The accuracy of this review is disputed. Please see discussion below.
Period of Product Use:
Less than a month
3 of 29 people found this review helpful.
Similar Products Used:
Spyder E-Mr1 (silver )
Kingman training Eraser ( black )
VL force with eyes ( black )
12oz Co2 ( air soon )
Mr series riser rail
custom wooden stock
2 spare mags for eraser
Spyder 2 pod carrier
barrel, a nice cleaning and some paint
Shoots great, uses 68 cal paint
Very un efficient, bulky, ugly, magnesium trigger
Well my friend has the tpx pistol and i have the KT eraser, we swap every game we go to and we did this for about a month or so, let me just say compared to my eraser, it is garbage, its too big, very bad on gas, i have to bring 5-10 co2 with me per game compared to my 2-3 for my eraser, no simulated cocking action. it just does not feel like a proper sidearm. it is like tippmann tried to put everything on the gun they could, ex: the side windows to view the ammo left ? i rather think when im playing and remember how many i had shot, it makes you a better paintball player.
Overall i would never recommend this to family or friends, it is bad for the price, price on gas, and is very ugly.
Dispute: This review compares the TPX to an eraser, and compares the gas efficiency of the two. This can't be done fairly as the TPX fires a .68 round and an eraser fires the .5 caliber, so it will automatically get more shots per CO2. That is the essential reason PnoyRx7 doesn't like the TPX, and that reason is BS. The price is only $20 more than an Eraser, so the price argument is invalid. The looks of the gun are his opinion and will naturally vary from person to person so I have no problem with that part of the review. Overall, the review compares the TPX to a completely different type of gun, the KT Eraser, two guns that don't fire the same paintball and aren't even supposed to be played together in the same game.
I think this review offers an extremely unfair rating. Part of me would like to dispute the review outright, but PaintballFreak has already done that. The review is excessively short and makes no effort to weigh the pros and cons of the product beyond what's minimally required to post the review. The bulk of the commentary revolves around Co2 consumption & looks.
I can't personally comment on comparable products with regards to C02 usage since the TPX is the only pistol I've used, but based on Freaks comments it would seem that an unfair comparison has been made to a pistol that does not fire the same type of paint. This in my mind nullifies said comparison since consumption rates will obviously differ.
And as for the look of the product, that's down to personal preferences. While it can certainly be worthwhile to include your opinion on looks in a review, they should have little-to -no bearing on how the product is rated overall since aesthetics have almost nothing to do with functionality. The product worked, and apparently worked well excepting Co2 usage, and so the fact that you didn't like the look shouldn't figure into as more than a passing reference.
A rating of 2 is far too harsh for what the complaints are and I found this review extremely unhelpful as a result.
Last edited on Friday, May 28th, 2010 at 11:40 am PST
Dispute: I have to disagree with this. Tippmann did all they could to compress the size of a regular marker into a small package, with gas and paint all internal. I think it's size is rather impressive considering all the other .68 caliber markers out there. And that's something else you must consider, many fields won't allow .43 caliber markers because they don't sell paint in that size. So having a marker that is universal and accepted everywhere is worth the added size of the pistol.