Arctic Blast v2.0
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:40 am
While I currently lack the time to make these modifications, I plan on performing these soon when I'll have a whole weekend (gasp!) to experiment with this great gun. Basically, I am looking for a well-balanced replacement to what has been my standard for the past 8 years: a 30 balloon k-modded CPS 2100. I love the 2100, but all 5 of mine are 8-9 years old at this point, and are not getting any younger. About two years ago I began to search for a medium-sized, powerful stock alternative to the 2100. This was not an easy task, as you can imagine, and I was split between something like a Flash Flood/Arctic Blast or something from WW like the Tiger Shark (one of my all-time favorite stock blasters). While the WW options are probably superior out-of-the-box to something from SS, I decided to go with the Arctic Blast for three reasons:
1) Safety-net: I recently acquired a second Arctic Blast. I make it a personal rule to never seriously modify a blaster that I only have one of, a list which unfortunately includes both the Flash Flood and the Tiger Shark.
2) Age: The Arctic Blast is a spry young-thing, released in 2007, 2008, and as the IM2 (I believe) in 2009-2010. Not only will this give me more time before rubber bladders/trigger valves wear out, but it will also increase me chances of finding a replacement in case of catastrophic failure.
3) Ergonomics/Design: I know there are complaints out there about the way the Arctic Blast is designed, but I actually love the way it handles and think it looks really good. A few of my modifications will be aimed at improving balance/aesthetics.
Of course, the ultimate question remains, why bother at all? The answer is that I am unsatisfied with the power of the current stock lineup. I am also looking to sell most of my blasters within the next year or so. I have never wanted to be a collector, and I now have close to 30 water guns in my collection. This is far more than I need, and I would like to get rid of many of them. My hope is to create a solid and powerful blaster that will serve me well in a variety of situations, be it casual soakfests or competitive 1HK. My ideal situation would be to have a small collection of powerful and versatile blasters supplemented by an larger and more powerful APH and a small WBL. These are changes that will most likely be happening during the off-season this winter.
Here are a list of the changes I want to make:
1) Colossus modification: I am planning on using several layers of thin rubber, either from bike tubes or LRT.
2) PRV removal
3) Pump replacement: I will be replacing the pump shaft with a 6" length of 1/2" PVC, as well as lengthening the existing pump rod. I will be replacing the comically small pump handle with a large PVC handle. The effect of this modification will be to reduce total pumps.
4) Reservoir elimination: I will be removing basically the entire bottom half of the blaster, and replacing the on-board reservoir with a backpack-fed intake. The days of re-filling a tank in the middle of a war are behind me.
5) Nozzle modification?: I am contemplating enlarging the main nozzle as well as adding an exterior laminator.
6) Misc. Aesthetic modifications: Paintjob, stencilling etc. etc. etc.
The cumulative effect of these modifications will be to increase power and reduce pumps. I am NOT replacing the PC, as I am relatively satisfied with the shot-time as it stands now. A PRV removal will serve to increase total out-put anyway. I would rather have a gun that pump-shoot-pump-shoots with a good amount of kick than a gun that requires a lot of pumps for extended shot-time. I'll be tap-shotting most of the time anyway, so this is something I am really not worried about.
1) Safety-net: I recently acquired a second Arctic Blast. I make it a personal rule to never seriously modify a blaster that I only have one of, a list which unfortunately includes both the Flash Flood and the Tiger Shark.
2) Age: The Arctic Blast is a spry young-thing, released in 2007, 2008, and as the IM2 (I believe) in 2009-2010. Not only will this give me more time before rubber bladders/trigger valves wear out, but it will also increase me chances of finding a replacement in case of catastrophic failure.
3) Ergonomics/Design: I know there are complaints out there about the way the Arctic Blast is designed, but I actually love the way it handles and think it looks really good. A few of my modifications will be aimed at improving balance/aesthetics.
Of course, the ultimate question remains, why bother at all? The answer is that I am unsatisfied with the power of the current stock lineup. I am also looking to sell most of my blasters within the next year or so. I have never wanted to be a collector, and I now have close to 30 water guns in my collection. This is far more than I need, and I would like to get rid of many of them. My hope is to create a solid and powerful blaster that will serve me well in a variety of situations, be it casual soakfests or competitive 1HK. My ideal situation would be to have a small collection of powerful and versatile blasters supplemented by an larger and more powerful APH and a small WBL. These are changes that will most likely be happening during the off-season this winter.
Here are a list of the changes I want to make:
1) Colossus modification: I am planning on using several layers of thin rubber, either from bike tubes or LRT.
2) PRV removal
3) Pump replacement: I will be replacing the pump shaft with a 6" length of 1/2" PVC, as well as lengthening the existing pump rod. I will be replacing the comically small pump handle with a large PVC handle. The effect of this modification will be to reduce total pumps.
4) Reservoir elimination: I will be removing basically the entire bottom half of the blaster, and replacing the on-board reservoir with a backpack-fed intake. The days of re-filling a tank in the middle of a war are behind me.
5) Nozzle modification?: I am contemplating enlarging the main nozzle as well as adding an exterior laminator.
6) Misc. Aesthetic modifications: Paintjob, stencilling etc. etc. etc.
The cumulative effect of these modifications will be to increase power and reduce pumps. I am NOT replacing the PC, as I am relatively satisfied with the shot-time as it stands now. A PRV removal will serve to increase total out-put anyway. I would rather have a gun that pump-shoot-pump-shoots with a good amount of kick than a gun that requires a lot of pumps for extended shot-time. I'll be tap-shotting most of the time anyway, so this is something I am really not worried about.
