View Full Version : SIG 556
Phil Hirsh
01-12-08, 19:49
I've been wrestling with my 556 and an ideal load for its 1:7 twist barrel. It shoots very well with 77 grain bullets but it's like throwing stones with 55 grain ball... which I expected, but whoa. It makes an AK's accuracy look good. I have used Varget, RL-15 and 4320 at moderate to high volocity range. The rifle will shoot 55 grain boat tail hollow points about as well as anything else. Generally I get a 3" group at 100 yards. I have three AR's that all shoot better but this SIG thing is about as tough as nails and shucks an empty about a king's mile. Anyway, do any M-4 people have any experience with this rifle to share?
Anyway, do any M-4 people have any experience with this rifle to share?
Not made to the same high standards as the 550 line.
Not made to the same high standards as the 550 line.
+1, immediately exchanged the one I bought for a Colt 6920.
Phil Hirsh
01-13-08, 14:24
I shot the SIG this morning and got some great groups at 50 and 100 yards. They ran in the 3/4" at 50 and 1.25" at 100. Virgin cases make all the difference, but it's the 77 grain Nosler H.P. that is best in this carbine. IMR 4320 and RL-15 work well. I shot 60gr., 63 gr. and 69 gr too. All grouiped the same at 50-- under an inch, barely. I had a good bench rest, no wind, no distractions. I put a home made accuwedge in it too. Now she's shooting! That being said, my AR flat top Armalite/ Bushmaster hybrid shot handloaded 55 BTHPs into 3/4" at 100 yards and it has a less powerful scope than the SIG. I have to say that the AR is basically a more accurate system. The SIG folks were thinking about sand in IRAQ getting in the action when they came up with their design. I would pick the SIG if I had the choice in combat, but I'll still shoot DCM with an AR. I would place a very high standard of production on this SIG 556. It is very well made but the break open type action does need a wedge... just like ARs do. It has a good but not a great trigger as well.
Glad you like your rifle. However, I'm not so sure SIG was thinking of sand in Iraq when they designed this rifle. In fact, Sigarms didn't come up with the action. The action was borrowed from the Swiss Arms 550 series of weapons developed in the late 1980's. At that time, they wanted a 5.56 weapon so they joined together Kalashnikov and FAL features to come up with the SIG 550, which later spawned the 551 and 552.
All the USA division of SIG did was come up with that lower and crazy stock set and call it a SIG 556. They had nothing to do with the design of the action. If they did, it probably wouldn't work so well.....:D
Not made to the same high standards as the 550 line.
Scott,
Have you had a chance to see the 556's yet?
Glad you like your rifle. However, I'm not so sure SIG was thinking of sand in Iraq when they designed this rifle. In fact, Sigarms didn't come up with the action. The action was borrowed from the Swiss Arms 550 series of weapons developed in the late 1980's. At that time, they wanted a 5.56 weapon so they joined together Kalashnikov and FAL features to come up with the SIG 550, which later spawned the 551 and 552.
All the USA division of SIG did was come up with that lower and crazy stock set and call it a SIG 556. They had nothing to do with the design of the action. If they did, it probably wouldn't work so well.....:D
Very well stated and very accurate.
I don't own a 556 and have never fired one but just about every 556 owner says the same exact thing. I love it ,It shoots great followed by where can I get swiss hand guards , swiss folder , diopter sights or something better then the ones Sig offers.
They all seem to buy it and then try to make it into the Carbine they really want... the Swiss 55x.
I'm not bashing just an observation.
The only "sand" that the 556 is going to see is if the owner happens to have some in the backyard. ;)
This is not a combat rifle, it is a civilian sporting rifle. And it based on a design from 30 years ago.
The only "sand" that the 556 is going to see is if the owner happens to have some in the backyard. ;)
This is not a combat rifle, it is a civilian sporting rifle. And it based on a design from 30 years ago.
Must not own any ARs, or consider them for serious purposes, eh???
;)
Must not own any ARs, or consider them for serious purposes, eh???
;)
The point was that the rifle was not designed for the sands of Iraq.
I have a 556 and it compares favorably to my M4gery and FS2000. I have gotten excellent accuracy from mine, with ~1 inch groups with a x3 power aimpoint magnifier. I run mine with an Aimpoint on a Larue cantilever and an X200 on the forend. I have no interest in sidefolders or changing out the handguard. I have been running a sully on my M4 and am probably going to dump the M4 stock on my Sig for a sully. This is just my thing, since I detest adjustable stocks (well, the ones I have experience with). The forend supplied by SIG is quite sturdy, much more rigid than the orginal 550 units, and it allows me to mount a light without much fanfare.
I think the 556 is a winner. Unfortunately, aesthetics are a big part of gun sales, and the SIG is a bit ugly. Most of beauty is just what folks are used to/expecting and the 556 just doesn't have the lines/perceived lines of the 550s. Now, if you are a function over form type, the 556 may appeal to you a bit more. The mag conversion and allowing it to use AR stocks were probably good ideas--but only if SIG was looking towards eventual police and or military sales. Since I haven't seen any evidence that SIG is looking into those markets, I think it was clearly a mistake to tinker with the design.
That said, I will never get rid of my 556. It is an excellent, accurate and stone-cold reliable rifle that combines the robustness of the AK action with many of the ergonomic features of the AR.
weaponizer
01-14-08, 08:57
I own alot of ARs, 9 to be exact, i was looking for something different to tinker with, and i was looking into piston Ars, when i came across this at a gunshow, at the time i knew nothing about the Sig556, and the price seemed right at $1089 OTD, and it had a piston, when i got it home i started to take it apart and see what makes it tic....
The more i got into it the more i liked it, and it has become a favorite rifle of mine.....:D
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/338/tomspictures783bx7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
That is nice! Do you have any pics of it with a 30 rounder and no bipod? :D I hope the .308 is announced at SHOT. That will really be interesting.
weaponizer
01-14-08, 16:00
That is nice! Do you have any pics of it with a 30 rounder and no bipod? :D I hope the .308 is announced at SHOT. That will really be interesting.
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/3909/tomspictures841kg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Phil Hirsh
01-14-08, 16:21
I said earlier that the SIG designers were thinking about Iraqi sand when they designed the 556 rifle... what I meant was that they had to be thinking about world wide sales and their piston design is waaaayyyy more reliable than a direct gas action in adverse climates such as in the Middle East... where all the fighting is... I wonder if the SIG might be a replacement for the M-4. It seems a better rifle than the SL8. I wonder how it compares to the HK gas piston AR. I also wonder how many e-mails that last statement will get. I'm amazed at how excited people get about simple personal opinions.
Weapon,
Thanks for the pic. Looks great.
The 556 has attracted a small but extremely vocal band of detractors. Most of the people who have actually shot and/or purchased one seem fairly happy though. It had a few teething problems, mostly fairly minor finishing issues. Heck, everything has had problems, especially in the early guns. The M4 had its oddness. The FS2000 had the weird firing pin issue...
As far as the SL8, I would take the 556 any day. Not because the SL8 is bad, but because or government has seen fit to cripple imported guns. Now, when the SCAR and 416 hit the market I will probably be getting one of each for my safe!:D
weaponizer
01-14-08, 19:00
I said earlier that the SIG designers were thinking about Iraqi sand when they designed the 556 rifle... what I meant was that they had to be thinking about world wide sales and their piston design is waaaayyyy more reliable than a direct gas action in adverse climates such as in the Middle East... where all the fighting is... I wonder if the SIG might be a replacement for the M-4. It seems a better rifle than the SL8. I wonder how it compares to the HK gas piston AR. I also wonder how many e-mails that last statement will get. I'm amazed at how excited people get about simple personal opinions.
What i like about the piston on the Sig, is that its enclosed in a tube and has several drain/debris holes, plus 2 postion gas, normal and very dirty.... The bolt has no gas rings, no cam pin, one giant locking lug, no buffer, a trigger that has to be felt to be believed, ambi safety, 1/7 twist hammer forged barrel, AR mags, i just installed a FSC556 on it and now it doesn't move off the targe at all... Am i going to sell my ARs?, hell no, i love them, but just as i was around when they first came out and saw the great strides they made, I glad i'm still around to try the Sig556 at its infancy.......
The Sig 556 has come a long way since the 1st rifles rolled off the line and I think more people would have warmed up to them if Sig didn't shit the bed out of the gate.The QC issues on the early guns combined with dealers charging 500 bucks or more over MSRP just gave the 556 a black eye.
Anyone who owns one seems to be happy so there must be something to it.
I own 2 gas piston carbines that I think do a little more so to each his own.
Someone on the sigforum posted a rumor there would be a "classic" model forthcoming, to be seen at the shot show. This generated about one and a half pages of joyful praise. Then the guy posts that his rep misspoke, and there would be no alterations to the current rifles.
So, I called SIG and customer service informed me there are in fact no plans for any changes to the sights or furniture.
Fairly disappointing.
There were two motivating factors for the furniture and appearance of the 556:
The broader market has embraced the M4 (big surprise to the folks on this forum, I know) and so a gun that looks like an M4 is likely to be more easily accepted by the 99% that don't really know much about guns, and Swiss-made assault rifles in particular.
Since the Swiss-made 550-series rifles are specifically listed as "non-sporting" by ATF, the company was concerned that making an exact look-alike would run afoul of regulatory issues or at the very least poke a bee's nest at ATF (ATF being a very important federal customer of SIG's).
There is nothing preventing an aftermarket parts manufacturer from creating the necessary parts to make a 556 look like a 551 (more or less). At this point, I don't see nearly enough people clamoring for those features to justify the tooling necessary. Like all the people who want a 10mm (insert favorite brand here) pistol, a very loud group of twelve people is still just twelve people. :cool:
The nose heavy aspect probably deters as many sales as the overall look.
TigerStripe
01-19-08, 22:29
If front heavy kept sales down there wouldn't be many AK's out there, especially underfolders...
TS
It looks like an AR, so people expect it to feel like an AR. It's heavier and balances much differently.
And don't get me started on the safety levers ... :rolleyes:
If front heavy kept sales down there wouldn't be many AK's out there, especially underfolders...
TS
I never found the AK's to be terribly front heavy. The 556 I held was a nose diver.
TigerStripe
01-20-08, 00:44
I never found the AK's to be terribly front heavy. The 556 I held was a nose diver.
May just be a personal perception thing. I've owned AK's that were nose divers. The SIG felt good to me... I may buy one with the Magpul stock.
TS
I apologize if I sounded smartass...
May just be a personal perception thing. I've owned AK's that were nose divers. The SIG felt good to me... I may buy one with the Magpul stock.
TS
I apologize if I sounded smartass...
No problem.
I've never had the nose diving problem with any .308 semi-autos I've owned (even the 20-21'' models) they all just felt kind of heavy throughout. Russian style RPK's are awful in balance.
The 556 handguard is just weighty. Originals are available in europe, at $150.
I use a factory 551SWAT handguard on my 556, but just for the sake of something to do, I modified the original 556 handguard yesterday. I used a hacksaw to cut off the bottom rail, then profiled the bottom and sides using a Dremel with coarse grinding wheel followed by a sanding block. It feels much better in the hand now. I'll put it in a blast cabinet next and will either dye it or paint it with some sort of epoxy.
http://i16.tinypic.com/82tg2g3.jpg
http://i2.tinypic.com/6x0m70p.jpg
Robb Jensen
01-20-08, 14:53
I use a factory 551SWAT handguard on my 556, but just for the sake of something to do, I modified the original 556 handguard yesterday. I used a hacksaw to cut off the bottom rail, then profiled the bottom and sides using a Dremel with coarse grinding wheel followed by a sanding block. It feels much better in the hand now. I'll put it in a blast cabinet next and will either dye it or paint it with some sort of epoxy.
http://i16.tinypic.com/82tg2g3.jpg
http://i2.tinypic.com/6x0m70p.jpg
Looks great Josh.
So how much money do you have invested in it now? Just curious.
Looks great Josh.
So how much money do you have invested in it now? Just curious.
Thanks M4. I love the 556; definitely my favorite semiauto rifle right now (blasphemy, I know....this is M4Carbine.net after all). I would estimate my total cost to be about $2500. I bought my 556 right when they were introduced and paid a bit of a premium ($1500). But I also bought my 551 and 552 parts kits from Larry Gaglio/CCF back before the prices jumped up so high (paid about $2k for each kit).
I am not really planning on using the handguards on this rifle. It was more of a Silk Purse From a Sow's Ear project. Actually I'm planning on having this rifle converted to a 552 SBR by MarColMar Firearms. I love the Swiss 551/552 platform and will probably pick up two more 556 rifles in the next year.
Maybe you will luck out and SigSauer USA will come out with something at Shot that closer resembles the Swiss 55x so you don't have to keep dumping money into your 556.
That might put a hurting on companies looking to make money on providing what SigSauer USA doesn't.
I saw the pics over at Sig Forum of the conversion with the welded receiver and I think they should have waited until the gun was finished before posting the pics. It looked pretty rough to me but I'm not an expert .
just my two cents.
TigerStripe
01-21-08, 20:59
I picked up a couple (held in my hands) of SIG 556 Swat or Commando with the rail. They were a little front heavy, but the Magpul stock just makes the rifle...
TS
The only "sand" that the 556 is going to see is if the owner happens to have some in the backyard.
This is not a combat rifle, it is a civilian sporting rifle. And it based on a design from 30 years ago.
The point was that the rifle was not designed for the sands of Iraq.
Internally, the 556 is a 551, minus the FA cabability. It does have ugly furniture, but despite this, I love mine, and will upgrade it to what I want the rifle to be. The 550/551 can handle the dust chamber just fine, as well as other test's the rifle(s) were subjected too. If you ask me, that's not bad for a 30 year old design...
http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/
Internally, the 556 is a 551, minus the FA cabability. It does have ugly furniture, but despite this, I love mine, and will upgrade it to what I want the rifle to be. The 550/551 can handle the dust chamber just fine, as well as other test's the rifle(s) were subjected too. If you ask me, that's not bad for a 30 year old design...
http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/
Fair enough, but the point is that the 556 is NOT a military rifle, is not in service with ANY military and certainly isn't a new rifle designed with the "sands of Iraq" in mind.
Also, internally, a DPMS AR15 is the same as a Colt M4, right? Using your rationale, they are. All the parts will basically interchange, right? Is a DPMS AR15 the equal of a Colt M4? I think most people who know anything about ARs would say that they're not. For me, I find it a little hard to say that a 556 is the equal of a 551 when they're not built by the same people in the same place and nobody is testing the 556 to prove that the parts that the Sig556 is made up of are really and truly the equals of the original Swissarms parts.
I have both a Bushmaster AR-15 ORC and a late-production Sig 556, and love both. Yes, they look and shoot differently (the Sig definitely much more front-heavy but lower muzzle rise) but both are reasonably accurate at 100 yards. I have a Trijicon ACOG with Docter red dot on the AR and a Leupold 4.5-14x40mm and Mepro21 reflex sight for the Sig (and harris bipod), but have used each sight on each rifle with success. Bottom line is both are fine products IMHO, and unfortunately the weak link in terms of accuracy is yours truly!
Fair enough, but the point is that the 556 is NOT a military rifle, is not in service with ANY military and certainly isn't a new rifle designed with the "sands of Iraq" in mind.
Also, internally, a DPMS AR15 is the same as a Colt M4, right? Using your rationale, they are. All the parts will basically interchange, right? Is a DPMS AR15 the equal of a Colt M4? I think most people who know anything about ARs would say that they're not. For me, I find it a little hard to say that a 556 is the equal of a 551 when they're not built by the same people in the same place and nobody is testing the 556 to prove that the parts that the Sig556 is made up of are really and truly the equals of the original Swissarms parts.
Of course, the 556 doesn't cost anywhere near as much as a SwissArms 55X. I suppose that it would be reasonable to compare the 556 to a low-end AR as far as price is concerned. I haven't seen any reliability complaints (unlike a cheap AR).
Of course, the 556 doesn't cost anywhere near as much as a SwissArms 55X. I suppose that it would be reasonable to compare the 556 to a low-end AR as far as price is concerned. I haven't seen any reliability complaints (unlike a cheap AR).
Now, are you saying that the 556 cut costs on its parts and that's why it doesn't cost as much? I'm pretty sure you don't mean to say that, but if they're "equals" then why does a 556 cost so much less???
Anyway, you may not be aware, but a Swissarms 551 is available for import to LE agencies, and the price for LE isn't anywhere near the mark-up that a transferrable 551 is. So factor out the cost that the importation ban adds to a transferrable 551 or 552. A better comparison would be to say, "what's a 551 cost in Europe?" And if the 551 is FAR more expensive in Europe, then you need to think about where all the costs are being cut on the 556.
I haven't seen many reliability complaints either, but then again, I haven't seen anyone really put a 556 through the kind of paces that it would have to go through before it would ever be adopted by a military or law enforcement agency. Have you?
Low end ARs HAVE been put those kind of paces and that is when their warts have shown. When the 556 has faced those kinds of tests and passes them, then maybe it'll go from the civilian sport shooter rifle that it IS to a weapon that can be compared to other tested military systems. Or, maybe that's when the 556's warts will begin to show.
Until someone runs the 556 through the paces that military weapons have proven themselves capable of handling, then its all just speculation, isn't it? And to be honest, I'd love it if some organization WOULD run some 556s hard and prove that they're a worthy rifle. But again, nobody has, have they?
Now, are you saying that the 556 cut costs on its parts and that's why it doesn't cost as much? I'm pretty sure you don't mean to say that, but if they're "equals" then why does a 556 cost so much less???
Anyway, you may not be aware, but a Swissarms 551 is available for import to LE agencies, and the price for LE isn't anywhere near the mark-up that a transferrable 551 is. So factor out the cost that the importation ban adds to a transferrable 551 or 552. A better comparison would be to say, "what's a 551 cost in Europe?" And if the 551 is FAR more expensive in Europe, then you need to think about where all the costs are being cut on the 556.
I haven't seen many reliability complaints either, but then again, I haven't seen anyone really put a 556 through the kind of paces that it would have to go through before it would ever be adopted by a military or law enforcement agency. Have you?
Low end ARs HAVE been put those kind of paces and that is when their warts have shown. When the 556 has faced those kinds of tests and passes them, then maybe it'll go from the civilian sport shooter rifle that it IS to a weapon that can be compared to other tested military systems. Or, maybe that's when the 556's warts will begin to show.
Until someone runs the 556 through the paces that military weapons have proven themselves capable of handling, then its all just speculation, isn't it? And to be honest, I'd love it if some organization WOULD run some 556s hard and prove that they're a worthy rifle. But again, nobody has, have they?
:rolleyes:
Chill out fella. I don't have a horse in this race as I don't own, nor am I all that interested in the 556. There is nothing "between the lines" in my post. I simply stated that based on price alone the 556 seems to be comparable to a budget AR, BUT unlike the budget ARs no reliability concerns have arisen.
Yeah, I WAS comparing the cost of the 556 with SwissArms rifles (not pre-ban imports).
:rolleyes:
Chill out fella. I don't have a horse in this race as I don't own, nor am I all that interested in the 556. There is nothing "between the lines" in my post. I simply stated that based on price alone the 556 seems to be comparable to a budget AR, BUT unlike the budget ARs no reliability concerns have arisen.
Yeah, I WAS comparing the cost of the 556 with SwissArms rifles (not pre-ban imports).
If you ARE comparing the cost of the 556 with a Swissarms rifle, then answer the question I posed:
How is Sigarms managing to build a rifle that is the "equal" to a Swissarms 551for so much less money?
My answer is that until someone goes out and proves that the 556 can hold up to the rigors that a 551 has proved itself capable of, then its not the equal.
And I'm not sure where you shop, but on price alone, the 556 costs as much as a Colt, which is not a budget AR. Maybe you're actually trying to say that a 556 is really a budget 551. And if you are, then we're back to the question I just posed.
We know where a budget AR cuts corners and we know that when run hard, a lot of those budget ARs prove that they're not equals, don't we?
Federale, throttle back a little.
Federale, throttle back a little.
No problem and I apologize if anyone is offended. I was just trying to get some clarification on some of the statements made by asking some follow up questions. Believe me, I'd love to see how a 556 would do in some serious trials, then we could all stop speculating on how good this rifle really is.;)
If anyone knows where to find some reports of someone (or even better, a group or an organization) really putting a 556 through its paces, I'd really be interested.
variablebinary
02-03-08, 01:45
No problem and I apologize if anyone is offended. I was just trying to get some clarification on some of the statements made by asking some follow up questions. Believe me, I'd love to see how a 556 would do in some serious trials, then we could all stop speculating on how good this rifle really is.;)
If anyone knows where to find some reports of someone (or even better, a group or an organization) really putting a 556 through its paces, I'd really be interested.
Doesnt really matter at this Stage. Even the AR15 is going to be struggling to hold its position over the next couple of years.
Hell the XCR is only the tip of the iceberg in the what the 556 is facing, now there is the Bushy ACR, and the SCAR just over the horizon. Robinson doesnt have the distro network SIG has and that has helped the 556 in a huge way. It will not have this advantage against the competition in the near future. In the absence of nostalgia, how does a gun that lacks what is soon to be considered standard features position itself for the future. The market for people who will buy anything labeled SIG will tap out soon. Then what?
Doesnt really matter at this Stage. Even the AR15 is going to be struggling to hold its position over the next couple of years.
Hell the XCR is only the tip of the iceberg in the what the 556 is facing, now there is the Bushy ACR, and the SCAR just over the horizon. Robinson doesnt have the distro network SIG has and that has helped the 556 in a huge way. It will not have this advantage against the competition in the near future. In the absence of nostalgia, how does a gun that lacks what is soon to be considered standard features position itself for the future. The market for people who will buy anything labeled SIG will tap out soon. Then what?
My question isn't how does the 556 stack up against other rifles. It is "is the 556 built as well as the 551?"
Obviously the first ones off the assembly line weren't. We've read the stories and seen the pictures of canted rails and mismatched finishes and you simply won't find that on a Swissarms rifle. But my question goes beyond that, because if people want to pretend that the 556 is a "military rifle" then fit and finish isn't all that important. Durability and reliability is. And I simply can't find reports of anyone putting a 556 through any serious paces that would tend to show that the 556 is actually built as well as a 551.
What you do find is a lot of threads containing 556s that the owners have spent a great deal of money trying to make a 556 "look" like a 551. And you see many threads with owners who claim "flawless operation" after a few hundred rounds off the bench at the local range. Of course this is exactly the sort of usage that one would expect out of a civilian range rifle and that's exactly what the 556 was designed to be. Sigarms says so itself when it describes the rifle.
My question is for the people who wish to take the leap and claim that the 556 is really the same as a 551 but with a different magwell and furniture. And for those that then say that the 551 is a proven military rifle so the 556 is a proven military rifle. For those people, please go spend the money on ammunition and a few carbine classes instead of on Swiss handguards, folding stocks and bayonet lugs, run the 556 hard and then come back and post some reports. It would be a start! ;)
variablebinary
02-03-08, 11:19
It is "is the 556 built as well as the 551?"
It's a fair question that many seem to not want to address. The answer you'll get 99% of time is:
"The internals are made by the Swiss"
WRONG!!! Per SIG this is 100% domestic made
"The Internals look the same as the 551", which 90% of the gun buying public is unqualified to say with certainty because there are so few SIG carbines in civilian hands. Furthermore, a DPMS bolt looks like a Colt bolt. Are they the same? No.
Let’s pick the rifle apart and see what is up to Swiss standards
Rail: No
Sights: No
Furniture: No. Yes there is a plastic rail, but who cares. You'll notice few AR15 buyers slap FAB defense parts onto their weapons.
Finish: No
QC: No
Versatility: No
Attention to detail: No
The 556 is a 550-series in the sense that a Bushmaster is a Colt M4. Most of the design features are the same. Two different companies using completely different parts, assembly practices, and QC processes are building the rifles.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.