I might have to rethink my position

[druid]

in RE: to the first strike rounds....

On all the other forums I've posted on about this round, I have not much that's good to say about it. My reasons come from the fact that I have extensive knowledge on the FN303 (we use 6 at work) and this round is not much different. I know what the unweighted, clear 303 training round does and for all intents and purposes, this thing isn't that different. I've argued that the fin cylinder on the back of the round WILL cause extensive or added damage because the construct of that fin is different than the front, that the added serrations fromn the inpact will cause additional damage to soft tissue and the fact that we encounter so many MORONS on the field that amp up their markers ON PURPOSE.......let alone those few that will spike from CO2 use.
Don't believe me? Look at this:
http://milsimempire.com/viewtopic.ph...&sd=a&start=15
Can I let out the "I told you so" now or should I wait for later?

[Critical]

Yes, that shot was posted elsewhere. Yes, that was a bad welt, however, it is nowhere near the worst that any of us have seen. Yes, the First Strike needs to prove itself in the field, both in safety and in function. However, and with all due respect, there are plenty of threads here and elsewhere discussing the First Strike. My purpose was to highlight a marker that had the potential to make full use of those rounds, if they were to prove themselves.

In further news, apparently they were testing the First Strike rounds in this marker and were hitting a 24" x 36" target at 90 yards.

[slim and shady]

I really like the marker, not really the safty of the round, but I think they could potentialy have ways to solve this. I still would like to get my hands on it and try it out. I really think the marker could be great just have to wait and see!