Posted by: m98monkey on April 22, 2003 at 11:56:29

Well, that depends, there are ups and downs to both. The co2 will get you more shots per fill in comparison to the size you chose. The imp will work well on it, I can say the from experience. However it is a dirty gas and if you have anything white inside the gun like a delrin bolt, it will show you that it is dirty. HPA is cleaner, easier to stabilize, and generally just a better gas. However, with the size of tank you listed, you shot count will be cut in half for fills. Plus it will probably be heavier, because most tanks that size are steel/aluminum now, not carbon. Pros and cons for both, I'm a believer in compressed air now, I finally am able to get it and got a 68 cub 4500 psi tank, I love it! I guess I would recommend saving more money and getting a 4500 psi tank.

Follow Ups: Post a Followup Show your name as: DefaultRealnameBothNickname E-Mail address (eg: joeschmoe@aol.com): Show your e-mail address? DefaultYesNo Your Password: Don't have a password? CLICK HERE - Forgot your password? CLICK HERE Subject: Subject:Message: : Well, that depends, there are ups and downs to both. : The co2 will get you more shots per fill in comparison to the size you chose. The imp will work well on it, I can say the from experience. However it is a dirty gas and if you have anything white inside the gun like a delrin bolt, it will show you that it is dirty. : HPA is cleaner, easier to stabilize, and generally just a better gas. However, with the size of tank you listed, you shot count will be cut in half for fills. Plus it will probably be heavier, because most tanks that size are steel/aluminum now, not carbon. : Pros and cons for both, I'm a believer in compressed air now, I finally am able to get it and got a 68 cub 4500 psi tank, I love it! I guess I would recommend saving more money and getting a 4500 psi tank. [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ WARPIG Tech Talk - Air ]