Erlkonig
01-05-2008, 05:03 PM
I've been playing since September and have owned the MR-1 since the end of October or so. I love the marker and think it is a GREAT woodsball/recball gun, but I was looking at a couple of upgrades. Just like before I bought the MR-1 I have done quite a bit of research on these boards, on pbreview, otters customs and a few other websites and as a result I still have a few questions.
1. The whole CO2 vs. HPA debate:
A good many people say that HPA is better for the following reason:
a) Because it is a "cleaner" gas, meaning there is a much smaller chance of getting particles in the marker as a direct result of the tank.
b) It is also a more consistent gas as it is constantly in a gas state so it does not have to expand, or boil if you will, so it is not effected by the temperature of the tank and by use of the regulator always delivers a constant 800-850PSI, ~400PSI if you have a Low Pressure Bottle (though from what I have been able to find it looks like there is not real advantage to a LP bottle as you have a risk of shoot down depending upon your gun set up and a HP bottle is fine since the second regulator, which seems a standard on most HPA setups, can be used to adjust the pressure into the gun to whatever you want), or whatever pressure you set it at if you have an adjustable tank.
c) This also leads into the whole liquid CO2 freezing the gun up and rendering it useless until it thaws out, which is an item you needn't worry about with HPA since it actually warms up the faster you shoot.
Now I have come across a couple of sites and articles which put this whole debate in a different light, I am providing a couple links to the sites I could remember:
http://forums.paintball.com/index.php?showtopic=37554&mode=threaded&pid=396359
http://www.ody.ca/~cwells/articles.htm
http://www.spyderzone.net/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=6&categories=CO2+vs.+HPA%2FN2
There is a fourth site I wanted to put up but I can't find, it gave the mathematics and field results for each set up to support the statements in the above sites as well. If I find it later i will be sure to put it up here.
a) Overall you will get more out of a CO2 tank then a similar sized HPA tank since CO2 being stored in a liqiud will result in a MUCH greater volume overall then you get out of the gas in an HPA tank.
b) While it is true that CO2 MAY contain some particulate from what ever process it is a by product of, it is NOT true that it will contain "dirt".
c) By utilizing a regulator/stabilizer, such as a Palmers which has been said to be the best for a CO2 setup, you are able to set the pressure the gun will see. Now you may say that that is wonderful but useless since tank pressure can vary from the 850PSI that most markers are designed to operate at, down to 500-600PSI depending upon the temperature, but you need to bear in mind that a good many markers, Spyders included, will operate just fine below that mark and from what I have been able to find over the last few months a good many Spyders will run between 600-850PSI depending upon the marker. This is something I am planning to test, but if you guys have any insight on this it would be great =). If this is indeed the case then it would allow you to have much greater consistency over a much greater temperature range.
d) Utilizing the regulator/stabilizer also makes it near to impossible for liquid CO2 to make it into the gun, there for no "freeze ups" do to swollen o-rings and what not. Though this raises another point that it is possible to modify the gun to run off of liquid CO2. I know they used to be designed that way by multiple companies and there are a good number of guns that can be tweaked to operate off liquid CO2 still, though whether the MR-1 is one of them, I don't have a clue. But that is another thing which would make CO2 a step above HPA as it provides equal consistency with a greater numbers of shots for the same volume.
I wasn't able to find a discussion of these particular items in these boards (there were plenty of threads extolling the virtues of HPA over CO2, but none going over the advantages of CO2 over HPA), so I am hoping that I am not dragging up a topic that has been beaten to death as appears to happen frequently here, but I am looking to inform myself and possibly other in the process.
2. Does the Low Blow Bolt from Alamo City actually do anything?
I am thinking that I may upgrade the bolt to either a) a Low Blow if it actually works, or b) a standard Delrin bolt as the lighter weight and reduced friction should help lower the required pressure to operate and therefore work into the above HPA vs. CO2 thoughts...
3. What changes would I need to make to my marker to utilize a Palmer Stabilizer?
Regardless if I stick with CO2 or change to HPA I will be putting the stabilizer on so it makes sense to use a Palmers which will work with either one. Not to mention I will have a CO2 tank as back-up for the times the HPA would be out for Hydro testing or any other things that come up.
My intent would be to use either a female with a ring mount or inline as I like the front grip on the MR-1 and would hate to get rid of it. With the ring mount would I need to change the air lines, or get an adapter so the current lines will accept the threads? Since it looks like the unit would replace the ASA and the drop forward it still looks like it would connect in roughly the same spot so hopefully wouldn't need any other real changes other then removing the ASA and mounting the unit.
Thanks for your help here =)
As I think of other things I will certainly update this thread ;-)
1. The whole CO2 vs. HPA debate:
A good many people say that HPA is better for the following reason:
a) Because it is a "cleaner" gas, meaning there is a much smaller chance of getting particles in the marker as a direct result of the tank.
b) It is also a more consistent gas as it is constantly in a gas state so it does not have to expand, or boil if you will, so it is not effected by the temperature of the tank and by use of the regulator always delivers a constant 800-850PSI, ~400PSI if you have a Low Pressure Bottle (though from what I have been able to find it looks like there is not real advantage to a LP bottle as you have a risk of shoot down depending upon your gun set up and a HP bottle is fine since the second regulator, which seems a standard on most HPA setups, can be used to adjust the pressure into the gun to whatever you want), or whatever pressure you set it at if you have an adjustable tank.
c) This also leads into the whole liquid CO2 freezing the gun up and rendering it useless until it thaws out, which is an item you needn't worry about with HPA since it actually warms up the faster you shoot.
Now I have come across a couple of sites and articles which put this whole debate in a different light, I am providing a couple links to the sites I could remember:
http://forums.paintball.com/index.php?showtopic=37554&mode=threaded&pid=396359
http://www.ody.ca/~cwells/articles.htm
http://www.spyderzone.net/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=6&categories=CO2+vs.+HPA%2FN2
There is a fourth site I wanted to put up but I can't find, it gave the mathematics and field results for each set up to support the statements in the above sites as well. If I find it later i will be sure to put it up here.
a) Overall you will get more out of a CO2 tank then a similar sized HPA tank since CO2 being stored in a liqiud will result in a MUCH greater volume overall then you get out of the gas in an HPA tank.
b) While it is true that CO2 MAY contain some particulate from what ever process it is a by product of, it is NOT true that it will contain "dirt".
c) By utilizing a regulator/stabilizer, such as a Palmers which has been said to be the best for a CO2 setup, you are able to set the pressure the gun will see. Now you may say that that is wonderful but useless since tank pressure can vary from the 850PSI that most markers are designed to operate at, down to 500-600PSI depending upon the temperature, but you need to bear in mind that a good many markers, Spyders included, will operate just fine below that mark and from what I have been able to find over the last few months a good many Spyders will run between 600-850PSI depending upon the marker. This is something I am planning to test, but if you guys have any insight on this it would be great =). If this is indeed the case then it would allow you to have much greater consistency over a much greater temperature range.
d) Utilizing the regulator/stabilizer also makes it near to impossible for liquid CO2 to make it into the gun, there for no "freeze ups" do to swollen o-rings and what not. Though this raises another point that it is possible to modify the gun to run off of liquid CO2. I know they used to be designed that way by multiple companies and there are a good number of guns that can be tweaked to operate off liquid CO2 still, though whether the MR-1 is one of them, I don't have a clue. But that is another thing which would make CO2 a step above HPA as it provides equal consistency with a greater numbers of shots for the same volume.
I wasn't able to find a discussion of these particular items in these boards (there were plenty of threads extolling the virtues of HPA over CO2, but none going over the advantages of CO2 over HPA), so I am hoping that I am not dragging up a topic that has been beaten to death as appears to happen frequently here, but I am looking to inform myself and possibly other in the process.
2. Does the Low Blow Bolt from Alamo City actually do anything?
I am thinking that I may upgrade the bolt to either a) a Low Blow if it actually works, or b) a standard Delrin bolt as the lighter weight and reduced friction should help lower the required pressure to operate and therefore work into the above HPA vs. CO2 thoughts...
3. What changes would I need to make to my marker to utilize a Palmer Stabilizer?
Regardless if I stick with CO2 or change to HPA I will be putting the stabilizer on so it makes sense to use a Palmers which will work with either one. Not to mention I will have a CO2 tank as back-up for the times the HPA would be out for Hydro testing or any other things that come up.
My intent would be to use either a female with a ring mount or inline as I like the front grip on the MR-1 and would hate to get rid of it. With the ring mount would I need to change the air lines, or get an adapter so the current lines will accept the threads? Since it looks like the unit would replace the ASA and the drop forward it still looks like it would connect in roughly the same spot so hopefully wouldn't need any other real changes other then removing the ASA and mounting the unit.
Thanks for your help here =)
As I think of other things I will certainly update this thread ;-)