|Paintball News The latest in paintball news brought to you by the oldest independent publication in paintball and the best paintball site on the web - The Paintball News and MCB|
| ||Thread Tools|
|01-11-2013, 03:40 PM||#3 (permalink)|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Traverse City, MI
This ad. doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Maybe it's my liberal arts education creeping up on me...
Shouldn't it read "68ci/4500psi" not "68/4500ci" since the first number is the volume and the second number is the pressure value?
Also, shouldn't it read "payload 68-4.5k compressed" not "payload 68-45k compressed?"
Afterall, it's 4,500psi, not 45,000psi.
Is there anything different between the two tanks aside from color?
|01-11-2013, 04:29 PM||#4 (permalink)|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bronson, FL
I thought the same thing...either that is some bad typos, or those are some HUGE tanks for paintball.
|01-11-2013, 04:29 PM||#5 (permalink)|
Doesn't care (/◕ヮ◕)/
Damn, 4500ci, i'd hate to carry that around.
Mabey if everyone yells "25/4500psi tank for pumps" loud enough someone will hear lol
I don't always play pump, but when I do, I prefer a rotor.....stay agg my friends.
|01-11-2013, 05:29 PM||#6 (permalink)|
Facta Non Verba
The only differences I see are the color schemes. One seems to be designed for the woods while the other is designed to look like a NOS bottle. Ironically, NOS and turbo aren't the same thing either.
Ad mistakes aside, I'll look at picking one up later in the year when I need a new tank.
|01-11-2013, 09:04 PM||#9 (permalink)|
Join Date: Feb 2009
When I used to get PBX magazines, I noticed typos in the ads all of the time. Drove me nuts.