CO2 vs. N2
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: Paintball Equipment
Forum Name: Upgrades and Customizing
Forum Description: Trick it out!
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=150802
Printed Date: 29 April 2026 at 7:45pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: CO2 vs. N2
Posted By: CrazyWalnut
Subject: CO2 vs. N2
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 8:01pm
| What is the difference between CO2 and Compressed Air? Is one better? |
Replies:
Posted By: DanSD
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 8:29pm
|
Air is more consistent,not affected by temperature changes, has no weight, won't freeze your orings. Blah blah blah. Air is just better all around.
------------- Don't hate the player... Hate the game. |
Posted By: SuzukiRider987
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 8:46pm
| Read http://www.specialopspaintball.com/articles/Co2orN2.asp - this . Theres a lot of good info in that article. And HPA (N2)>Co2. |
Posted By: Ashdawg
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 10:34pm
|
thats a great editorial...very informative.
------------- "Too close for missles, switching to guns..." |
Posted By: Cheetos3254
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 10:41pm
|
HPA>Co2 ------------- 
|
Posted By: mjicmike
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 11:28pm
The only thing CO2 has over N2 is number of shots, provided if the tanks were the same size.  ------------- A5 Rfs Dwg triggr Ricochet R5 8"Lapco Bigsht/14"CP Classic Palmers Stab. Lapco uni-mount DOP bullet drop fwd PMI 88/4500 Woods Flatline/14"Lapco Bigsht CMI Thunder pig reg. Remote adj. stk |
Posted By: the_skdster
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 11:49pm
|
Now read THIS: You should here the side of CO2 as well. ------------- ~OTKer_4_Life~ The Gear A-5 ShinyInternals E-Grip w/WAS APEX PalmersStabilizer MP5CollapsableStock RemoteLine 42mmRedDotSight TacCap WarsensorTacticalVest |
Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 11:55pm
I'm sorry, but a lot of that info is just plain warped. |
the_skdster wrote:Posted By: the_skdster
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 12:15am
Well. I'm just helping defend poor old CO2.  And what part of it is "warped"? ------------- ~OTKer_4_Life~ The Gear A-5 ShinyInternals E-Grip w/WAS APEX PalmersStabilizer MP5CollapsableStock RemoteLine 42mmRedDotSight TacCap WarsensorTacticalVest |
Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 1:23am
For starters, since whe are C02 tanks cost fifty bucks? Since when do C02 tanks always get more shots than HPA systems? Since when do good HPA taks start at 300 bucks? And that was just in the first half. |
Posted By: pbhalo
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 3:39pm
|
wtf just use what u want to use thats what i say i held down a trger of a full auto on co2 for to min but did not freeze the gun up at all it was very cold after words ------------- english 101 remedial kick ass |
Posted By: SuzukiRider987
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 3:44pm
Face it, CO2 sucks. I mean, for the cost of making your gun the best it can be with CO2, you'd already be well on youw way to buying a nice HPA tank. And as Hybrid stated, that article sucks also. |
Posted By: hansolo8221
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 10:50pm
|
First off, the prices quoted in the CO2 article are way off probably because that article is a couple of years old. My only main problem with the article is that he says that a 68/3000 tank will not get you as many shots as a 12oz CO2. That is bull. Going by the common rule of thumb, a 68/3000 will get you 680 shots. I have been using a 12oz Co2, with anti-siphon and a Palmers Stab for a couple years now. I have never gotten 700 shots from it. At best I would say 600, but I doubt it is quite that high. Now I've used CO2 for some time, and last year I played at a field that just loans out HPA tanks when you pay for all day air. Using HPA, I noticed no better performance from my gun than it does on CO2. This is probably because I've put so many CO2 enhancing parts into it. However, soon I plan to go LP, and I will be getting a HPA tank for that. I also would have gotten HPA if I had a full auto kit. Suzuki, I don't consider my CO2 upgrades to be money wasted. My anti-siphon was $4 worth of fittings and copper tube, and I enjoyed installing it myself (my idea of fun is taking apart and fixing things). My Palmers will go with my LPK when it arrives. So I don't feel that I wasted any money; on the contrary, I made an efficient, consistent marker, and enjoyed it for a couple of extra years before I felt it was necessary to put out the $200 for a decent HPA system. And Pbhalo, you may not have done any immediate damage, but prolonged use at high rates of fire on CO2, game after game, WILL wear out your seals and o-rings faster. Also, HPA has a major advantage (besides gas quality and temperature variation) in that all HPA tanks are regulated, so your velocity and accuracy will always be consistent. Unregulated CO2, however, can imput upwards of 1000psi into your marker when full, and will work its way to 0 when empty. That means that you fill your tank, walk to the chrono, set your velocity, and start playing. After a couple hundred shots your velocity is going to drop off dramatically, as the pressure in your tank lowers. The only way to avoid this is to mount a reg on your gun. BTW, you should take about 15 seconds extra and put a few more letters and punctuation in your posts. It is easier to convince people of your point if they can understand what you are writing. ------------- Tippmann A-5 12" J&J Ceramic Barrel J&J aluminum .45 style grip KAPP micro apocalypse drop Empire On/Off bottomline JCS Rear velocity adjuster Palmer Stabilizer PMI 12oz CO2 with anti-siphon |
Posted By: warbeak2099
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 11:31am
|
Now, if you asked Glenn Palmer he would obviously support co2. His reasoning is that you can set it up to be as consistant as co2. Double regging, throwing an x-chamber in there, using an anti-siphon or remote line, etc. However, to set co2 up like this would cost over $200. For that you could get a nice 4500psi air tank.
If you don't spend all that money making a co2 friendly setup, you won't be able to shoot fast without getting terrible drop off, wearing down your internals really fast, or even jamming. I got a peice of solid co2 lodged in my valve once because I was shooting so fast. This was with my 98c. I was probably only pulling around 10-12bps. Even at that speed, the co2 couldn't expand fast enough. ------------- MIDN 2/C, US Navy LCE-SpyderMag | G-Force Pneumatic Mag | '99 RF Sniper II |