True or False: Phantom works best with co2

[iamthelazerviking]

Pretty sure threads existed on the 'ol MCB about this...

Aside from just 12 gram stock class play, anyone still swear by co2? The Phantom was designed for co2, so it makes sense, even though HPA is cheaper/easier to use.

But if we're talking performance, would you prefer co2?

[Axel]

I need to swap mainsprings to switch between gases and keep the velocity in the tunable range, but either is fine. I can't really say one is better than the other

[pghp8ntballer]

I use CO2 exclusively with my Phantom... because its cheaper and easier to use.
I play so rarely now that keeping an HPA tank up and running is cost/time prohibitive with hydro tests. I have access to our local fire dept's compressor, so air is free. But I have to go to the fire dept to fill. If the tanks are in hydro.
12g are cheap to me because I just buy Daisy. I clean the marker basically every time I use it, so I'm not worried about dirty CO2. Out of hundreds of Daisy 12g, I might have had 5 at most that were underfilled or excessively dirty.
I can also fill my 3.5oz, 7oz, or 10 oz tanks in the comfort of my workshop since I have a 20 lb bulk tank. Also, those tanks are hydro-exempt. So the cost is the occasional bulk tank test or refill which is not that much.

Even in 40 deg weather, I still get 25-30 shots on a 12g. Thats enough for me. If I need to swap springs, not a big deal. I can always chrono/test at home.

Performance wise? I don't care. I don't buy into the hype of HPA. Not for a phantom anyway. Angel, Mag, Cocker, superfastelectrothingamajigger, yes HPA all the way. Spyders, Nelsons, Brass Eagles, Tippmanns, etc CO2 is totally fine. Even a sniper is fine with CO2. But a high end sniper like CCMs and AT equipped snipers that can rattle off paint, definitely HPA.

[Siress]

"best" is subjective. Objectively speaking, CO2 is less consistent from shot-to-shot, causes wild velocity fluctuations throughout a typical play day due to thermal and internal volume/pressure sensitivity, has the tendency to give away your position with a visible plume, is more expensive to use since most fields include HPA in the field fee, and is more dangerous* than HPA. However, it does give you more shots per unit volume and the tanks are substantially cheaper.

* the only paintball tank related death that I have seen record of was caused by a CO2 tank. I will further substantiate my claim by pointing out that CO2, by nature, is a much better rocket propellant than HPA in the same cylinder; HPA rapidly disperses while CO2 has latent release as it phase changes from liquid to gas. That said, I've always worried that someone's going to make a regulator that allows the explosive energy of HPA to become fatal. That day has not yet come.

edit: forgot to add, I use exclusively HPA when I have the choice. Otherwise, I'll rejigger the springs for CO2 and complain about it at least 3 times throughout the day.

[Chuck E Ducky]

I have my HPA tanks shimmed out at 825 psi output pressure so I can swap back-and-forth between 12g and HPA without swapping springs. It’s usually within 20 ft./s over the Chrono switching between the two.

CO2 is definitely a quieter Shot, and you get more shots in a smaller package. If you work within the limitations of CO2 it works great. It’s every bit as consistent as HPA. But it has its limitations. Too hot you’re blowin bursts disks. Too Cold your efficiency and recharge rate takes a dump.

HPA is way more consistent when it comes to temperature fluctuations, easier to fill, if it’s cold there’s a huge advantage to HPA. With HPA you’re not waiting for the gas to expand so if your firing rapidly you won’t lose velocity. Performance wise HPA is a better option but I get why people still use Co2 and prefer it.

For me Sub 60* I’m using HPA. Above 60* I like to run 12g. I don’t own any actual Co2 tanks. I do own a bunch of different size HPA tanks to match my loadout. I’m particularly fond of my 9ci That’s good for 150 shots @280 FPS on a hot fill with my phantom.

[frd333do33]

CO2 in a Phantom is better because the Phantom is quieter on CO2 than on HPA.

With that said, I only use CO2 in the form of 12 grams. And only a few times a year for woodsball on someone's ranch or stock class only games.
All the fields near me don't fill CO2 anymore and HPA is included in admission. I use either a 9ci, 10ci, or 13ci tank for HPA. It falls under the 2" diameter rule, so no hydro testing needed.

I can't tell any difference in performance between the two gasses.

[SignOfZeta]

I’ve only ever used CO2, 12gs and bottles, and never a single complaint.

[Jonnydread]

The sound signature with CO2 is much more pleasing to me, anecdotally I feel like CO2 has a "softer" shot too. I've used HPA on Phantoms and it works just fine, but I'll always default to CO2 unless it's too hot or too cold.

[gabe]

IMO the shot quality with HPA just kind of sucks. On CO2 you get a nice tight shot with great consistency and with HPA it's just...meh. Kind of like a limp fart and velocity isn't nearly as consistent.

[JonM]

I'm with the CO2 crowd on this one. While the Phantom can run on HPA, I've found them to be a bit more temperamental when using it.

[Siress]

Sounds like someone is going to have to do some science to demonstrate the differences between CO2 and HPA. In my experience, I don't actually pay attention to sound signatures since I hear them both just fine, but it wouldn't surprise me if CO2 is quieter due to the progressive expansion. Consistency, though... Testing that is challenging since CO2 is sensitive to the gas delivery configuration; VSC, back-bottle, with or without expansion chamber, with or without in-line filter/diffuser, thermal changes due to CO2 phase changes induced by high rate of fire.... ugh. CO2 is so much more finicky. This is why I complain about CO2. I don't care if there's a needle to thread where it improves sound signature when I know it's going to be less consistent as the day goes on due to ROF and environmental temperature differences. For science, though... here's a simple DOE I'll put out into the world and hope someone follows through on..haha

[SignOfZeta]

I think before anyone does that it would be a good idea to survey what HPA setups people have. HPA is more stable than CO2 for use in a paintball gun. That’s so not in question that it’s pointless to prove or even mention. The issue is that Phantoms, configured as they are amongst the userbase, seem to like CO2 better. The Phantom, or the Phantoms that exist, are the problem.

Is it correct to say that most if not all Phantoms shipped ready for CO2 and changed almost not at all over the life of CCI? Also is it fair to say that users generally make HPA conversions themselves or the previous owner did? Regardless, there are about a million different HPA Phantoms configs out there. Perhaps none of them are ideal and we’re still looking for the right HPA Phantom setup.

Last year I converted a ‘99 cocker to CO2 and it wasn’t easy. I was new to Cockers and nobody seemed to have a solid enough understanding of what my issues were to help. “Try everything” seems to be people’s way of fixing things even in situations where you’d think could just make a parts list that would work for everyone. There’s always some dude who wants to lighten his hammer and nothing he does will work with you gun, this other gun got his main spring from an RC car, this guy still “hot rods” valves, etc. Meanwhile most CO2 Phantom guys don’t even use a reg. A stock Phantom is a known quantity an HPA Phantom could be anything.

The inconsistency is likely in the user base, is what I’m saying. No DOE needed, you can’t measure the nut behind the wheel.

[Siress]

HPA is more stable than CO2 for use in a paintball gun. ...
The inconsistency is likely in the user base, ...

That's really all there is to it. People have biases and preferences. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that CO2 shoots more consistently than well-regulated HPA; its pressure is stable while CO2 pressure is chaotic. That's really where I stop thinking about it because there's nothing more important to consider. But if people want to claim otherwise the least I can do is setup the DOE to prove it right or wrong.

[gabe]

I would argue that in specific valvetrains that CO2 is actually more consistent than HPA. The nelson valve is one of those. The actual volume of gas is so small that to use HPA instead of CO2 you have to have a very long dwell and while snipers are very good at that due to the mass of the hammer and ability to use weaker valve springs and not have leaks while pumping, the Nelson has to use balanced springing causing the valve dwell to be extremely short.

In this case CO2 has a higher specific energy by volume so can take advantage of this valvetrain and it's short dwell better than HPA. When you tune for HPA you're basically just hanging the valve open longer which (and no science here) seems to make the Nelson style valvetrain less consistent. My theory there would be that it's easier to open a valve consistently right at 6ms or so than 12ms just due to the fact that any percentage variance based on mechanical drag or whatnot will far more greatly affect the longer dwell time in terms of millisecond variances by percentage.

Compounding that is the fact that the Phantom and Nelsons in general use so little gas that you never have to fight CO2 evaporation/liquid ingestion issues which might cause consistency problems. The only exception there being back bottle setups.

[chrislognshot]

it will change do to weather. since colder it is changes how gun acts to Co2 then to hpa