Spitlebug, on 21 September 2009 - 01:44 AM, said:
Not wanting to get into a debate on the matter, but I would like to point out some things (for clarity):
1.) Being mechanical is not in any way, shape or form a drawback.
2.) M98's can be electronic - right from the factory.
3.) All markers chop paint. It is what it is.
4.) M98's don't require post regulation and is HPA and CO2 friendly.
5.) Performance on field is relative.
6.) I don't like A5's. Not really a fan, never have been.
7.) Most "woodsball" and "scenario" markers in the last 3 years have been M98 or A5 clones. There are exceptions, but this is the "norm".
1) Spitle, are you on crack? If there is no drawback to using mechanical markers? Ummmm, rate of fire? Solenoid? regulator?
2) They still don't have a regulator, and are HORRIBLY inconsistent at best.
3) No they don't, a spring driven blowback comes forward with considerably more speed and more force, than the lightweight, regulator controlled bolt of the SP-1. Put your finger in the breech and pull the trigger, you'll see what I mean
4) Sure, and if your tank drops below 500psi, you won't be able to get to 300fps. The SP-1 has a CO2 friendly regulator, than still shoots even when the tank is ice code and freezing. Once you freeze the tank on a Tippmann, the striker can't return and the gun goes fully automatic, and drains the tank even more. The SP-1 operates down to 200psi input pressure and still shoots with no problem. The Tippmann needs 500psi just to cycle.
5) Relative to the fact that the SP-1 will be extremely consistent over the chronograph due to the regulator, and the M98 will not
7) This is erronious info, doesn't mean anything. The Model 98 has been around for years, the SP-1 is around a year old.
It's a great attempt at defending the Model 98, but the SP-1 absolutely crushes it, destroys it, embarrasses it on the field. It's not even close in comparison.