The M16 has a special place in my heart. My military career revolved around two versions of the rifle. In bootcamp, I became familiar with the aging but rugged M16A2, becoming intimately familiar with its handling characteristics. In SOI and the fleet (Marine Corp infantry) I spent 99% of my time with an M16A4. The only difference between the A2 and A4, that I saw, was the A4 had a rail instead of a built-in carry handle that housed the rear sight. Other than that, there were no real functional differences.
About a year ago, I got myself a PSA16 which is pretty much like the M16A4, but without the metal rail system. It has rekindled my love for the M16 system, but is tempting me to buy a Harrington and Richardson M16A2 reproduction just so I can benefit from the battle proven iron sight/carrying handle setup. Anyways, this is what sparked this article.

​The M16A2 was the weapon I qualified with in Marine Boot Camp. It was rugged and easy to use. When I was in the Fleet, I mainly had an M16A4 which weighed as much as my Tavor7 after being all decked out with sight, light, laser system, sling, grip pod, and cleaning kit in the stock. Recently I bought the 20” PSA15 (Palmetto State Armory) with the old school sight system, handguards, and Mil-Spec everything. I wanted to take a few moments to look at the concept of the M16 platform (A1, A2, A3, A4) and why I even bothered going with this type of system over the venerable and much loved M4 style (16”) rifle.

​The Tavor 7 may be pretty new to the American market, but the idea of getting a .308 rifle on/near the level of functionality as a 5.56 rifle has been around for decades. Many people who have used the 5.56 in combat, myself included, are not too impressed with some of its weaknesses. This leads to people looking for a rifle that gives them a good balance of controllability, reliability, capacity, ease of use, and the ability to accessorize. The Tavor 7 hit that fine balance for me, but it does need some help through aftermarket accessories in order to truly get it to the level of a 5.56 rifle. I have already covered/will cover these modifications and additions individually in separate articles, so I am not going to delve into nauseating detail here. Rather, I am going to focus on why and how these components optimize the performance of the Tavor 7.

Recently I shamelessly picked up the IWI Tavor 7. Unfortunately this marks the end of my PTR91 videos since I will need to sell it in order to swallow the almost $2.000 investment I just made in my .308 game. Alot has happened in just a day, which is all the time I have had with it, at the time of typing up this article. I have practiced with it's manual of arms, zeroed my optic of choice, and set it up for close to medium range engagements. The Tavor 7 is being well-groomed to be my battle rifle of choice.

The idea of the bullpup sounds nice on paper, but is hardly easy to carry out in practice in terms of making one reliable and completely accepted. Bullpup rifles often get a bad reputation due to a few perceived disadvantages displayed by certain bullpup designs used in history, and even today. I am going to look at a few bullpup designs to understand why people often feel that the bullpup has no place in a modern military or battlefield with current rifle fighting techniques.

The roller-delayed blowback system is not complex in general, but it does require a very specific manual of arms. It is simple and universal in technique, but it has to be done the right way in order to be fluid. Now, you may never get as fast with it as you would with other weapons that have bolts that lock back on the last shot, but you will be smooth and be able to do it naturally without having to look at your gun while operating it. Practice and really forcing the rifle around is the best way to go, in my experience.

When I first started getting into the world of bullpup rifles, I was looking at the Steyr AUG but wasn't sure that it fit all my needs. The magazines were expensive and hard to come by, and the rifle was not well reviewed by those who already had a bias against bullpups. It is hard to find credible and knowledgeable reviews on bullpups anyways since few people understand the platform. However, I have found that the criticism is solely around this illusion that speed is the key to everything and intuitive function comes second to thinking lightning fast makes up for shortcomings of the more popular rifle designs. Anyways, I wanted to give an update on my experience with the Steyr AUG NATO and some of the changes I have made in how I run it and its function while shooting.

My love for bullpups started before I even had experience using a firearm. I liked the looks of the British L85 rifles. The green furniture of the rifle and the compact, aggressive look made it oh so appealing. After I joined the military and had experience with using an M16/M4 to clear urban environments, I realized that having a rifle dangling out in front of me did not fill me with alot of confidence. This brings me to why I opted for a bullpup when I got out.

In a long and growing line of bullpups, the Steyr AUG has remained as a fine example for others to follow. I think it is easy for people to brush the AUG off as being some obsolete design simply because of its' age. But what people fail to realize is the fact that it has served over a dozen militaries really well and with distinction. It has seen several changes and upgrades to keep it relevant in a world where accessories and modularity are highly valued.