Preamble
This is my first review on M4Carbine. After writing all this, I am thinking that some people may prefer to sit down and watch a video, hear some gunfire and music that sounds like it’s from a 70’s adult film. That will come, but for now, I wanted to sit down and give due diligence to a high quality part, and write the review I told a friend who designed this part I would write too long ago. I still read reviews, I watch some videos also. I actually have made a video review for this part, but I need to get back out to my range and cover one of the variants that I didn’t have for the first recording. But, if you don’t mind sitting back and reading about this super exciting part I’m reviewing, then welcome. I hope you learn something about a part you may not be aware of. There may be times that I sound like an infomercial, that isn’t intentional. But what is intentional is to raise awareness of a small business who is making an excellent part. I don’t get squat for this review, nor do I ask, nor have I told Mech Armor I’m writing one.
As an aside, and being a student of life, I welcome constructive criticism on my review. I believe I can communicate verbally and with the written word fairly well, I can certainly write technical software documentation, but this is a review on M4Carbine.net. so I expect there is something for me to learn.
Legend:
CH – Charging Handle
DMR – Designated Marksman Rifle, mine is in .308 Win.
About me
For those of you who do not know me, I love building AR’s. It’s to the point where I’m ready to sit in that circle and say, “Hi, my name is Robert and I’m addicted to building AR’s.” Unfortunately, or fortunately my bank account doesn’t allow me to get my fix on a weekly basis, but if it could, I probably would. If not for me, then for someone else. I also appreciate M4carbine.net The comradery, the laughs, I’ve made what I believe are some lifelong friendships because of this forum. That’s one reason I’m a site sponsor. To give back a little. I encourage you to check out site sponsorship. It’s a good investment.
That said, over the course of the twelve AR’s I’ve built, (builds 13 and 14 are in progress) plus one .308, my DMR and a CMMG Mk3 .308 modernization/upgrade project I was hired to do, I have developed a go-to list of parts that I want to use each and every build. Some of those parts are LMT BCG’s, PRI fixed sights, BA or DD barrels, LaRue or Centurion hard guards etc. Rifles with a certain purpose may get a certain trigger that another purposed AR won’t get. Now I really owe the majority, at least 98% of that list to docsherm. He was very instrumental in setting the foundation for many of those parts, and he has definitely not just given me knowledge, but he gave my knowledge context. If you know what I mean by that, then you know how valuable that is. However, there have been times where I’ve wandered away from that list and sometimes that was a bad decision but sometimes it was a good decision. With this particular charging handle, it was a good decision. I actually found a very solid part, a functional part, a part that was designed with a purpose which is how I start off every AR build. There must be a purpose. That means each part must have a purpose. Looking cool or pretty, is not a purpose.
But before I get the to all the pictures, I’d like to give some background details, the story behind the part.
The part I am reviewing is the Mech Armor TacOps charging handle. Primarily the TacOps Sniper 7.62, but have included the AR-15 CQB version, the TacOps CQB as well. So what led me on a search for a different charging handle, and subsequently, to Mech Armor’s website? (www.mechdefense.com) At that very early stage in my AR building “career” (don’t laugh!) I had been exposed to the BCM Gunfighter Mod 4, which I disliked due to the pickaxe sized latch that either dug into my back, or my sternum/ribcage. I had also been exposed to the Radian Raptor, formerly known as the Artist: AXTS…Raptor. I loved and hated the Raptor. I loved the ergonomics, the fact it did not dig a hole in my chest or back, but hated that it certainly dug a hole in my wallet. Lastly, I was exposed to a self-modified mil spec charging handle with a rather large “tactical latch”. This was not a winner in my book because I could feel my charging handle torque to one side when actuating with the latch, due to more force being applied to one side of the latch. So the Badger was a No-Go. During this time, it was also cemented in my mind that I wanted an ambidextrous charging handle. In in short my criteria were 1) Don’t dig a hole in my body. 2) Don’t dig a big hole in my wallet and 3) Be ambidextrous. Right before I reached the end of the internet, I landed on Mech Armor’s website. After looking at their charging handle design, plus finding a military discount that at that time put the TacOps almost $30 bucks cheaper than the Raptor, I saw a strong candidate to my search. I decided to contact the company and find out why they felt they needed to create another charging handle when there are already probably more than 30 CH’s out there. Granted, some charging handles look like they could be used as a weapon, or roast marshmallows, but they were still charging handles. At least in word. I emailed the company and was very fortunate to receive an email back from a gentleman named Van Barker, who was one of the original designers of the TacOps along with Rick Asher. Van was approaching 70 and preferred the phone, so we had a few long conversations. It was during these chats and a few emails, that I learned the TacOps charging handle addressed my points, but also several issues or point as well.
Here are those points, extrapolated from my conversations with Van, and Mech Armor’s website, but condensed and mostly in my own words:
•Provide a charging handle for precision guns, such as the M110 that provided sufficient grip or finger purchase even when larger objective scopes are being used. (This was the impetus that led to the TacOps-1
design.
•Provide a better solution to the single point of failure on the mil spec charging handle – the small latch pin, which when broke, renders the CH INOP, Bravo Delta.
•Provide precision gun shooters and snipers with a charging handle that can be more easily actioned from a hide, prone, and with minimal body movement.
•Build a higher quality charging handle using 7075-T6 billet aluminum.
•Provide an ambidextrous charging handle designed so that the weapon can be actioned with a wounded hand,
• Provide a more natural man to machine interface for lefties to cycle their weapon using the charging handle OR for wounded hand cycling.
There are some other interesting things to note about this charging handle. Some of this is directly from their website. The last point is my point.
-Charging handle was put through a continuous 10,000 round endurance tested by Colt with a zero failure rate
-Awarded the NTOA Gold Seal of Testing & Recommendation
-In use by many Law Enforcement Agencies/Government Agencies. Van also informed me that the CH was in use in Afghanistan.
-It has a lifetime warranty regardless of normal civilian use, LEO duty use, or breakage military operations.
-Lastly, LaRue Tactical sells two charging handles besides mil spec ones. Precision Reflex’s Gas Buster, and Mech Defense’s TacOps-1. He doesn’t sell crap. This is what I know.
The Solution:
•To address the first issue. The standard CH on the M110 was a pain in the *** to actuate. So the width and curve of the charging handle gives an easy means to cycle the BCG, even when a large diameter scope is
being used. This design also improved the ability to locate the charging handle, even while your eye is glued to the scope. The design also helped the bolt cycling to be a smooth motion, not requiring any
movement of the upper body.
•To address the single point of failure, Van and his team made the latch pin out of 7lb stainless steel, and the pin is 42% larger in diameter than the mil spec latch pin.
•The 7075-T6 billet aluminum gives you a solid, rigid handle that when cycling weak side did not torque or bend. Those of us not so ambidextrous will tend to torque the charging handle, just because we’re
uncoordinated. At least that has been my observation. This is just a very well constructed CH.
•The ambidextrous functionality of the CH is just natural. That’s the best way I could describe it. When firing strong side (right handed), it’s grabbed and the latch pulled and released. The extended handle gives you
much better purchase that’s just easier to grab. I’ve simulated an injury and palmed the CH and it worked just as easily. When firing weak side, you grip the charging handle with your fingers, and your thumb just
naturally presses against the back. There’s a lever back there that releases the charging handle. So do you don’t even consciously think about pressing the lever, it’s just natural. You’ll see this in the pictures
section.
The Variants:
Mech Defense produces 3 charging handles. The function on all 3 are the exact same, the differences are dimensions of the handle, and the AR platform (caliber).
TacOps-1: Built for the AR-15, especially for precision rifles with scopes. This CH is wider at 3.00” and allows for easier purchase or grip even when using scope, even when in a prone or unusual barricade position. Even though the M110 inspired the design, the TacOps-1 is the original.
TacOps-CQB: This CH has a smaller handle than the TacOps-1, it measures at 2.50” and is great for use on a CQB type rifle, an SBR, Recce style AR-15, where CQ type optic are often utilized. The forward assist presents no problem when cycling the CH using the TacOps CQB
TacOps-Sniper 7.62: As you can guess this variant is for the AR-10/LR308. The handle on the TacOps Sniper is the same width as the original TacOps-1. Again, this design accommodate larger objective scopes that that .308 rifle is often paired with.
My Experience:
I first tried the Mech Armor TacOps-CQB because at that time, I did not have a precision AR, I was building a 14.5 that was going to be my Recce AR. Just as a reminder, I came to Mech Armor because the Gunfighter dug into me, and I wanted a more cost-effective ambi CH than the Raptor. I haven’t said it before, but the issue with either the BCM or the AXTS/Radian had zero to do with quality. It is very obvious that both the BCM Gunfighter and the Raptor are among the best in terms of out of the package quality. They have the quality assurance processes in place and it shows. My issue was with the design and cost, respectively. Since I considered the Gunfight and Raptor to be among the absolute best in quality, that meant if the TacOps was going to stand a chance, it too had to be constructed to the highest standard, in function, fit, and even finish. Considering the Mil/LEO pricing on the TacOps, and after a few phone calls with Van. (Not all calls were about a charging handle.) I decided to pull the trigger and give the TacOps-CQB a shot. What I found was that I really liked it. It just made “sense” in how it worked. It was wide enough that the forward assist didn’t interfere as with mil spec charging handles, and my first scope on my Recce was the SWFA Super Sniper 10x scope.
while not a huge scope, even the TacOps CQB gave me a better more confident grip on the CH When I was training weak-side, I found I could cycle my weapon quite easily, in spite of NOT being “ambi-coordinated” AT ALL. I bought a few more of the TacOps-CQB charging handles and I used them on builds I did for others, especially when they didn’t want to budget $80 on a charging handle, but wanted ambi-controls.
Fast forward to my DMR build. The scope I was planning on mounting on my DMR was a pretty big scope - the Burris XTR II 5-25x50. I knew it would be a perfect candidate for the TacOps-Sniper. So I contacted Mech Armor, and was looking forward to talking to Van again. I called and left him a couple of voice mails, and then decided to contact Mech Armor via email. I was saddened to hear Van’s health was really declining and he wasn’t as involved in the business he was just a short two years ago. Sidebar Alert: Van is such an interesting man. He lives in New Hampshire, has a deep love for soldiers and the military, and our country. He is a true patriot with a firm believe in the New Hampshire license plates: “Live Free or Die”. Van’s father was long range shooting instructor for the military and Van recounted getting behind a weapon with his dad at the age of 6, and by 12 years of age, making 900 yard shots with his father’s precision bolt guns. He loved the industry, and our military.
Sorry for the sidebar, but he plays a very important role in this story.
Back to the CH for the 308. So after emailing Mech Armor, Rick Asher emailed me back. He was manning the helm and picking up the slack left by Van’s absence. They had just fulfilled a large order for an AR manufacturer, but within the week he had some more inventory. So I bought a TacOps-Sniper 7.62 charging handle from him. Rick actually sent two of the 7.62 charging handles out to me. One he said was a blem, but like Bravo Company’s blems, I couldn’t find a single discrepancy. I also picked up a 7.62 Raptor. I really wanted to put the two to the test and see which one I preferred for my precision gun. My thought process was with the longer pull, the heavier BCG and spring, I should really be able to tell if the TacOps is going to fall short in any way. On my bench vise, both charging handles performed their duties as advertised. But that was a sterile, controlled environment, with my DMR in a vise block. The real test, as with the majority of AR parts would need to occur at the the range I train on. I had a date with the dirt and a few cows. (These cows are definitely Texas cows, because they show more interest in my AR’s and shooting than seems natural. 
At The Range:
I took both charging handles to the range and ran through many cycles with both. From cycling through a 20 round magazine of .308 rounds, to simulating a FTF. I found that there wasn’t a benefit the Raptor had, that wasn’t met or exceeded by the TacOps-Sniper. In fact, with my eye to the glass, I found the Tac-Ops just easier to grab and cycle. This was both strongside and weakside. This is victory right there. To be able to meet the same functional requirements for less money, let along excel in some criteria is a win for the TacOps-Sniper and for my wallet. The biggest takeaway, was the natural feel the CH has. Yes, cycling my Raptor is also easy, but the TacOps-Sniper provided more ease of grip than the Raptor. With a goal of meeting quality standards and functionality at a better price, I was successful. Yes, I know the Raptor is sexy, it’s forward leaning handles seem to tuck away towards the upper. But the fact is, that if you are an AR buyer or builder, who does either from a tactical viewpoint, looks or form is always secondary. I know on TOS that rule of thumb - “function over form” is not always followed, and I’m sure some of you have noticed we have our share also, who prefer looks over tactical advantage. Just look at how many CQ purposed AR’s with RDS optics are running folding sight. (No we are not going to get into that discussion, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you don’t’ agree, blame docsherm.) Steps off soapbox.
The Pictures
I’ve tried to take pictures that show how the CH fits on the AR, both on a SBR and my DMR. I did not have the CQB version when I was at my range making my video, so I’ll have to get back out there and shoot some video of it, when I correct the other video. But for now I’ll include pics and make some observations based on the picture.
The “Four”: Mil Spec AR-15, AR-10 and Mech Armor TacOps-CQB, TacOps-Sniper
Top down view of the T handle on the TacOps-CQB. The larger latch pin is pretty obvious. My caliper measurements had the Tac-Ops at 0.10 and the AR-15 and AR-10 at .006. I can’t call that exactly because there’s nothing for the calipers to grab, but I made the effort, not looking at the display. I was surprised the math kinda works out. 
AR-10 Mil Spec and TacOps-Sniper The additional width is very apparent here.
TacOps-CQB and Mil Spec AR-15
TacOps-Sniper and AR-10 CH from a CMMG
AR-15 handle width
TacOps-Sniper specs
7.62 Raptor specs
Comparison: Mil Spec AR-10 vs. TacOps Sniper
Comparison: Mil Spec AR-15 on TacOps-CQB
Comparison: 7.62 Raptor on TacOps-Sniper
DMR: From over the stock - Here you get a good feel for how wide the TacOps CH is, however, it doesn’t dig in my back or chest. I attributed that to the smoother ends of the CH
This is the lever your thumb presses against when you are cycling the weapon, either weak-side or left hand shooters. It really is a natural movement for your thumb to press against that lever as you are pulling the charging handle to the rear to chamber a round or perform remedial action.
Charging handle extended.
DMR: Left side view - One thing that struck me the first time I handled the TacOps was the solid feel. You can see the rear latch lever isn’t a thin piece of metal that will flex. I also noticed just how well machined this part is.
Precision machining. There is a gap, albeit it narrow, but the CH doesn’t ride on the castle nut… They designed it so the latch practically rides on the lever, this minimizes stress on the latch pin, also prevent debris from getting in the latch.
DMR: Right rear view. Again, the precision machining is evident. Note the brass plug. This is used to seal off the latch pin hinge mechanism from dirt/debris. Another design tidbit. Rick wanted to keep the charging handle as simple as possible. Since Mech Armor holds the patent on the size of the charging handle, that leaves other companies having to add more parts (more stress points) to achieve a result similar to the TacOPs. (So now you know why charging handles have the long pointy levers sticking out on both ends or one end.) Some CH’s have two mechanical hinge points, like the Raptor. The TacOps was designed with one.
DMR: Right side view. One review commented they wish there was some knurling on the front side of the “T” handle. I’ve cycled the bolt, with gloves and without gloves. This particular day was pretty hot. I think I recorded a 93 in my data book, but the real feel was 103. So I had sweaty hands. Didn’t seem to have an issue, but I did not test if I had mud or oil on my fingers. It would probably be a good mod for Mech Armor to make, but again, I haven’t had my fingers slip off yet.
I really got a sense of how sturdy and solid the CH was when you see from this angle.
As mentioned my focus was primarily on the TacOps-Sniper 7.62, but I wanted to include some information on the TacOps-CQB and so I also have some pics of it. If wondering about the original (You’d think I’d have one of those.) just keep in mind that it’s the TacOps-Sniper 7.62 is the same exact width, 3 inches wide, as the TacOps-1 Orginal flavor
TacOps-CQB Top-side view I believe it has a nice appearance as well. I’m not sure your opinion, but even in writing this informational post/review, I’ve learned more and also gained more respect for Mech Armor’s efforts.
Last pic TacOps-CQB: I used this pic to make a comment about the risk of the latch catching on gear or kit. Since I’m not under the net, camo net any longer, I can’t vouch for that. But I’d swear a marble could get caught in camo net. Those of you who know…Know. But I can speak to gear from check rig use to ruck sack straps, those types of things. I didn’t experience any issues with the lever on the rear hanging up or getting caught in a strap or PALS webbing or anything like that. I’m not sure if it’s the design or where it’s located, probably both that keep it out of snagging way.
Post Review Comments:
Finally! If you made it this far, I feel I should reward you. This has been a long post. I’m hesitant to call it a review because I also provide a lot of information that isn’t from a critical analysis perspective, comments about Mr. Barker not really relevant to the functioning of the charging handle, but relevant to the story as a whole. So why did I do a review on an obscure charging handle made by a company probably most people have never heard of? I really hope this qualifies. I did the review because I told Van that I would do a write up some day on it, and equally as important: Because it’s an obscure charging handle produced by a company many people have never heard of. Like most of you, I enjoy the confidence that comes with buying parts from some of the more well-known businesses out there. LMT, Daniel Defense, Ballistic Advantage, KAC, LaRue, Bravo Company, Aimpoint and Vortex. The list goes on and on, Sionics, Faxon, Arisaka etc. and etc. But friends or Brothers, I also really enjoy supporting small businesses in my community and online. If they make a quality part that is functional, has a purpose and meets a need, then they deserve a chance at my money just as any big name company does. It seems that we, or I get locked into a brand and God forbid we try anything else. Or worse yet - actually recommend or suggest a brand other than the big names. From my exposure to this charging handle, which has been almost two years - this charging handle deserves a place along side the Raptor and Gunfighter. This is that high quality part from and Mech Armor is that small business that I want to support. Do I own Raptors? Yes, because as mentioned they are an excellent charging handle. But on my precision rifles, I have found a better solution. If I can implement that solution and support a small “Made in the USA” business at the same time? Then why not? Last time I checked, LaRue, Ballistic Advantage, or Daniel Defense were not writing me any checks, so as far as I know, I don’t owe them anything. Speaking of drawing checks, I have not received any compensation for this novella, I have purchased every TacOps charging handle on my AR’s plus those I’ve built for others except for a Blem Rick sent along with the CH for my .308. Post the age Van scored his first 900 yard shot with his dad, and PM me your address and I’ll send you a little token of my appreciation for staying with me to the end. Of course it’s going to be mighty embarrassing if no one actually reads this. It did take some time and effort to put all this together, but I had a great time doing it. Thank you for reading. Feel free to comment or ask questions. I’ll answer to the best of my ability.
And yes, if you’re thinking, “Geez Robert, it’s just a charging handle!” Yep, it is. But you’ve got to start somewhere.
Addendum.
List of AR-10/LR-308’s that will NOT work with the TacOps-Sniper:
Smith & Wesson - M&P 10
Rock River Arms – .308 cal
Stag Arms Co. – Model-8
SR-25 – Some older 1st Generation rifles only !
Remington R25 GEN II
DPMS - Gen-2 - .308
COLT 901 - .308 cal
SIG – 716 – .308 cal
Pricing: The pricing model Mech Armor uses is pretty simple. There is one price for all three charging handles for standard pricing, and one price for military/LEO.
TacOps-1, TacOps-CQB, TacOps-Sniper (AR-10)
Standard price: $74.95
Military/LEO: $64.95