Tippmann 98C, cyclone, RT, Rear cocker, dye stikkees, double trigger, J&J edge kit 14", BT apex, PMI 72/3000, Ricochet R5, PSI coiled remote, Java 4+1, PMI 68/4500, empire tank cover, dead on pro seal and powertube.
Fast, no batteries, normally reliable, manual feed option which can work like a rip drive
Cheap plastic parts, uses air, flat hopper front
Alrite, when i first got the cyclone i had the local pro shop put it on my gun and i was happy with it up until about a week ago. Up till then it had been shooting like a dream, no chopping, no misfeeds, no bad things. About a week ago i started having problems with it not turning the sprocket all the way. So i checked it out, played around with it a bit, and had it working when i dry fired. took it out on the field a few days ago, and once again, i'd only get the three balls that were in the chamber, breech and sprocket. I took it home again and realized that all of the cheap plastic parts, like the cylinder (the interior one) and the ratchet were taking a lot of wear and the sprocket was unable to catch the little gear thing. So now i've ordered about 20 bux worth of new parts, and we'll see what happens.
Also, this thing uses air, and i know what they say, it's excess air. U wanna know where that excess air comes from? it's from you turning up your velocity so that you can keep the gun at a reasonably high speed, but also be able to have some to spare when your cyclone feeds.
Update: With the new parts, this is up and running again. The new parts are a much stronger plastic, and i'm confident they'll last much longer. I only wish tippmann had installed these on my first cyclone, but nothing's perfect.
A great idea on tippmann's part, this is definately a worthwhile upgrade for your 98C or custom pro. However, you should be ready to replace the plastic parts every year or so. I give it a seven because i really dislike paying sixty for this loader then having to spend another 20 each year to replace cheap parts, but if they were something else... like aluminum then this would be a nine. Only a nine because of the decreased air efficiency.
7 out of 10
Last edited on Wednesday, December 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pm PST