New for tippmann, looks sweet!

This is a bit old bud yes they do work but it can't compare to a electropnumatic conversion or gun

Sangreti wrote: This is a bit old bud yes they do work but it can't compare to a electropnumatic conversion or gun

really? how old? and obviously it wont compare to a electropnumatic conversion or gun. its a tippmann- i dont want it to be a electropnumatic gun. just less kick and a little faster cycling, as it claims, would be nice

i think its beenout for about a year

Sangreti wrote: i think its beenout for about a year

Yea I think it just came out.  If I search it up on youtube for some vids none come up.  I think it just got added to pbreview.com today or yesterday as well.  Either way, I'm pretty psyched for it to come in.

Alright, anyway so I got this beast in the mail today and was pretty pumped.  So first things first, this hammer is ALOT lighter than the stock hammer for the 98.  It's nice and slick too as well as shiny.  So it definately looks and feels alot better than the stock hammer.  Now some more things.  I put this in my gun along with the tightest spring from the Maddmann spring kit.  I think this would be the best option, because the loss in weight will overall decrease the amount of momentum it will have upon hitting the pin, so there's no denying that.  So accompanied with the tighter spring this bolt did, as could be seen easier from dry firing, it does hit the pin bit quicker than the stock..  As for shooting the beast with paint and air in the gun, I couldn't notice a drastic amount of reduction in the loudness of it, or even the kick that much, but I suppose it very well may have, just not noticably.  One thing it did help was my super response trigger's rate of fire as well.  I was shooting around 16 to 17 bps with it before and it went up 3 to around 19 bps now, so it's fair to say there was a slight increase in that. Overall though, I only tested this thing out a little bit, I didn't take it for any accuracy runs yet or anything and I'll have to wait till I'm out on the field playing to see a difference too, which will be a while.  But in conclusion this thing is alot lighter and is pretty sweet looking (not that looks matter that much for a hammer).  And accompanied with a stronger spring I think it has perfect ability to increase your cycle rate a shot or 3.  As far as kick and that other stuff, I'm not sure that's going to make to biggest of difference, but if anything it sure as heck won't hurt.

Edited by Robby_of_PBH - 22 January 2009 at 2:32pm

I don't see why it wouldnt fit an ACT marker. You would lose the ACT as you are replacing the rear bolt, but I don't see any reason it  wouldnt fit.  If I remember correctly the linkage arms are the same lengh and the holes are in the same position on the hammer.

I sold my 98ACT, so I can't compare the linkage arm, but I do happen to have an ACT rear bolt sitting around and the hole that the linkage arm fits into is in the same spot as the standard 98 rear bolt/hammer.

Ok, so I guess I didnt realize how the ACT worked exactly. i didnt relize that the linkage arm came up out of the rear bolt.  However, I will say that when you look at the Platinum parts list, the ACT and non-ACT utilize the same receivers. If this is the case, than I would think you could just replace the linkage arm at most to get it to work?

oldpbnoob wrote: Ok, so I guess I didnt realize how the ACT worked exactly. i didnt relize that the linkage arm came up out of the rear bolt.  However, I will say that when you look at the Platinum parts list, the ACT and non-ACT utilize the same receivers. If this is the case, than I would think you could just replace the linkage arm at most to get it to work?

I can't say for sure; but, since I am curious about this now, I sense an experiment taking place next week sometime.  If I get to mess around and test this out, I will post the results.