Why anyone would want the "Gen 1" T97 with those awful iron sights is beyond me.
I can't really say that the original type97 gen 1 are really all that bad.
Just like the original M16A1, light practical, incredibly handy and the iron sights work to all intent and pupose to the extant of the practical range of the round.
Only ergos I can really have a gripe with are the mag release, origianally a pencil eraser nub and the armpit safety. The pencil nub mag release is probably more of an ergonomic mistake than anything. It is something that everyone is guaranteef to use all the time. In three dozen years of the cf the only time I have ever seen the safety actually used has been in drills for courses. That might give you something to think about.
I always wondered if the adoption of a rock and lock swiss arms mag would have solved the mag release by leaving it like the original?
Is the gen 1 the best? Absolutely not, but it has it's merits.
I can throw it into a truck bed and not loose sleep over the optic.
Would an optic be nicer, sure, hence gen2.
Given my deteriorating eyesight I wish I had one of these instead of three gen1s.
So, pic rail and a better mag release. Not sure if anything more.
(Strangely enough, I find my Tavor rather chunky in comparison to a T97.
Only true advantage to me is a funky mag release and the easy optic pic rail.)
Gen3, no idea what has changed, but at least they are still catering to our market.
Ohhhhh,,,,,, for a QBZ 131,,,,.