Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 122

Thread: Closer look at the SIG 516...Still not impressed

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0

    Closer look at the SIG 516...Still not impressed

    I just cant muster any enthusiasm for this thing, but here is better, closer look at the SIG 516.

    I have yet to hear why anyone should get a SIG 516 over an MRP.















    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    20,009
    Feedback Score
    80 (100%)
    I sent SIG an email asking some very pointed questions. They have yet to respond.





    "A firearm should be considered a fighting weapon first. Any other use should be considered a bonus." -Me

    Click here for Semper Paratus Arms AR15 armorer schedule/locations.

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Multiple armorer certifications

    I am affiliated and work with SIONICS Weapon Systems in Tucson, AZ

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    223
    Feedback Score
    0
    Looks good, well other than the purple riser. Can't tell from the pics, do you know if top of the gas block and the quadrail are on the same plane ? The pics from SHOT and SIGSauers web site it is not. After the runaround I had with my SIG556 Classic I think I'm going to sit this one out for awhile.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    223
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    I sent SIG an email asking some very pointed questions. They have yet to respond.
    Yep thats about right. Not knocking SIGs products as I am very pleased with my pistols, but the BS I got with my 556.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    7,974
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Piston bandwagon...all aboard!
    Jack Leuba
    Military/Government Product Liaison
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

    Director of Training

    Jack@F2SConsulting.com
    F2SConsulting.com | FB@ Facebook.com/F2SConsultingLLC
    As accurate as needed, as fast as possible, as many times as it takes.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,089
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    cool looking tail of carrier, looks water drain and fouling friendly.

    sling mount on lower looks like it'd be in the way of both charging and safety, awesome.

    odd barrel profile

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Duty station here....duty station there...
    Posts
    661
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    On the plus side, at least they had the brains to stick Magpul MOEs on there.
    "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left." -Ecclesiastes 10:2

    Glock Armorer
    Sig Sauer Armorer
    Colt M16/M4 Armorer
    Remington 870/11-87 Armorer
    Firearms Instructor

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    649
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    Piston bandwagon...all aboard!
    Next stop, carrier tilt?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Desert Southwest
    Posts
    610
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I do like that built-in QD socket for one-point slings. Otherwise doesn't do anything for me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Herndon,VA
    Posts
    384
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    cool looking tail of carrier, looks water drain and fouling friendly.
    The carrier looks identical to my LWRC, finish and everything. I wonder. David
    Last edited by dwhitehorne; 08-06-10 at 09:54.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    All over NC
    Posts
    283
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    That IS a LWRC bolt. I have hear there is already some legal WTFs over that. I'll stick with my LWRCs.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by welchtactical View Post
    That IS a LWRC bolt. I have hear there is already some legal WTFs over that. I'll stick with my LWRCs.
    Is it an illegal copy or a licensed copy or an actual LWRC bolt?

    Another dumbass move by Sig, regardless on the 516.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Maine
    Posts
    891
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    It does have an H-buffer and what appears to be a milspec receiver extension tube. That's at least two check marks for "The Chart."

    Also, it does look like the top of the gas block and rail/upper receiver are all same-plane.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    Is it an illegal copy or a licensed copy or an actual LWRC bolt?

    Another dumbass move by Sig, regardless on the 516.
    Ok, the first time this issue surfaced, it was because SIG's 516 showed up in American Rifleman, with pictures of what was clearly an LWRC bolt and bolt carrier. LWRC took the thread down shortly after confirming that it looked like SIG had just straight up bought a Bolt carrier from LWRC, and had submitted the 516 to a major publication for review - with their bolt carrier in it. If you google LWRC and Sig 516, I'm sure you can find Google's cache of the original thread.

    Shortly thereafter, LWRC filed suit against SIG.

    This bolt carrier, in these pictures, appears to be a non-LWRC carrier, but the features do appear to be similar -fluted carrier boss, tombstone piston interface, etc.

    I have no affiliation with LWRC or SIG, for the record, I just followed this news carefully, because I was pretty aghast as the stunt SIG had pulled.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    127
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Sig!

    I have to mirror the response in that I love my Sig handguns but their ARs do nothing for me. I owned a Sig 556 and couldn't sell that thing fast enough. Proprietary parts galore and heavy for what it was. I can appreciate the design though as the 556 was more a copy or the original Sig AR platform.... just a bastard child of it. If you're going to do a piston rifle properly you have to depart from the Stoner design ie. AK-47, FAL, original Sig. Now we have another gas piston rifle based on a design that wasn't meant to be piston driven..... stop it !!! Also, I don't see the appeal in a rifle where I can't buy replacement parts easily.

    I believe Eugene Stoner was working with Knights Armament to continue refining the development of the AR-15 which is where the SR-15 came from. He never saw the need for a piston to run the gun efficiently.

    Are you able to use standard mil-spec parts on this rifle ( besides the bolt/carrier and gas system)?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by benthughes View Post
    I have to mirror the response in that I love my Sig handguns but their ARs do nothing for me. I owned a Sig 556 and couldn't sell that thing fast enough. Proprietary parts galore and heavy for what it was. I can appreciate the design though as the 556 was more a copy or the original Sig AR platform.... just a bastard child of it. If you're going to do a piston rifle properly you have to depart from the Stoner design ie. AK-47, FAL, original Sig. Now we have another gas piston rifle based on a design that wasn't meant to be piston driven..... stop it !!! Also, I don't see the appeal in a rifle where I can't buy replacement parts easily.

    I believe Eugene Stoner was working with Knights Armament to continue refining the development of the AR-15 which is where the SR-15 came from. He never saw the need for a piston to run the gun efficiently.

    Are you able to use standard mil-spec parts on this rifle ( besides the bolt/carrier and gas system)?

    A few days ago the local shop asked me if I wanted to take some photos of the Sig 516. I was like sure, not a problem. Being critical of Sig products since its "Kimberization" I remember not too long ago this was the company that screwed up building a 1911....................

    The above pictures that the OP posted are the ones that I took.

    That said I was actually pretty impressed with my particular sample. Fit and finish were nice. The sling swivels on the receiver as well as the adjustable gas block were a nice touch. The lower receiver is standard as shown and will take your regular parts kits. I am not sure if the receiver extension was mil-spec or commercial. The upper receiver and quad rail "go-together" as shown in the pictures above but I dont think there is anything that will not allow you to change out parts as long as it is compatible with the piston system.

    The piston system looks like an Adam Arms set-up. I was only at the shop for a short period of time so I did not get a chance to take apart the piston. The gun looks well made, is light for a piston system and set up nicely. I owned a LWRCI M6A2 and dumped it to go back to the traditional DI system. The one thing I did not like about the LWRCI was the quad rail and the weight. Over all is was an excellent rifle and was a close second behind my Noveske in terms of accuracy.

    I personally think that Sig did a good job on this rifle however I do not agree with them using the LWRCI BCG if they did not license that particular part from them.

    The finish was excellent, the upper and lower receiver were tight the rifle was not too heavy and it came with a sling, the QD Swivels and a few other goodies. It would have been nice to see them ditch the RDS for a set of nice Troy front and rears.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by variablebinary View Post

    I have yet to hear why anyone should get a SIG 516 over an MRP.
    Completely different price points and the MRP is a monolithic rail.

    If I wanted to go piston and could not afford the MRP I would consider the 516. With the Sig you get a little more bang for your buck but with the MRP you get the LMT name and known quality and perhaps a few extra ounces.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    4,242
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    If female sling sockets are not anti rotation, they are worthless.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,173
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    If female sling sockets are not anti rotation, they are worthless.
    Knew a lady like that and then I said "I do!" What a worthless mistake!

    OUT

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    252
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    Is it an illegal copy or a licensed copy or an actual LWRC bolt?

    Another dumbass move by Sig, regardless on the 516.
    i think you are right about lwrc -real name of the parent company is matech the maker of them sights -watch the video/media part of their web site --what's in the bed of the gun world is wild and woolly under covers !

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •