View Full Version : Why no press on the 556?
Curious if anyone knows of an article on the 556? I haven't seen one. Seen several for the Masada, but zero on the Sig 556. Is it just the fear of a magazine cover without an AR variant on it (every month, same rifle....)?
Larry Vickers
10-23-07, 03:43
Very good question- part of it if I were to venture a guess is serious SIG SG 550 series assault rifle enthusiasts are, as a whole, very disappointed with the gun - I have 1 SG 550, and 2 different barrel length 551 SIG's; I also have a 556 but just for my reference collection
In my opinion SIG could have made that gun much better than what it is - I know some of the guys involved and even offered to help provide some input early on-all to no avail
I did have one in a class in Michigan earlier this year and it functioned fine - however I see very little reason to choose it over a good AR
regards
Larry Vickers
www.vickerstactical.com
I think Larry is right in that the original fan base was very disappointed in what was delivered after all the hype. What people wanted was a true 550 series gun and what they got was a bit of a bastardized version of it, with generally no real explanation as to why Sig chose to put out a whole new gun rather than just do what people wanted, sell the 550s here.
I also agree that it doesn't seem to offer anything over and above a regular AR. If pressed to choose another 5.56 rifle other than an AR there are still other platforms I'd be inclined to choose before the 556 (like the XCR if they can get some kinks worked out).
I know I saw it on a few covers though when it was first introduced. I wouldn't know how to find them now though.
TigerStripe
10-23-07, 06:35
I know I'd like the 556 better if it were closer to the original 550 series. The only change that I don't mind is the fact that it uses AR15 mags. If have plenty AR mags and there are lots of good AR mags out there to be had at very good prices.
TS
I got one recently and like it fine, but it wont replace my ar's. For me it is just something different to shoot.
I hope sig or some other company will offer 551 furniture for it sometime.
nationwide
10-23-07, 09:37
I got to fire one back in April, and it didn't have any "wow" factor at all for me...
It seems kind of bulky compared to an AR...
I did have one in a class in Michigan earlier this year and it functioned fine - however I see very little reason to choose it over a good AR
My findings exactly! I did a write up on it over at weaponevolution.com.
Accuracy and function were good, but it falls way short of a good AR in many other areas.
tiger seven
10-23-07, 09:59
I know I'd like the 556 better if it were closer to the original 550 series. The only change that I don't mind is the fact that it uses AR15 mags. If have plenty AR mags and there are lots of good AR mags out there to be had at very good prices.
TS
I agree on all points. I was at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot a few weekends ago, and I saw a dozen or so 550/551/552 rifles. I kept thinking that if they had just made a semi-auto version of those that took AR mags it might have been an interesting weapon. However, I also saw several 556's and it kept reminding me what a mindblowing miscalculation they made. They bastardized the 550 series and added all of that weird, cheap-looking Tapco-esque Chinese airsoft furniture (presumably in an attempt to appeal to AR fans and get a piece of a huge market, but with apparently no idea of what appeals to discerning AR owners) which only served to alienate the market they already had waiting. Now that it's clear that AR users aren't embracing the 556 in any significant numbers, SIGARMS seems to be reassessing things (and backpedaling a bit) and I've heard some talk of them producing kits to retrofit the weapon to look more like the original. Plus, the 556's that I've handled (admittedly only a few) were disappointlingly rough in their overall build quality, and seemed somewhat cobbled together. Not at all what I would expect from SIG, but I have heard that the newer ones are much nicer.
I really wish they had listened to Larry Vickers and not to the guys on Sigforum when they were looking for input...
Derek
I really wish they had listened to Larry Vickers and not to the guys on Sigforum when they were looking for input...
Derek
I think they listened to neither.
tiger seven
10-23-07, 14:04
I think they listened to neither.
I was a member of that forum when the rifle was in development. One of the marketing guys from SIGARMS (I forget his name) was actually posting pics of early versions. Guys were saying "Change this or that..." or "Make this different..." and stuff like that -- and 99% of them had never even seen the real thing, let alone handled it or fired it. Their "recommendations" were based purely on how it looked. Obviously, I'm basing my statements purely upon my personal memory of the events, but I recall seeing "revised" versions paraded on the forum for their approval. It certainly seemed to me like there was someone at SIGARMS listening intently to what the forum members had to say; but I don't recall much attention being paid to the guys who were saying things like, "I just want a semi-auto 550 series."
Obviously, many forums (like this one) have many knowledgeable, expert professionals on board (as well as people like me :) ) but I'm not sure that's a good way to go about developing a new firearm. Perhaps my memory of the events is skewed, but that's how I recall it. Either way, I see the whole thing as a huge marketing blunder by SIGARMS.
Derek
All I can tell you from my fondling is that the 556 is a heavy SOB next to a m4gery.
Yep I agree.
I was all gung-ho about it.
Until I handled one in person.:(
TigerStripe
10-23-07, 15:19
All SIG needs to do is replace the CAA stock with a traditional SIG 55X-series stock and put a more slimline handguard. If they would just replace the stock, the handling would be very much improved. I think they thought that putting an M4 stock on it, like Tapco did with AK's and SKS's and other companies did like with Remington 870's and Mossberg 500/590's. Doing this was, and still is for a large part, "the thing to do". Everyone wants to M4ize weapons.
TS
Some disclaimers:
1) I have not handled a Sig 556.
2) I think Swiss weapons are very interesting and would like a 550 or 556 myself.
3) The collapsible stock and tri-rail handguard on the 556, despite having grown on me a bit, still look a little odd.
That said, I have to disagree with the some of the Sig bashing.
First, as long as your design takes AR buttstocks, magazines, and Picatinny railed accessories, your accessory market is already developed without you having to lift a finger. I think it was a smart play on Sig's part.
Second, people gripe about the Sig 556 not being a purebred 550, and maybe the griping is severe enough that Sig is considering a 550 clone. I predict such a clone will be an underwhelming seller. Lotsa people say they want one, but only a dedicated few will pay the big bucks for an iron sight 5.56 with no provisions for optic or accessory rails.
Third, some have commented on the weight and balance of the 556 compared to the AR, but I have to wonder if it is any worse or more awkward than a piston-driven AR, all of which seem to spec out with a substantial weight gain.
TigerStripe
10-24-07, 01:30
I'd like to have a SIG that is actually a SIG. As I said, everything else can be had with an M4 stock on it. There would/could be ways to add an optic to a more traditional styled 55X. I have a POF and it really isn't that much more heavy out front, with a smaller rail the POF would be much better weapon... [/hijack]
TS
One thing that amazed me with the the 556's I have held was the poor build quality. The stamped steel upper (I assume that's the correct term) was no where NEAR the quality of assembly and finish of my PTR-91 (which seams to be similar in construction) which was $400 cheaper and included diopter sights.
I agree that the Tapco-esque features are just terrible. If they had done three things differently:
1) Included diopter iron sights
2) Used standard 55x furniture.
3) ensured that the POS bolt-on rail was not canted and was in spec dimensionally
... they would have fared better, IMO. It's not any of these items are a stretch by any means.
Second, people gripe about the Sig 556 not being a purebred 550, and maybe the griping is severe enough that Sig is considering a 550 clone. I predict such a clone will be an underwhelming seller. Lotsa people say they want one, but only a dedicated few will pay the big bucks for an iron sight 5.56 with no provisions for optic or accessory rails.
But the fact of the matter is that there is no reason that the US produced rifle has to be "big bucks" - the Swiss rifles are expensive because of availability and a certain snob-factor. I don't see anything about that rifle that would cause it to be expensive to manufacturer. It's a pretty under-whelming design from a technological standpoint. Not to say it's not a good design (the original 55x series) but certainly nothing to justify "big bucks."
Why should a US-produced 55x clone cost more than a good quality AR rifle with similar sights and furniture features?
Yep I agree.
I was all gung-ho about it.
Until I handled one in person.:(
Me too. I was hot to trot for one until I fondled one at a local gun shop. I thought it was not ergonomic and surprisingly front heavy. Not to mention the 1400 bucks the thief behind the counter wanted for the rifle.
Not to mention the 1400 bucks the thief behind the counter wanted for the rifle.
That's what the guy I know paid! Oh well. He's happy with it.
Having a fair amount of time behind the SIG 551 / 552 series, I was hoping that the 556 would be a fix to some of our biggest gripes:
1) The 552 stock, while of excellent quality, is much too long LOP, especially all jocked up. A squared off stance is difficult to impossible. Don't care if its a folder or collapseable, just want it shorter.
2) Use of readily available, inexpensive, AR type mags. The really expensive, super duper, "indestructable" SIG 55X series mags aren't so indestructable, and they are expensive / hard to get. I could go either way with about the push / pull or rock and lock method as each has its advantage and disadvantage and I don't find a huge time difference between them.
3) The winter trigger guard sucks... It tends to fold out of the way whenever you don't want it too. Almost to the point we are going to find a welder to spot weld it in place.
Everybody complains about the weight, but if you put one next to a fully decked out AR platform, with rails, lights, etc, there isn't that much of a difference, particularly considering its a piston weapon, with a lot more steel in the front end.
I haven't any experience with the 556, but if it has the same innards as the 551 / 552 series, I wouldn't complain. The machining and plating of the bolt, carrier, and gas system is impressive and would cost a lot more if made in the US. If all SIG had done was to make a 55X series that took AR mags, they'd have hit a home run, but the rifles probably would have cost a lot more than they are charging.
I am very happy with my 552 as its handy and uber reliable. For reference though, just put together my personal AR with a Noveske / VLTOR VIS 2 upper. Shoots very sweet.
Failure2Stop
10-24-07, 18:58
Curious if anyone knows of an article on the 556? I haven't seen one. Seen several for the Masada, but zero on the Sig 556. Is it just the fear of a magazine cover without an AR variant on it (every month, same rifle....)?
Put a SIG 556 side by side with a 416, LaRue Stealth, SR-15/25, POF, LWRC, Masada, Noveske anything, and a S&W M&P-15. Look at them, pick them up, and compare at their prices.
The last one I would want to learn about, purchase, or win would be the SIG.
As I have stated before, I believe that SIG is an overrated company. Exactly how overrated depends on how many red-bulls I have shotgunned in the past hour.
Sig really missed the boat. They should have released it with a better rail and without QC issues. They should have used the Swiss folding mechanism, but offered a newly designed folding and collapsing/LOP adjustable. The mag release needs to extend about 1/2 inch farther to the rear. And why not use a captive front pin on the front like the rear? Why the Captain-Retardo dual flathead screw front takedown pin?
I transformed mine into almost what Sig should have made it:
http://i22.tinypic.com/2vxevid.jpg
http://i23.tinypic.com/2mpeu75.jpg
http://i22.tinypic.com/2hf80et.jpg
But the fact of the matter is that there is no reason that the US produced rifle has to be "big bucks" - the Swiss rifles are expensive because of availability and a certain snob-factor. I don't see anything about that rifle that would cause it to be expensive to manufacturer. It's a pretty under-whelming design from a technological standpoint. Not to say it's not a good design (the original 55x series) but certainly nothing to justify "big bucks."
Why should a US-produced 55x clone cost more than a good quality AR rifle with similar sights and furniture features?
I would guess the cost would still be high, because in addition to the snob factor, the production volume is low, there are no direct "clone" competitors to pressure prices downward, and there is not a competitive base (actually no base at all) of subcontractors to draw parts from.
If Sig dropped the price anyway on the 556, or a 55x clone to, I dunno, $800 I'm sure they would sell like hotcakes.
If I were a betting man, though, I would bet an American 55x clone would cost nearly the same as the 556 does now.
If I were a betting man, though, I would bet an American 55x clone would cost nearly the same as the 556 does now.
An American 55x clone made to Swiss spec and priced the same as the 556 would sell like crazy if Sig was able to keep quality control on par.
TigerStripe
10-25-07, 02:12
I transformed mine into almost what Sig should have made it:
http://i22.tinypic.com/2vxevid.jpg
http://i23.tinypic.com/2mpeu75.jpg
http://i22.tinypic.com/2hf80et.jpg
Now, that I'd like to have...
TS
I want mine to look like that......
losbronces
10-26-07, 13:25
Curious if anyone knows of an article on the 556? I haven't seen one. Seen several for the Masada, but zero on the Sig 556. Is it just the fear of a magazine cover without an AR variant on it (every month, same rifle....)?
I think the lack of press is because the gun just hasn't generated enough interest. The waiting list for these guns in the SLC area of Utah was originally over year (3-4 guns per month with over 200 people signed up at one shop). Now they are readily available less than six months after I first checked.
I think the lack of press is because the gun just hasn't generated enough interest. The waiting list for these guns in the SLC area of Utah was originally over year (3-4 guns per month with over 200 people signed up at one shop). Now they are readily available less than six months after I first checked.
They don't seem too readily available to me. Ten on gunbroker right now. Decent local dealer were I am at had ten on order with only 3 being shipped and none on hand.
They may not be selling like "hotcakes" but they are not collecting dust either...
variablebinary
10-31-07, 00:56
I think the lack of press is because the gun just hasn't generated enough interest. The waiting list for these guns in the SLC area of Utah was originally over year (3-4 guns per month with over 200 people signed up at one shop). Now they are readily available less than six months after I first checked.
I can get a SIG556 in SLC in about 5 minutes. Get Some Guns LLC has had the same guns collecting dust for about 3 months now.
Dougs had one with "BUIS" collecting dust that finally sold.
And the 556 hasnt generated press and hype because almost no one likes that abortion. Disdain is high. SIG is only making things worse with their SWAT model which makes the gun even uglier and includes one of the worst light packages ever seen.
If SIG had built a 100% 552/551/550 carbine then the reception would have been far more supportive from all corners.
The SIG P250 has had more write ups than the 556 and it isnt even out yet.
The Masada has also had more write ups
The XCR has had more write ups
SIG...Get a clue.
Robb Jensen
10-31-07, 06:21
And the 556 has generated press and hype because almost no one likes that abortion. Disdain is high. SIG is only making things worse with their SWAT model which makes the gun even uglier and includes one of the worst light packages ever seen.
I think they've never heard of sympathetic response, their engineer wasn't thinking when he/she designed the light with a trigger.
I'm guessing the gun press was as disappointed in the final product as many of the would-be buyers were.
I know that when I handled and shot a SIG 552 for a brief moment in an informal IDPA style shoot I was geeked to hear about the pending arrival of the 556.
Having handled the 556 carbine at SHOT, I found it to be lacking in the ergonomics of the original.
I may buy one to see if I like it, but it's not likely.
Regarding availability, I've seen them on the shelves of the local Gander Mountain. It seems like they restock fairly often. I saw one at GM just days after I know one was purchased there.
I'm going to guess that there's not a lot of press because with the exception of a few die-hard "I'll buy anything made by Sig" fans most people greeted this rifle with a big yawn. They wanted the 551 clone that they've been dreaming about and the 556 isn't it.
But don't tell the guys at Sigforum. LOL!
I would guess the cost would still be high, because in addition to the snob factor, the production volume is low, there are no direct "clone" competitors to pressure prices downward, and there is not a competitive base (actually no base at all) of subcontractors to draw parts from.
If Sig dropped the price anyway on the 556, or a 55x clone to, I dunno, $800 I'm sure they would sell like hotcakes.
If I were a betting man, though, I would bet an American 55x clone would cost nearly the same as the 556 does now.
But I don't see how the changes that most people want (to bring the rifle in line with the "real" 550 series) would be any more expensive than the 556 is. We're not talking rocket science here.
It would be nice if a straight 550 clone was significantly less expensive than what a 556 is currently priced at. But would the folding stock be less expensive than using AR hardware? The sights, I'm not familiar with them but if they are Swiss they are probably really nice and not cheap. Heck, the bipod service handguard is probably more expensive than the admittedly homely 556 railed handguard.
Does anyone know what a 550 costs in Switzerland, just for reference?
If it was alot cheaper, I'd get a 550 clone to go with my K31's. :)
I still think Sig was trying to address a larger market with the 556. AR mags, AR buttstocks, and plenty o' rails. They are competing directly with the AR platform by taking on its strongpoints, not trying to "stay above" the AR fray with a pure Swiss rifle for iron-sight shooting across pristine alpine meadows. If it was priced lower, I think alot of the bad attitude towards it would go away.
I will concur the 550 is a better looking machine.
The ironic part would be watching guys buy such an American 550 clone, then figuring out ways to add a picatinny top rail and free float railed handguards to it. :D
N.Franklin
11-04-07, 01:36
I played with one yesterday in the toy store along with a couple other rifles Ive been lusting for, and I was disappointed with each one. The SIG 556 is front heavy, the balance is off so much Id rather stick with ARs. The Galil they had was just heavy period, and the Arsenal SLR-107CR just didnt do anything for me, stock is too short and narrow for my taste. About the only new design that I seems to really like when I picked it up and fingered it was the FN FS2000, but Im going to wait for the Masada to come out before I decide to buy the FN.
variablebinary
11-04-07, 01:16
It would be nice if a straight 550 clone was
The ironic part would be watching guys buy such an American 550 clone, then figuring out ways to add a picatinny top rail and free float railed handguards to it. :D
There are no freefloat handguards for the 556 and the 55x has rail solutions
First post here in a while.
This is a rant, but I think the rifle is worth a rant.
I handled a SIG556, but did not shoot it. The rifle in question was the "backup" sight version of their standard model. No doubt that a lot of stuff went wrong with the latest 55X incarnation right from the design stage, but internally, it's still a SIG 55X and it uses STANAG magazines, which is a good thing.
First off the furniture is junk (heavy, clunky, and poorly designed) and the backup sights might as well be non-existent, because they're the worst I've seen in recent memory. There is not a single thing that is impossible to fix on the 556, but I doubt anything will be fixed in a timely manner because of the maladjusted corporate attitude SIG has.
Nobody buys the 556 because odds are if you have one in your local area, it's priced $200-300 over MSRP and unattractive to the type of shooter that would otherwise buy a 556. When I saw the first pictures of the 556 I almost had to wonder if this was the first rifle ever designed without any external input from the people who would use it. Their "you never get a second chance at a first impression" moment yielded H.R. Geiger style furniture, a raised picatinny rail and a flash hider screwed on upside down. Everyone that had waited 15+ years for an American 550 let out a scream reminiscent of Herb Simpson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jack Bauer all rolled up into one.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/aurang/homer-car.gif
It would be less painful if the rifle was complete junk, but it isn't. The action is smooth, it uses common/durable mags, and the trigger is acceptable.
SIG changed how they do business with FFL's and consequently all the good guys I do business with (smaller shops) found out about the policy change in much the same manner I found out about the scheduled cable internet maintenance in my area last night... all of a sudden, "no soup for you!" The only way I can actually get SIG firearms these days is if I buy them from a senior-lowbid outfit on the net, then go through my dealer.
With enough time and effort, you could probably retrofit the 556 and I think that's something the true 55X fans will continue to do. SIG could fix the rifle in the time it takes to cut picatinny and mail parts from Switzerland.
FWIW, a fellow on this post states a commercial Sig 550 in Europe is 1800 Euros. Don't know which country and how much of that might be VAT and what not. At the current exchange rate, that's $2.6K .
http://p082.ezboard.com/556-availability-in-Europe/ftheswissriflesdotcommessageboardfrm9.showMessage?topicID=232.topic
Reading some more later, I guess AR15 rifles are pretty damn expensive over there too. :(
Business_Casual
11-17-07, 17:31
The American Rifleman has the 556 on the cover this month.
M_P
The American Rifleman has the 556 on the cover this month.
The American "We never met a gun we didn't like" Rifleman loved it.
Quote: "Like a Swiss Watch". What did anyone expect...
SIG really dropped the ball on this. They could have succeeded two ways, but chose not to.
1) Make a SIG 55XUS A faithful copy of the 550 series, that accepts AR mags.
2) Make a SIG 55X upper that fits an AR lower.
Sell whole guns if they wanted, or uppers only.
What they ended up with was an insignificant bastardized gun that's neither a 55X or an AR.
(They couldn't even manage to put a mil-spec receiver extension on it.)
I can just see the SIGARMS design and marketing types sitting around pondering this- "Who should consult on the SIG 556 program? Larry Vickers, or TAPCO and Command Arms..."
Guess which one they chose?
variablebinary
11-23-07, 18:45
The Masada isnt even out yet and has got more press. Robinson's XCR has appeared in at least 4 publications since the beginning of the year
The 556 just isnt exciting to the majority. Even gun rag writers are uninspired. To put this in some context, there have been 2 write ups on the SIG P250 in the last 3 months.
I bet even Ichiro Nagata cant make the 556 pretty
I bet even Ichiro Nagata cant make the 556 pretty
Come on, he could make a flintlock look like a tactical deathrifle.
I'm going to guess that there's not a lot of press because with the exception of a few die-hard "I'll buy anything made by Sig" fans most people greeted this rifle with a big yawn. They wanted the 551 clone that they've been dreaming about and the 556 isn't it.
But don't tell the guys at Sigforum. LOL!
Come on.. you told them already...
I guess I may have mentioned it a time or two as well.
Anyway... I to each his or her own .
I finally found my way over here and I look forward to your words of wisdom.
:)
So does anyone know if they will be making some sort of "Classic" 556? I've been out of the loop for a while.
Aussie Arms
11-29-07, 16:11
It is true that this months "American Rifleman" has an article on the 556, stating "Like a Swiss Watch". From memory, they have run articles on a number of other guns that have not really been written up in the press, ie: Taurus 1911???
I don't know, but it smells funny to me, like maybe it's a paid ad rather than an independant assessment of a weapons system. Like I already said, I don't know but my "Spider Senses" tell me something's up??? :rolleyes:
Misc Ex-Member
11-29-07, 16:21
I can just see the SIGARMS design and marketing types sitting around pondering this- "Who should consult on the SIG 556 program? Larry Vickers, or TAPCO and Command Arms..."
LOLZ!11!!!!1
Well damn, I bought one and run about 1500 rds through it with no problems. Accurate enough for what it is, reliable and smooth shooting and I seem to like mine...................
but after reading what a hunk of shit it is according to the internut nutz I think I may have to sell it now....;)
Well damn, I bought one and run about 1500 rds through it with no problems. Accurate enough for what it is, reliable and smooth shooting and I seem to like mine...................
but after reading what a hunk of shit it is according to the internut nutz I think I may have to sell it now....;)
Most people's big complaint is the lack of factory sights and furniture akin to the 550/551 series rifles. I haven't heard hardly any complaints about how it shoots, or the quality of the action, most like that it uses STANAG mags. I think less people would be complaining if it was a rifle that was at its core a substandard piece of equipment.
My $.02 anyway.
Aussie Arms
12-01-07, 03:37
Back when the 556 was first released I for one was very excited. I joined the Sig Forum and started to do my own research on the rifle that I had so eagerly awaited.
Over at the Sig Forum I noticed a trend emerging, and I seemed to be the only one to take note of this fact. Not one of the new owners were satisfied with the 556 as it was produced out of the box, not that they said anything about it, they just started dismanteling and de-constructing their rifles and adding factory 55X parts, sights, and furniture.
I too was caught up in the flow of things, not knopwing anything bad ever to come out of the Sig factory. Then I started reading reports about canted rails, rails that were soft and easerly damaged etc. Well one of the moderator took up the challenge and started producing look alike sights, and look alike pins and other fixtures so that after you have drilled the welds which hold the studs, which hold the rails on you can go ahead and remove the rails and replace them with ones that were made for the Sig 55X. I think they still call it the "Aurora Industries 55X Project" and has over 50, 800 views, and 300+ responces. Go ahead and read them: http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/630601935/m/926102238
It starts out by showing you in a photo session how to deconstruct the top rail on the 556 receiver because it's not a true Mil Spec Rail. Then it shows a mockup of a cloned Sig Rear sight being made for the 556, and how you can take off the hand guards and replace them with hand guards from the Sig 551.
A quote from a member: Anyway... Looks like you're certainly on the right track and there's going to be a LOT of happy 556 owners who will be looking forward to adding your products to our rifles.
Another member wrote: I couldn't agree more. I never even thought of it until I saw the picture... but a fixed
rear sight (truly fixed) with a rail in front of it would be the ultimate. The
556 is really about to get some new life.
They were never satisfied, and this was back in February this year. 16 pages later and November 26th: $150 max for the rear sight or $200 for the set. The front sight at $130 is too much.
and November 27th: Just ordered a receiver pin and front sight from Aurora. Looking forward to buying a rear
sight. I don't think $250-$300 is out of order price wise. They are going to look that
good.
They still haven't got the rear site worked out, and now are complaining about the proposed cost of buying it and putting it on???
Another member who had just purchased a 556 said: Wow... 15 pages and sore eyes later. I never really followed this thread because I was
waiting until I got my 556. On Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 I did. I have been enamored
with this thing since inception.
With that said, I am going to order a front take-down pin tonight.
My question is this... Can I use the Aurora front sight with my
SIG Arms (or is it SIG Sauer now) "emergency" rear flip up?
I strictly run an Aimpoint CompM2 and can't really ever see myself using the rear diopter,
cool as it may be. However, the front post seems "wobbly" and cheap. A solid front sight
seems like a good idea.
Some where in that 16 pages of "improvements" I asked the question" (words to the effect) "What's wrong with the original equipment?"
Don't go searching for that post as it, along with any other post I posted has since been remover by the "Almighty Parabellum" because I said something on "ANOTHER FORUM" that he didn't agree with, hence my very exsistence was "Wiped of the face of the Forum Forever".
My question still remains unanswered "What is so wrong with the equipment that the rifle was produced with". I know the answer but I just wondered if they did???
Well, it looks like I hijacked this thread, I'm sorry but my statements stand. I don't even mind if you tell the guys and girls over at the Sig Forum! :D
That's okay, I asked easy questions such as,
"where has this rifle been "proven"?"
"If it is exactly what you've been waiting for, then why does hardly anyone keep it stock?"
"how can Sigarms think it is a good idea to sell a rifle without sights and without an OEM option?"
"how can Sigarms build a rifle without sights and everyone (who owns one) starts calling it an "assault rifle"?"
"how does the ability to run thousands of rounds without cleaning really effect the average civilian rifle user?"
"how exactly is having an unbalanced, nose-heavy rifle "GOOD"?"
"how is this rifle the "answer to LEO's dreams" when the rifle hasn't fired a single shot in anger or in self-defense, and that LE organizations have greeted this rifle with a collective yawn?"
After the SWAT model came out, I questioned the ridiculously poor design of the foregrip/light.
And then I dared to call the 556 a civilian sporter rifle. Even though, if you ask Sigarms, that's exactly what it is.
Those questions were not well received. Probably because they don't like the answers (you know, if they were honest about answering them).
So, aside from Sigforum and now a gun rag that has never given a rifle a bad review, the 556 hasn't exactly taken the world by storm and frankly, had Sigarms done it right, it could have. But since the next version appears to be a pistol version, obviously Sigarms is listening to a group of Sig koolaid drinkers and not anyone else. ;)
And to be clear, the 556 probably is a pretty good rifle. But its not quite the wunder-rifle that some would hope. Even the Swissarms 551 isn't quite the rifle that some would have you believe. Ask someone who has experience handling one and using one. These rifles are most popular with those who haven't been able to get one.
The biggest complaint is that Sigarms stumbled out of the gate with it and offered a rifle that was something different than what most people were hoping for.
I went to the local Gander Mounter to finger fuck one of these. I really like the concept of the Sig 55x series. I really liked the safety and the magazine release (I'm a lefty so the complaints some have about how far away the mag release is isn't pertinent.).
That said, the version I saw had no iron sights. The spot for the front sight looks like it is proprietary.
The one quality complaint I had was with the castle nut staking. It looks like it was attempted, but there wasn't nearly enough metal protruding to stop the rotation.
I really want one of these, but I need some sort of iron sight to go with it. Perhaps, I'll look at the MCX.
I like the 550/1/2 and I have always wanted one. However, I have never asked to have a bunch of low end garbage AR parts slapped onto a SIG rifle.
I will buy a SIG rifle when they produce a SIG rifle...not a Tapco rifle.
I have the issue of American Rifleman with Sig on the cover. I had not heard to much about the Sig so was happy to read the article & then let my buddy read the issue who told me of this posting. crazy that the rifle seems to suck so much. But crap like that happens
...first of all...a Sig 556 is identical to a sig 551 SP...really...you can actually put a 551 lower on a 556 and you are good to go...there are no mechanical or operational differences between the two rifles...
...the differences are as follows...
...the lower reciever accomodates NATO standard mags therefore a change was made to the magwell and mag catch mechanism...which i consider a great improvement over the rock and lock setup of the 5xx ...
...the lower reciever was also modified in the rear to accept an ar type buffer tube and any such stocks that would be compatable...including an A1 or A2.
...the barrel treading in the upper reciever is different...as is the length
...the gas piston is flutted...it is not flutted in the 551s that i have handled...
...the flash hider, handguards, top rail and lack of sights...although swiss arms...i believe...is now also producing a railed model...
...the front and rear pushpins of the 551 are different from the 556's front Colt Sporter type of two piece screw and the 556 has an ar type rear push pin...although these are easily changed out...
...the gas block, gas valve, piston, spring, FCG. BCG etc are identical and will interchange with a 551...and many of the components are comming from Switzerland (from Swiss Arms)...
...the steep difference in price is due to the taxes and other associated costs in exporting the rifle from Switzerland and into this country, the decline of the dollor and the swiss cost of labor...for the most part
...the quality is at least equal to that of the Swiss guns...both in materials and workmanship...all you need to do is strip them side by side...and compare...pretty easy
...the reliability, durability, ease of maintence and long service life overshadow most assualt rifles save the FN FNC and it's varients...ie Sweedish AK5, Indonesian Pindad SS-1 Vx series etc...
...FYI...adding a set of 551 handguards to the 556....yes they do fit...compleatly changes the feel of the rifle....and reduces the weight by slightly over 8 ounces...all up front....considering the aluminum lower...she will now weigh in just at around 7 pounds...considerably lighter than a 551...
...i believe...personally anyway...that the 556 is an improvement over the 551 SP....and a select fire 556 will be an improvement over the 551...due to the changes in the magwell and the added flexability of a multi-positioning collapsing stock...the rail is an added benifit...for me...since i perfer optics as a primary sight...and BUIS are exactly that...a backup....and i find the Sig rear sight to be acceptable...and out of the way compleatly...
...unfortunately there are few people in this country that are very familiar with the 55x series of weapons...or an FNC...or have handled them in the field for any length of time...those that have understand their merits...and can fully appreciate what they have to offer....
...first of all...a Sig 556 is identical to a sig 551 SP...really...you can actually put a 551 lower on a 556 and you are good to go...there are no mechanical or operational differences between the two rifles...
...the differences are as follows...
...the lower reciever accomodates NATO standard mags therefore a change was made to the magwell and mag catch mechanism...which i consider a great improvement over the rock and lock setup of the 5xx ...
...the lower reciever was also modified in the rear to accept an ar type buffer tube and any such stocks that would be compatable...including an A1 or A2.
...the barrel treading in the upper reciever is different...as is the length
...the gas piston is flutted...it is not flutted in the 551s that i have handled...
...the flash hider, handguards, top rail and lack of sights...although swiss arms...i believe...is now also producing a railed model...
...the front and rear pushpins of the 551 are different from the 556's front Colt Sporter type of two piece screw and the 556 has an ar type rear push pin...although these are easily changed out...
...the gas block, gas valve, piston, spring, FCG. BCG etc are identical and will interchange with a 551...and many of the components are comming from Switzerland (from Swiss Arms)...
...the steep difference in price is due to the taxes and other associated costs in exporting the rifle from Switzerland and into this country, the decline of the dollor and the swiss cost of labor...for the most part
...the quality is at least equal to that of the Swiss guns...both in materials and workmanship...all you need to do is strip them side by side...and compare...pretty easy
...the reliability, durability, ease of maintence and long service life overshadow most assualt rifles save the FN FNC and it's varients...ie Sweedish AK5, Indonesian Pindad SS-1 Vx series etc...
...FYI...adding a set of 551 handguards to the 556....yes they do fit...compleatly changes the feel of the rifle....and reduces the weight by slightly over 8 ounces...all up front....considering the aluminum lower...she will now weigh in just at around 7 pounds...considerably lighter than a 551...
...i believe...personally anyway...that the 556 is an improvement over the 551 SP....and a select fire 556 will be an improvement over the 551...due to the changes in the magwell and the added flexability of a multi-positioning collapsing stock...the rail is an added benifit...for me...since i perfer optics as a primary sight...and BUIS are exactly that...a backup....and i find the Sig rear sight to be acceptable...and out of the way compleatly...
...unfortunately there are few people in this country that are very familiar with the 55x series of weapons...or an FNC...or have handled them in the field for any length of time...those that have understand their merits...and can fully appreciate what they have to offer....
Being able to drop a part in doesn't make a rifle an equal. I can drop a DPMS upper on a Colt lower, do I have rifle that's just as good as a full Colt?
No.
Unless you have some inside knowledge that the Sigarms built parts are the equals of the Swissarms parts, then its a little hard to start saying the rifles are identical, isn't it?
I can can drop any bolt into my AR and it'll work. But is every AR bolt the same?
No.
And since you have no knowledge of whether these parts are built identically, its hard to extrapolate that the 556 is going to run as well. Nobody has put many 556s through their paces and proven that these parts hold up, have they?
No.
Isn't it a little outrageous to say that the quality of a Sigarms 556 is the equal of the Swissarms 551 when you don't see 551s coming from the factory with canted top rails, uneven finishes and cheap furniture?
As far as the components of the 556 actually coming from Swissarms, where's your information? Which parts? And do you really think that Sigarms is seeking to run afoul of the ATF by importing parts and assembling them into a rifle that would violate 922(r)?
I don't think so.
Nobody is saying that the 556 isn't a good rifle. But it hasn't taken the world by storm because it isn't what most people wanted the 556 to be. As for your comment that people really don't fully appreciate what a 55x brings to the table, you're wrong. There are plenty of people who can appreciate the rifle's operating system. But people didn't really want that operating system built inside of an ugly rifle with cheap furniture with no sights and a canted rail.
And since that's what Sigarms offered with the 556, that's your reason right there why there's little fanfare over this rifle.
As far as the components of the 556 actually coming from Swissarms, where's your information? Which parts? And do you really think that Sigarms is seeking to run afoul of the ATF by importing parts and assembling them into a rifle that would violate 922(r)?
I don't think so.
It is my understanding that this is exactly what FN does.
It is my understanding that this is exactly what FN does.
There's an exception under 922(r) and the provision doesn't apply to licensed manufacturers to the United States or any department or agency thereof. Which if you boil it down it basically means that if its building for a government contract, 922(r) doesn't apply. This is one reason why FN doesn't sell these rifles to civilians.
There are exemptions for government use, which is also why government agencies can still import the 551 series from Swissarms without running afoul of the law.
The 556 isn't being built for any government contract and 922(r) would apply.
There's an exception under 922(r) and the provision doesn't apply to licensed manufacturers to the United States or any department or agency thereof. Which if you boil it down it basically means that if its building for a government contract, 922(r) doesn't apply. This is one reason why FN doesn't sell these rifles to civilians.
There are exemptions for government use, which is also why government agencies can still import the 551 series from Swissarms without running afoul of the law.
The 556 isn't being built for any government contract and 922(r) would apply.
The PS90 and the FS2000 are not being built for government contracts.
I don't believe the FN SLP shotgun is either. Yet it is allowed to be in configurations that Benelli self-loaders are not. It is my understanding that FN replaces the required number of parts with US made parts to make them legal for civilian sale.
The PS90 and the FS2000 are not being built for government contracts.
I don't believe the FN SLP shotgun is either. Yet it is allowed to be in configurations that Benelli self-loaders are not. It is my understanding that FN replaces the required number of parts with US made parts to make them legal for civilian sale.
I don't know the answer. Perhaps the problem is that you keep saying "it is my understanding." Maybe you're missing something.
I don't know the answer. Perhaps the problem is that you keep saying "it is my understanding." Maybe you're missing something.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I don't act like a know it all when I don't have all the facts in front of me. Also I'm hoping that a member here who works for FN might have some inside information to share to either confirm or deny such rumors.
They could do what Century does with the WASR-10s they import, sort of. Or the growing Saiga-12 market. There are examples of this being done. It is not unknown and no one really seems to be worried about running afoul of the ATF.
All a company really has to make here is the receiver, possibly the barrel depending on where the ATF's barrel ban stands these days. They could import all the parts they want. I have heard rumors that Glock does this. They can't do the tenifer process in the US, but they do make frames here.
You've basically alleged that Sig would not make rifles overseas and then add parts to them or a US made receiver to get around 922(r). So what is your first hand information that leads you to make this statement WITHOUT a qualifier? Do you work for the ATF or for Sig in a capacity that puts you "in the know"?
variablebinary
12-06-07, 00:46
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I don't act like a know it all when I don't have all the facts in front of me. Also I'm hoping that a member here who works for FN might have some inside information to share to either confirm or deny such rumors.
They could do what Century does with the WASR-10s they import, sort of. Or the growing Saiga-12 market. There are examples of this being done. It is not unknown and no one really seems to be worried about running afoul of the ATF.
All a company really has to make here is the receiver, possibly the barrel depending on where the ATF's barrel ban stands these days. They could import all the parts they want. I have heard rumors that Glock does this. They can't do the tenifer process in the US, but they do make frames here.
You've basically alleged that Sig would not make rifles overseas and then add parts to them or a US made receiver to get around 922(r). So what is your first hand information that leads you to make this statement WITHOUT a qualifier? Do you work for the ATF or for Sig in a capacity that puts you "in the know"?
According to comments from former SIG reps on SIGforum.com, the 556 is 100% domestic. This has already been hashed out a million times, and time and time again SIG has said nothing is imported.
According to comments from former SIG reps on SIGforum.com, the 556 is 100% domestic. This has already been hashed out a million times, and time and time again SIG has said nothing is imported.
Do they follow the same standards as the overseas plant? With the obvious exceptions of course.
variablebinary
12-06-07, 01:12
Do they follow the same standards as the overseas plant? With the obvious exceptions of course.
If you're asking if the 556 would pass all the QC check points needed to earn the Swiss Precision Seal, then the answer is clearly no. The Swiss are super anal about the 55x. All those QC check points is partially why their carbines are so expensive. An example being why Colt is more expensive than Bushmaster and RRA.
Consider the attention to detail needed to weld rear iron sights to the 55x. Its takes so much effort to get right SIG USA didn’t even try. Then consider the way the Swissarms rail is attached compared to the 556 rail. Once again, the Swissarms methods take so much QC overhead; SIG USA made their own half ass method that is riddled with issues even after thousands of guns have left their factory. SIG USA was too cheap to even include a front takedown pushpin. Compare the top rail on the 55x commando and 556. They are 100% different. The 55x rail is a work of pure craftsmanship. The 55x rail looks like it was cut in someone’s garage, which is why they tend to be inconsistent from gun to gun
These are little things compared to the effort and expertise it takes to build a bolt, barrel and action of a firearm.
So is the 556 up to Swiss Precision Seal standards...NO! Notice SIG Never ever has the 55x and 556 on display near it each other. Get the two in front of you the differences stand out to a great degree
To address an earlier point I think the FS2000 and PS90 are made overseas and imported because nothing in our current regulation language addresses them
What is banned from importation...
-Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as: Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); Action Arms I.M.I. UZI and Galil; Beretta AR-70 (SC70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique Nationale FN-FAL/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
-A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel; and a grenade launcher
So is the 556 up to Swiss Precision Seal standards...NO!
Thanks. I if they don't get the cosmetic things right, you really can't have confidence that they didn't cut corners on the operating system either. Disheartening. But saves me money in the long run.
To address an earlier point I think the FS2000 and PS90 are made overseas and imported because nothing in our current regulation language addresses them
I've been told that the FN SLP is allowed to have an extended magazine and the Benelli M4 is not allowed to have one because the SLP has the required number of US parts in it.
I don't know that for sure, but it seems plausible given the current environment.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I don't act like a know it all when I don't have all the facts in front of me. Also I'm hoping that a member here who works for FN might have some inside information to share to either confirm or deny such rumors.
They could do what Century does with the WASR-10s they import, sort of. Or the growing Saiga-12 market. There are examples of this being done. It is not unknown and no one really seems to be worried about running afoul of the ATF.
All a company really has to make here is the receiver, possibly the barrel depending on where the ATF's barrel ban stands these days. They could import all the parts they want. I have heard rumors that Glock does this. They can't do the tenifer process in the US, but they do make frames here.
You've basically alleged that Sig would not make rifles overseas and then add parts to them or a US made receiver to get around 922(r). So what is your first hand information that leads you to make this statement WITHOUT a qualifier? Do you work for the ATF or for Sig in a capacity that puts you "in the know"?
See Variablebinary's comments above. The 556 is a domestic rifle. This question about where the parts are made has been asked a lot because nearly everyone who purchases one has immediately thought about adding Swiss parts themselves so that they can try to make the rifle into the rifle that Sigarms ought to have produced in the first place. The concern is whether adding Swiss parts is going to run them into 922(r) trouble. Sigarms reps fiinally answered the question. So YES, the myth perpetuated by some that the 556 is really a 551 and built with the same parts and to the same level of quality is just that - a myth.
So that isn't insider information, but it is information that came from Sigarms. As for being "in the know," consider the possiblity that my screen name might be a clue. ;) Sigarms might be just a little bit concerned with obeying the law considering that they sell a lot of pistols to the Federal Government, including ATF.
And looking at 922(r), Variablebinary is also likely right. Neither FN product you're asking about is on the list and that the design doesn't fall into the "other" category. That may very well be the loophole.
Now, back to the thread topic....... ;)
You guys already know what I think....
I think people are putting way too much weight on "look". The swiss weapons are nice but most of the stuff is cosmetic and contribute nothing to function. We are talking about a 3000 Swiss franc rifle (retail to civilian) there, in comparison to a 1300 dollars version. Friend in Switzerland told me the swiss factory got hold of a SIG556 and was impressed by it (after trying to break it by converting it to FA) I could not believe people are dismissing a rifle because of the "look" and the "plastic stock". The original SG furniture is outdated - you cannot attach anything to it. Those rails are "afterthought". The new SIG arms 556 furniture is smart and cost effective. Can Swiss do no wrong? Of course not!!! I have two swiss SGs that had defective rubber covers which end up going on a nice trip all the way back to Europe.......Sigarms is doing the absolute right thing if their target audience is the LE market, not a knock off a novelty item. The orginal SIG in its original configuration is outdated. Take a look at their Norwegian trial rifle - it came with an AR collapsable stock. Still, it got eliminated because it is too heavy after adding the aluminium rail handguard ( like 9lb +). It cannot compet against the g36, C8 and later the HK416.
The other 556 topic and the 922r provisions have me mystified, to say the least. I thought I had this thing figured out. Now it's obvious I don't.
As for being "in the know," consider the possiblity that my screen name might be a clue. ;) Sigarms might be just a little bit concerned with obeying the law considering that they sell a lot of pistols to the Federal Government, including ATF.
No doubt a federal agent has a leg up, but still I would consider an insider to be someone in the tech branch at the BATFE. Someone who knows the details behind the rulings. If you have such experience that would be outstanding. I have a question below.
And looking at 922(r), Variablebinary is also likely right. Neither FN product you're asking about is on the list and that the design doesn't fall into the "other" category. That may very well be the loophole.
This explanation, unfortunately, does not address my true concern about 922r, and that is the shotgun. The FN self-loader(SLP and the Mk1 is in a configuration not found in any imported shotguns, except the short-lived Benelli M1 competition shotgun. (The practical I think it was called) That is to say a semi-automatic shotgun with a standard "field" stock and an extended magazine. I also wonder if the practical was allowed to be imported because it had a 26" barrel? There has to be a reason why one is found in this configuration and the other is not, don't you think?
If FN made them here I have to wonder why they don't offer them with a pistol grip stock to compete with the Remington 1100, which has the option of an extended mag and pistol grip?
So the question is does FN replace parts to make them 922r compliant or are the built here in the US?
variablebinary
12-16-07, 18:24
The other 556 topic and the 922r provisions have me mystified, to say the least. I thought I had this thing figured out. Now it's obvious I don't.
No doubt a federal agent has a leg up, but still I would consider an insider to be someone in the tech branch at the BATFE. Someone who knows the details behind the rulings. If you have such experience that would be outstanding. I have a question below.
This explanation, unfortunately, does not address my true concern about 922r, and that is the shotgun. The FN self-loader(SLP and the Mk1 is in a configuration not found in any imported shotguns, except the short-lived Benelli M1 competition shotgun. (The practical I think it was called) That is to say a semi-automatic shotgun with a standard "field" stock and an extended magazine. I also wonder if the practical was allowed to be imported because it had a 26" barrel? There has to be a reason why one is found in this configuration and the other is not, don't you think?
If FN made them here I have to wonder why they don't offer them with a pistol grip stock to compete with the Remington 1100, which has the option of an extended mag and pistol grip?
So the question is does FN replace parts to make them 922r compliant or are the built here in the US?
I wish I knew more about shotguns to answer your questions, but I've never had a real interest in those types of firearms.
I wish I knew more about shotguns to answer your questions, but I've never had a real interest in those types of firearms.
I wish I knew more about tech branch rulings. I really want to convert my Benelli into a duplicate of the M1014, but I've seen at least two different rulings from the tech branch concerning the shotgun's part count. I'm told to cover my ass I should write them and get a "personal ruling," which seems like B.S. to me.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.