CPS 2000 Mk2 Comparison

As a general consensus, we pretty much know that the CPS 2000 Mk1 is more powerful than the Mk2 on average.  However, while we know that, maybe it is time to do a bit more deeper exploration on a deeper level.  While Mk1’s are stupidly expensive now, I was at least able to get 3 Mk2’s, which I felt was enough to warrant a comparison.  Now we shall see how different Mk2’s perform, are they about the same?  Or do they display different characteristics?  Well, that is what we want to find out.

The three 2000’s here are all different serial/production numbers which should make things a bit more interesting.

Time to get things started, here are the 2000’s, all ready to slug it out like the start of a TNA Impact Wrestling match, only unlike the girl who usually announces it I’m nowhere near as hot sadly, so you’ll have to make do with my less attractive narrative.


Production Numbers

First I’ll go through the production numbers stating the factory number and the date they were made, from the top to the bottom.  The first two numbers are the factory number it was made in, the third number is the time of year they were made (1=First Quarter, 2=Midway, 3=Third Quarter/Fall and 4=Final Quarter/End of Year) and the fourth and final number indicates the year itself.

#3117 (Top) – Factory 31, First Quarter, 1997 – This indicates an early model, made early on in 1997 when the Mk2 was introduced to replace the Mk1

#3047 (Middle) – Factory 30, Final Quarter/End of Year, 1997 – A later model made towards the end of 1997, in a different factory

#3128 (Bottom) – Factory 31, Midway, 1998 – This is a very interesting one, made in the same factory as #3117, however made halfway through 1998, when the 2500 would have been on the shelves, Larami obviously had enough parts left over to still make CPS 2000’s at least halfway into 1998 or maybe longer, funnily enough it has the newer Super Soaker branded strap that the 1998 blasters had

It is now time to see how they behave when they are fired, so next up is where all the meat comes in when it comes to information, as coming up now are three sets of comparison photos all shot in the same location, a video comparison and finally a nice big stats table.  After that has all been looked at, we can then see what’s what in terms of how they stack up against each other.

Shot Comparison Pic1

Shot Comparison Pic2

Shot Comparison Pic3

3.055L - 107.5oz
3.12L - 109.8oz
3.19L - 112.28oz
600mL - 21.12oz
615mL - 21.6oz
600mL - 21.12oz

Shot Time

8m - 26.4'
15m - 49.5'
600mL - 21.12oz
9m - 29.7'
16m - 52.8'
769mL - 27.06oz
8.5m - 28.05'
15.5m - 51.15'
667mL - 23.5oz

Pump Volume
31mL - 1.09oz
32mL - 1.126oz
30mL - 1.056oz
Shots Per Tank

The first thing I can tell you, is that no, they are not all the same, in fact, there is a certain stand out from the rest in there as well.

First of all, the firing chamber volumes are all pretty consistent with each other, in around the 600mL range, with #3047 holding a bit more at 615mL.  All these three hold more in their firing chambers compared to the last CPS 2000 Mk2 I had years ago which you can see the statistics for on the review page, which only stored 540mL.

The shot times are again not very far from each other and when you compare the three (#3117 = 1s, #3047 = 0.8s, #3128 = 0.9s) it is close to the 1 second mark, with #3117 getting 1 second.  The Mk2 I no longer have like #3128 shot for 0.9 seconds, which as an average, shot time on an Mk2 seems to be around 0.9 seconds give or take.

The amount of pumps and pump volumes are pretty close to each other on them thereabouts, not really much to report there.

Now things start to go their separate ways.  Starting with the reservoirs, there appears to be a 2-3oz difference in volumes between them.  Might not sound like much, however every little bit of water counts when it comes to capacity, it could be that extra pump or two of water more to make your shot fuller.  The 1998 #3128 model holds more than the two before it, holding around 2.5oz more than #3047, and around 4.7oz more than the earliest #3117 model.  While I don’t have the production number for the Mk2 from all those years ago, that one also holds just a little more than #3128 at 3.2L; reservoir volumes do definitely vary on these, even on later CPS’s.

And finally the performance is where things really show who is boss here.  The #3047 is pretty much the pace setter here and just leaves the others trying to play catch-up here.  While it has the lowest shot time, the power from this example was tremendous, more violent than the other two, and from it got 52 feet in range, it actually got the same as the Mk1 I used to have perhaps a bit further.  In this case chances are I got a really above average Mk2 here.  The 1998 #3128 is just behind that, being able to get just over 50ft and also get a slightly longer shot time.  Last but not least the earliest model #3117 gets just a little under 50ft, but does shoot for the longest.  Range wise it is on par with the Mk2 I used to have years ago as well.  The stream on this one is also the most coherent and laminar.
Interestingly, the 1998 #3128 Mk2 actually felt a lot more like the 2500 when it comes to using it and just feel in general.  Especially the pumping, on all the older 1997 Mk2 I have owned, the pumping on those felt more stiff and tight, whereas on this it felt a bit less stiff and a bit lighter too.

The clear winner on this occasion is the one in the middle, #3047, truly one fine specimen; so much so, it was used to create the CPS 2050 you may have seen, that more than average power, only with 3 nozzles.  The others are still very good though, chances are if you get a CPS 2000 Mk2, whether it is a more powerful than average one, or just a neutral one, you won’t get disappointed.

This also may add light to that claim that the CPS 2000 Mk2 is more powerful than the Mk1.  As #3047 demonstrated, that one I felt did get into the levels the Mk1 I used to own did if not a little further, however again, that was most likely an above average Mk2, against a neutral performing Mk1 there.  So yes, an Mk2 can outrange an Mk1, but only in certain factory performance circumstances.  So basically, you would need a really good above average performing Mk2, against a neutral or slightly below average performing Mk1.  The Mk1 as a whole in most circumstances is still more powerful and gets greater range and stream lamination, along with getting a higher shot time due to its larger firing chamber, even against above average Mk2’s.

Even so, the power difference between Mk1’s and Mk2’s is quite overstated sometimes as if the Mk1 is so much more powerful that it would be a let-down having an Mk2.  It isn’t, the fact is, Mk2’s still shoot very far and not much less than an Mk1, not to the point where it makes a massively noticeable difference of seeing a movie and feeling like you’ve wasted your money afterwards.  And given how much more money Mk1’s have gone for compared to Mk2’s lately the Mk2 is still a perfectly safe bet, who knows you may get lucky and get an above average one as well.