do so. Homemades, though, are another matter, but that really isn't for this thread. In the end, I am NOT most people when it comes to understanding repercussions of what may happen when a soaker accident occurs. I will NEVER consider user safety as something to not be concerned over or even over-hyped when talking about water warfare. There are some stories which may have been over-blown, but that is irrelevant when it comes to general user safety. If I seem too uptight or strict on user safety, so be it. Such are the beliefs I shall stick by and those that don't like it have other options on where to go.

Back on topic, having sponge-bullets goes against my general rule of not wanting things in a water-stream. If someone wants to play paintball or have paintball-type tactics, they should play paintball. I think a lot can be done in a really fun, yet tactical way even with the limitations imposed by using a stream-producing water blaster. To me, it's almost sinful to want to use anything else but good ol' pure water in their blasters.

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

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:06 am

It is easy to talk in abstract injuries until someone you care about is involved in an "accident". I love water weaponry, but also respect their power. If being concerned about user safety were ever a sick obsession, I'd rather suffer from that than erring on the other side.


I did mention accidents. But the entire safety argument is akin to me not walking outside because I could be shot by local hunters. Worry about something that is likely.

I will say this again because people who have not built do not know it: homemade water guns' shots are not considerably more dangerous than a regular water gun's ones. Any water gun will hurt you in the eye. Eye shots are not a problem that only homemade water guns have. I would argue that due to the lack of popularity combined with the fact that someone who builds requires a certain level of maturity (as you have said yourself) makes the users of homemade water guns even less likely to be injured by their creations when compared against other water guns.

Remember this review? That happened from a CPS 3000. And that's about as bad as it will get. No one here would say water guns such as the CPS 3000 are dangerous and would require eye protection aside from maybe Wild Boys who was just trying to make a statement. Yes, you can get hurt by a water gun. But in reality these water guns are just as dangerous as homemade water guns.

Yes, if I took Supercannon II and shot someone in the eye with it, that would be bad. But that's not an accident. :goofy:

I'll agree with you though. Water-carrying projectiles are not my idea of water guns. If it's not a water stream, it's not for me.




Edited By Ben_ on 1167578360

WaterWolf
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: Central Vermont.

Post by WaterWolf » Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:20 am

Wow, maybe we should start a new topic on Water-Warfare safety.

I wasn't sure when I posted this how effective the gun would be, I had just seen the product and posted a heads up to the community.
As its been pointed out, this is probably a rather useless gun, but it has brought up the topic of safety and that seems to have a lot of interest.
The Maple-Mountain-Marines.

Terrifying, but oddly refreshing.
-B.D.

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

Post by isoaker » Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:01 am

Not sure why homemades are getting brought up in this thread when it started off about a new stock soaker. Homemade usage safety has differences between stock soaker safety since homemade soaker power can vary a lot. A full discussion on homemade safety, though, would better be suited where it is discussed the most (i.e. @ SSCentral). If members want to discuss it here, that's fine, too, but homemades are not as focussing upon here as there. I agree that a well-made homemade is no more dangerous (maybe even safer in many ways) than a store-bought stock soaker. However, since homemades are only limited by the resources and imagination of the creator, homemades have the potential of being made rather powerful and beyond standard safe power limits.

My gripe about the soaker this thread started on is about the inclusion of sponge balls being shot as opposed to a pure water stream as well as the addition of goggles to the package. While I fully understand the need for goggles when firing sponge-based projectiles, I prefer having eye protection in a water fight as a good recommendation, but not as a requirement.

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

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

Post by DX » Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:42 am

I couldn't see myself ever supporting sponge-bullets. Like others have said, it has got to fire a traditional stream of water in my book.

As for safety, we locally do take it seriously, though not to the point where eye protection would actually be "required". I myself wear glasses for vision, so that's never been an issue personally. We emphasize aiming for the chest/back so much that it becomes second nature to only shoot there. There is a kill penalty for shots anywhere on the head. We've found that nothing really warrants protective measures except water balloon launchers; hence the angled shot rule. When we Nerf, eye protection is actually now mandatory because Nibordude was shot directly in the eye with a heavily modded Crossbow last war. No water gun even comes close to that kind of impact, especially not from the 100ft away that hit was made from. The only way one could do eye damage in water wars would be a point-blank shot. The way we fight, when you have the extremely rare opportunity to shoot someone from point-blank range, there's no way you could possibly miss the shirt and hit an eye. That is, unless you are either an idiot or an asshole, and we allow neither on our team.
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
Adrian
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: WI, USA
Contact:

Post by Adrian » Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:44 am

I'm guessing it was a woman who wrote that CPS 3000 review. What a killjoy and a wuss. Doesn't even own a product, but takes the time to find a review site so she can write a review telling people how awful it is. I'm not going to tell you my guess at her political affiliation.

On the topic of soaker safety, I am, as in all things, rather laizze faire (or however that is spelled). If one wants to play with soakers that can damage them, fine. If PARENTS don't want their children playing with soakers that can damage them, well, that's their choice to make. The manufacturer should never be blamed for supplying willing consumers with products they choose of their own volition to buy, and which the majority of consumers would enjoy responsibly.

Myself, I'm approaching safety nut, but not there yet. Heck, some of Ben's guns would probably scare me off.

Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.

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

Post by SilentGuy » Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:28 pm

Adrian wrote:I'm guessing it was a woman who wrote that CPS 3000 review. What a killjoy and a wuss. Doesn't even own a product, but takes the time to find a review site so she can write a review telling people how awful it is. I'm not going to tell you my guess at her political affiliation.
But it's entirely possible to be able to have fun while being anti-war. In no way are these gonna kill thousands of Iraqis because of an invasion or something. Just a note.

I have to back Ben on the safety issue. As has been mentioned in the past, you could smack somebody upside the head with anything and give them a concussion. Likewise, you could nail somebody in the eye with a water cannon by aiming for their head at point-blank range. Things are only as dangerous as their user, unless it's some cheap stock gun that sends shards flying after being dropped.

Alright, a gun exploding is a little exaggerated...but so are all these claims of dangerous weapons.

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

Post by isoaker » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:03 pm

While the User can make a specific soaker more dangerous, some soakers simply require more responsibility to not be abused. However, this safety debate really shouldn't be.

None of us want anyone to be personally injured through using a water blaster of any make. If anyone here disagrees with that, they should NOT be here. That said, different people have different ideas on what is safe. However, since these forums, the iSoaker.com Forums, are intended to cater towards a larger age range (i.e. 13 and up), I will continue to err on the conservative side when it comes to water warfare safety promotion. If individuals want to be more relaxed on local rules, that's up to that group, but I will always respect individual safety concerns and do what I can to either address a safety issue or educate an individual who may be worrying too much or have gotten some facts misinterpreted.

Leaving it solely up to Users to make decisions is okay for those mature and responsible enough, but I'd rather be blamed for being too conservative than for being overly lax and hearing that some member got injured in a way that could have been prevented were they better informed of things to be cautious of. I wouldn't want Users to be over fearful or make things sound more dangerous than they are, but at the same time, some things should be made clear when using specific types of soakers.

I love water; but I also respect all the joys and dangers that water possesses.

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

WaterWolf
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: Central Vermont.

Post by WaterWolf » Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:32 pm

Here Here!
The Maple-Mountain-Marines.

Terrifying, but oddly refreshing.
-B.D.

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:20 pm

I've been too eager to mention homemade water guns and I seem to always incorporate them in my posts. For that reason I've probably been read wrong. Homemade water guns I used as examples because they're the most powerful water guns around. I doubt you can hurt someone with one unless it was intentional. I'm saying that all powerful water guns are like homemade water guns.

This water gun's sponge bullet isn't dangerous. It is less dangerous than a water balloon. A sponge is soft. Water breaks up when hit. Combine that with only 50 feet of range, and I doubt you can hurt someone unless you intended to.

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

Post by isoaker » Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:46 am

Perhaps "dangerous" appears to some as too strong a word to use, but at the same time, I would not classify a sponge-bullet at the same level as a water stream. In fact, I would classify a small paint-ball-sized sponge bullet more dangerous than a water balloon as it has a greater chance of accidentally entering another's eye (water balloons tend to be much larger, thus less likely to actually impact on another's eyeball accidentally). A spongeball, no matter how soft, is still a solid and has rather different properties than water. I'd invite anyone who feels differently to rinse their eyes out using wet sponge balls if they ever got dust in their eye. It is not the power or speed of the ball alone, but also the abrasiveness of the sponge material which increases its chance of causing damage. The risk is low, but it is something users should be aware of. The inclusion of goggles with the sponge-ball launcher is not solely for show, but an acknowledgment by the manufacturer that there is increased risk of eye injury.

Acknowledging risk does NOT mean that people should not use things or things should be banned or avoided. Knowledge of risk allows Users to use things safely and have fun using them while minimizing the risk of accident and/or injury to themselves or to others. That's not a bad thing, is it?

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

FinalFantasizer
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by FinalFantasizer » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:11 pm

Honestly, the safety problems with this new type of weapon don't really bother me. I usually wear airsoft safety goggles on the field because headshots are pretty common in my wars.

A painball-style projectile actually seems like the type of thing water wars have been lacking for so long. A weapon using this method of water delivery can have way more range than a CPS-style blaster. I think that a game with such a weapon would be much better than a game of paintball or airsoft as determining a kill is easy (unlike airsoft) and the battlefield remains clean (unlike paintball).




Edited By FinalFantasizer on 1168193555
Armory:

CPS 12000
CPS 21000
CPS 27000
CPS 12000 (in the works)
CPS 3000 (w/ MI:Overload Backpack)
CPS Splashzooka
SC Big trouble
XP 310 & 270
MI Flash Flood
MI Overload
Douchenator

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

Post by SilentGuy » Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:37 pm

Well, the other thing is that it's so weak anyway. It shoots projectiles 50 feet, as opposed to maybe 200 feet. It shoots water 20 feet, as opposed to maybe 50 feet. And it does shoot expensive, disposable projectiles...

FinalFantasizer
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by FinalFantasizer » Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:20 pm

That's true, the range on this "strange new weapon" is pathetic compared to what paintballers are used to... but heck its an improvement. I guess the best thing about this new gun is the fact that it's concept is more mainstream than the stuff Hasbro has been coming out with. For someone who has been trying to get his friends (many of whom play paintball and airsoft) into water wars, this is pretty important. Sure, the gun is nothing compared to some of the weapons we have seen in the past, but my point is that this design has great potential if executed correctly. If we start seeing weapons similar to this one with the range and muzzle velocity of paintball guns, I'm pretty sure that we will also see a revival of the participation in actual hardcore water wars.



Edited By FinalFantasizer on 1168208464
Armory:

CPS 12000
CPS 21000
CPS 27000
CPS 12000 (in the works)
CPS 3000 (w/ MI:Overload Backpack)
CPS Splashzooka
SC Big trouble
XP 310 & 270
MI Flash Flood
MI Overload
Douchenator

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests