Emulsion vs Bladder shocks

[NitritedCarbide]

I'm running a dual setup on my RR10.
Less crawling more U4/bash style of driving & terrain.
Powerstrokes all around- Slash front, XTs in rear..
Not the lightest rig (2sp, brushless, bunch of metal)

In my daily browsing Ive come across vids of people cutting out the bladders to essentially convert the shock to emulsion type.

I run low wt oil (17wt) in my shocks, tested everything from 40 and below..
My train of thought- double the shocks, double the dampening capacity.
20-30wt was too unresponsive for my liking/driving.

My end goal is to increase the sensitivity of the shock. I have read that emulsion shocks are "softer" than the bladder counterpart on same wt.

Anyone have experience in this area before I go cutting up bladders?

[OSRC]

I've found shocks with bladders to be far more consistent. However, shock bladders are cheap and it's as easily reversible mod.

I will say that tuning a dual shock setup is far more difficult to setup than a single. I'd run one shock empty(for looks) and focus on tuning a single shock. I think you'll find the suspension much more active after removing 1/2 of the dampening and get better results overall than dinking around with the bladders.

[JatoTheRipper]

I prefer bladder shocks. For me, they are easier to fill and get setup to feel the way I want. Emulsion shocks seem more inconsistent and filling them is more critical. I find it difficult to fill emulsion shocks between the point of hydrolock and no rebound (underfilled).