Overall:

Status: Discontinued.  This gun was made either in 1994 or 1995.  Can still be found in some stores.

Classification: Super light rifle. 

Uses: High mobility operations, small skimishes, raids.

Average price: Unsure

Versions: 2 versions, they have different color schemes.

Performance:

Water capacity versus nozzle output: Average.  You would have water for a decent amount of time.

Water distance: I cannot recall.  It was pretty powerful, so probably 25-30 ft..

Nozzle size:1x I think

Sting factor(power of stream) scale of 1-10: 6-7  this weapon did have a very powerful stream.

Wind deflection: Not bad at all

Water tank vs. Pressure chamber ratio:  Single reservoir design

Actual weapon:

Ruggedness: Very good.  I was still cheaply made, but would hold together.

Construction: Somewhat flimsy.  The water bottle-gun connection was really weak.   It would crack and leak.  The gun flet flimsy when you held it.

Field use: Pretty useful.  An average weapon for you to hand out to one of your men.

Specialized or Versitile?  An extremely veratile weapon.  Very similar to the XP-70, except with a single reservoir design.

Designs

Looks: Decent looks.  Nobody will make fun of it.

Features: Single reservoir, unguided pump

Comfort: Handle near the top is kind of uncomfortabe.  Other than that, it is okay.

Balance: I can't remember the balance of the gun.  The gun worked pretty good, you would not have to worry too much about balance.

Can you put a strap on it?  No

Other

Things to note:  Bright orange. Very powerful.

modified or not modified? Not modified, except to strengthen the spot where the connection to the tank would crack.

Could this gun use camoflage?  Yes

Recommended? Yes, if you don't mind water leaking all over your hand.

This gun is a decent gun, but not a great one.  I would recommend it for regular fighting.  I used to own 2 of them but have none now, I think my mom threw them away.  What I remember of them, they had serious firepower.  In such a small package, they packed some punch!  The trouble with them was poor construction, and in turn, the ruggedness of the weapon was compromised.  The screw in part of the gun where the plastic water tank screwed on took a lot of stress and eventually cracked on both guns, obviously a design flaw.   Also when you just picked up the weapon, you could feel that it wasn't made the same, it felt kind of flimsy, but then you could still beat it around, or throw it on the ground and it could take it.  In that sense, it was tough, on the outside.  On the inside, it was very delicate, the plastic was cheap, it was not put together with the utmost care. This could have been a truly classic weapon if it did not have so many flaws. I would use it again.  Now that I think about it, I really did love that gun.

It was a good gun for the guys that treated their weapons like dirt.  even when leaking from all the cracks, this gun would still fire, and fire hard, and that is what I will remember most about it.