Stock water blaster weight-class grouping

[isoaker]

There is some inconsistency with how different people classify or categorize various stock water blasters. While the shape, weight, and styling of blasters make organizing blasters into distinct groups more difficult and while there will always likely be some outlier, at least when looking at the stats I've accumulated over the years on a variety of water blaster models, it seems that there may be some generalizations and groupings that appear to make more sense to me.

Take blaster weight, for example:

isoaker_stats_weight_500.jpg (169.18 KiB) Viewed 4300 times

Above is a chart showing all the stock water guns I have numbers for (total dry weight only). For those with keen eyes, you should be able to read the blaster names beside the bar representing its weight in grams. Before plotting this, I had considered a decent dividing line being a Super Soaker XP 70 being the largest of the small-class blasters and the CPS2100 as the smallest of the large blasters with thing in-between the XP70 and CPS2100 to be considered mid-sized. Interestingly, this ends up mostly working out to having weigh cutoffs at 500g and 1000g (though, interestingly, the XP70 actually weighs a little over 500g coming in at 560g; I think they used thicker plastics back then).

Not surprisingly, the heaviest blaster is the Monster XL followed by the Hydro Blitz and the CPS3200.

All that said, I'm more convinced of classifying blasters 500g or less as light, blasters above 1000g as heavy, and 500g-1000g as mid-weight. There are some exceptions to this rule such as the XP70 which is a little heavier than its size suggests. However, these weight groupings seem to work well for the purpose of then comparing output and capacity levels upon.

[Poseidon2000]

Sounds good, though I feel like crying after reading it.

[SEAL]

Wow. I had know idea the Hydroblitz weighed so much. I actually found that marauder's MXL weighed about the same as my 2700, but the former was ultra front-heavy, so it was harder to wield (but your pumping arm gets one heck of a workout ).

[marauder]

I would consider overloaded weight (filled, pumped, refilled) to be more important than dry weight, if we were to determine classes.

The way I have it on Hydrowar is
Pistols: small enough to fit in your pocket
Carbines: too large to fit in yoru pocket, still smaller than average
Rifles: Must have a seperate pressure chamber (but where does this leave the xxp 175?)
Heavy Guns: Any gun with a stream setting of 8.5x or larger

This isn't very scientific, but I tried to base it somewhat off of performance; which I think is important to take into account. The best way to do it would be to post graphs of overloaded weight, and other types of statistics, then determine from there... hmmm I may start working on this.

[isoaker]

I would consider overloaded weight (filled, pumped, refilled) to be more important than dry weight, if we were to determine classes.

The way I have it on Hydrowar is
Pistols: small enough to fit in your pocket
Carbines: too large to fit in yoru pocket, still smaller than average
Rifles: Must have a seperate pressure chamber (but where does this leave the xxp 175?)
Heavy Guns: Any gun with a stream setting of 8.5x or larger

This isn't very scientific, but I tried to base it somewhat off of performance; which I think is important to take into account. The best way to do it would be to post graphs of overloaded weight, and other types of statistics, then determine from there... hmmm I may start working on this.

I tried using this sort of thing once, but things begin falling apart once you need to better define things like pocket sizes or what the average blaster is supposed to be. Is an XP240 a pistol or a carbine? How about the XP75 or Water Warriors Python? Then there are big piston water blasters like large Stream Machines that may or may not be considered to have a stream setting of 8.5x (and don't have separate pressure chambers). On top of this, more rules to define also means more work for someone to determine what class of blaster they are looking at. The purpose here is to see if there's a simpler way we can group blasters for comparison so that we can then decide if a particular model falls into the better performing/higher capacity/etc. for its group or not. Looking at numbers, dry weight seems to be a good level ground upon which comparisons can be drawn reasonably well.

[SEAL]

This is sort of how I categorize blasters, based purely on size:

Small pistols: SS 10, XP 15, XP 215, etc.
Mid-size pistols: MD 3000, XP 220, Goblin, etc.
Large pistols: Arctic Blast, Equalizer, Defender, MD 5000, etc.
Small primaries: MD 6000, CPS 1200, Gorgon, XP 150, etc.
Mid-size primaries: CPS 2000, CPS 2700, Monster, etc.
Large primaries: Monster XL, homemades like my APH, etc.

I like to keep it simple. As for weight, dry weight is good enough for comparisons, but I think it still would be nice to have a full weight as well, just for informational purposes.

[marauder]

I'm cool with making tentative classes based off dry weight. I understand this is the easiest, most absolute route to defining classes.

At the same time, I plan on posting graphs of other stats to further this discussion, even if we don't come to a conclusion it still helps us understand things better. I hope everyone is able to chime in with how they usually define blaster classes.

[isoaker]

I've tried plotting a few more graphs from dry weight vs output/range/power, length vs output/range/power, and filled weight vs output/range/power. So far, I'm not seeing any major correlations between dimension to performance stats. There are some loose correlations such as blasters with higher output/power stats tended to be above a certain weight with a slight average increase seen in range versus weight or range versus length, but nothing either striking or really unexpected. I'll be pushing up more graphs and thoughts in due time on iSoaker.com.

[marauder]

So, according to this chart we have:

light: SS 10 to SC 400
Med: XP 75 to Ultimate Explorer
Hvy: CPS 2100 to MXL

There are some things that seem fishy, for instance, the EES turbine would be heavy, where as a Pool Pumper and MD 6000 would be medium. Of course, with anything like this, you have to blend the edges a little bit to adjust for certain situations like this.

On a side note, just goes to show how well the Max D 6000 was designed, aside from the weak firing mechanism. However, I have 2 permanent repairs (and 1 can be performed as a preventative/durability mod) for Max Ds that I am very eager to try out when I get home. No one has attempted these before. If it works, I think it'd make the MD 6000 one of the best options in its class.

[isoaker]

Upon a little further reflection, I plan to nudge the lower weight from 500g to 400g.

isoaker_stats_weight_500.jpg (180.06 KiB) Viewed 4259 times

The 400g weight is where the Super Soaker XP240 falls. Blasters heavier than that (with the exception of the SC400) are ones I tend to use with two hands while blasters lighter are mostly used single-handedly (unless, of course, they require both hands to operate). As noted, there are some outliers (it's amazing how heavy the Super Soaker EES Turbine is for such a poor performing blaster). Then again, it just goes to show you how heavier weight doesn't always mean heavier fire/water power. As noted, blasters close to the cutoffs may end up better grouped higher or lower based on their size/styling, but weight seems to be a good starting benchmark.

[Poseidon2000]

aarg, So scientific. Yes, that seems better, and I think it seems logical.

[marauder]

The XP 65, 55, and SC 400 fit better with the 110 or 270 than a 220, so this adjustment makes sense.

In regards to being able to fire 1 handed, I usually fire my 65, 100, 110, and Pool Pumper Blaster all 1 handed, just to get a bit more range (though accuracy is decreased). Ability/preference to fire one-handed will vary from person to person.

[Fishfan]

WAit, you are regarding the lightning storm a heavy blaster? That is totally not right. You should just take Nerf SS off the list, except for the hydro cannon. On the blaster specs area, could you add dry weight and full (Overloaded)weight? That would be nice to know, especially for someone like me, who doesn't have many good soakers.

[Poseidon2000]

DRY WEIGHT, my lightningstorm is lighter than a shoebox.

However, it is reality, and it is as heavy DRY for a 'heavy' blaster.

[isoaker]

WAit, you are regarding the lightning storm a heavy blaster? That is totally not right.

Blasters are listed by dry weight. Filled weight is usually calculated just by adding the weight to the reservoir and PC volume (if applicable). Of course, a couple of blasters break this calculation (e.g. the Water Warriors Hydra Pak and Water Warriors Vindicator) since pushing water into the PC decreases the volume available in the reservoir.

I tried creating a chart for "filled" blasters, but the problem here is that for pressurized blasters, the reservoir volume reported is the full volume, not the recommended volume for actually filling. Thus, this makes PR blasters heavier than they really should be. That said, haven't decided whether PR blasters should be optimally 2/3 or 3/4 filled for best performance. 3/4 means more usable water, but possibly not quite as good performance.

[Fishfan]

Still, it should be taken off the list. It is a disgrace to the super soaker line, as all the Nerf SS, except the hydro cannon (for modding).

[Poseidon2000]

it's not a disgrace, it's good for 5- years of age children.

[isoaker]

For what it's worth, the Nerf Super Soaker Lightningstorm is a relatively heavy (weight-wise) blaster, not a heavy-hitting blaster. It is left there to serve as a good contrast to what sort of performance can be achieved by blasters of similar weight.

[soakinader]

The problem with doing things with weight is twofold: Water and BATTERIES. Does dry weight include batteries or not?

And another thing, I know that you can overcharge a lot of water guns, but when I am filling from the tap, it's usually a hasty and cumbersome affair. I imagine myself pumping up the PC as the reservoir gets filled, but it doesn't usually work out that way. Just my two cents.

The thing is, not every blaster can be overcharged, and many people don't know that you even can!

The way I would classify blasters is not by dry weight, but by full weight. Water is water. It always has the same volume and same weight.

I mean, look at the WW Sphinx, SC 600 and XP 110. You get quite different things out of these guns, I mean, the SC 600 can use a QFD and shoots forever, the XP 110 is a hard-hitting air blaster, and the Sphinx has some crazy output on one of it's THREE nozzle settings.

But the XP 110 is a full 250 g lighter than those other blasters... I need some time to find some more (and more drastic) examples, but I just can't help but feel that what a blaster is made of isn't as important as some other features. (such as useable water volume)

Take another example. The Soaker Tag Triple Shot. It is a mean, compact little gun, and yet the weight puts it in with middle-weight blasters. The idea of using a Triple Shot as a primary instead of an XP 100/150/270 terrifies me. Then look at a Speedloader 1000. It weights a little less than an XP 110, (~600g) but it is much smaller, and wouldn't last five minutes as a primary. Then again, IMHO, it makes a kick-ass secondary. I would take it over something with a similar dry weight anyday. Why? Because it will either be A) smaller than something with the same water capacity or B) Have a greater water capacity than something similar in size.
Or most likely, C) it will be something that is both bigger and has a greater capacity, which would put that gun into a different size class altogether. And that's why I would group things by full weight.

Look at water guns that hold 2-3 L of water. When you are carrying 2-3L of water, you know it. These guns are heavy primary weapons. If a CPS 1500 weighed the same as an XP 110, would it make any sense to put them into the same category? Guns that hold more water are heavier. And generally offer more soakage.
Enough of my banter. There does appear to be a general trend here, we just need fo figure it out. Full weight chart please!

PS: Just like Nerf is being marketed towards an older audience, Super Soaker is being marketed towards a younger audience. I have said something about this before (in detail) but the fact is that the easy-to-use/electronic/clip fed/tacticool SS line is actually quite succesful, despite it's inability to actually "Soak" anybody anymore. Maybe they should rename the line "Sortof Soakers". XP

[isoaker]

Those wanting to use another means of grouping blasters are misunderstanding the point of using dry weight as a means of grouping. Dry weight seems to be a good way to group blasters after which comparisons about how much power, capacity, range, etc. could then be done. Weight does have a decent correlation to overall blaster size (or bulk) so by comparing blasters of similar weight, one tends to then be comparing blasters of similar size.

If one were comparing to blasters of equal dry weight, but one carries 200mL while the other carries 1000L, one could then say that the one with more water capacity is making better use of its initial weight. On the other hand, if one starts to merge capacity and completely filled amounts into the number, it becomes less obvious. If two blasters have the same overfilled weight, but blaster X carries only 200mL of water while blaster Y carries 1000mL of water, it is less obvious on how you would go about explaining why blaster Y is better or even why blaster Y was compared to blaster X since, chances are, their sizes are rather different.

For overall blaster classification, weight, alone, would undoubtedly be a poor choice. For overall blaster classification, size, pressurization system, output, range, etc. should also be taken into account. The weight grouping isn't about defining overall classification; what it is about is giving a simple system to make more meaningful comparisons between blasters. Simply put, if a blaster is rather light, one should typically not expect it to perform as well as a heavier blaster that has more room and materials to make it work better. If one is going to lug around a heavier blaster, one wants to know that the weight is worth it.