StG. 90 (Sig 550) vs. HK G-36

[SteyrAUG]

It's and excellent line infantry gun for the age of iron sights, but installing optics and lasers on it is akward to say the least. So anyone using NVD's is in trouble with this gun. Even though some quad rail systems are available, I think none of them are free floating thus ruining the practical accuracy in unconventional positions. And again, even though it comes with a better stock than the G36 IMHO, the variation or adjustability is not there. One size fits all is a problem for others. I don't think they really even needed to test it, regardless of how good (or indeed bad) the gun really is or is not, there are just too many problems to start with it for the SAS use. SIG made an absolutely superb gun for the 90's that hasn't really been able to keep up with the times. I think comfortable home market does that, just like it did earlier to Valmet.

That's funny. Optics and rails work just fine on mine.



As for quad rails, the barrel isn't free floated to begin with so a quad rail is exactly the same as the existing handguards. Not to mention that most handguards accept rails (see pic of rails on 551).

Seems to me the G36 also doesn't have an adjustable stock so not sure how it is better than the SIG. I also don't see how the G36 is revolutionary as it is just a AR-18 in a modern plastic shell.

[Jippo]

That's funny. Optics and rails work just fine on mine.

You are not able to use NVD's with it. When you put an optic on it, there is no room to attach a NVD anymore.

On the other hand also the stock geometry is designed for the irons only. Because of the drum sight you have to use higher legs on your scope. I suppose you don't say you get a nice proper cheek weld with the setup in picture with out a seperate cheek piece.

As for quad rails, the barrel isn't free floated to begin with so a quad rail is exactly the same as the existing handguards. Not to mention that most handguards accept rails (see pic of rails on 551).

They are not very good for aiming devices.

Seems to me the G36 also doesn't have an adjustable stock so not sure how it is better than the SIG. I also don't see how the G36 is revolutionary as it is just a AR-18 in a modern plastic shell.

Infact there is an adjustable buttstock for the HK, but if you read my post more carefully you'd note I said G36 leaves lot be desired with it's buttstock.

[Dirtyboy333]

When compared to Diemaco and G36 it is a clear thing that 551 will loose. All of the weapons work well enough and there isn't a bad weapon in the bunch.

AR15 variant will benefit from the extremely large selection of options and is already a familiar weapon to the SAS. C8 is light and manouverable like any M4.

G36 is a proven concept and I feel it does leave lot to be desired with it's buttstock and manipulations, though. It can be equipped with rails easily enough, though.

SIG is heavy and it is an AK. I think that the manipulation of the weapon may be difficult for someone not used to work with AK's. It's and excellent line infantry gun for the age of iron sights, but installing optics and lasers on it is akward to say the least. So anyone using NVD's is in trouble with this gun. Even though some quad rail systems are available, I think none of them are free floating thus ruining the practical accuracy in unconventional positions. And again, even though it comes with a better stock than the G36 IMHO, the variation or adjustability is not there. One size fits all is a problem for others. I don't think they really even needed to test it, regardless of how good (or indeed bad) the gun really is or is not, there are just too many problems to start with it for the SAS use. SIG made an absolutely superb gun for the 90's that hasn't really been able to keep up with the times. I think comfortable home market does that, just like it did earlier to Valmet.

I completely understand your points about it being basically outdated but i took flaws as meaning failures, breakages and such. Maybe thats not what he meant.

[rojocorsa]

I completely understand your points about it being basically outdated but i took flaws as meaning failures, breakages and such. Maybe thats not what he meant.

Same here.

[m03]

Seems to me the G36 also doesn't have an adjustable stock so not sure how it is better than the SIG. I also don't see how the G36 is revolutionary as it is just a AR-18 in a modern plastic shell.

AFAIK, the Swiss have an adjustable/collapsible stock available for the 550 series as well. In fact, there are pics of one in this thread: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=76374

[SteyrAUG]

You are not able to use NVD's with it. When you put an optic on it, there is no room to attach a NVD anymore.

Well I have no problem running a NV scope, but I assume you are talking about a dual setup. And there are LOTS of firearms that can't accept such a setup, I haven't measured but I'm pretty sure the B&T SIG rail is about the same length as the M4 rail.

On the other hand also the stock geometry is designed for the irons only. Because of the drum sight you have to use higher legs on your scope. I suppose you don't say you get a nice proper cheek weld with the setup in picture with out a seperate cheek piece.

You mean like the M16? Good thing they make a simple cheek riser.

They are not very good for aiming devices.

You mean like lasers? Not sure why they wouldn't work on the 6 o'clock rail any less effectively than on a M4 rail. And if you can put a Knights quad rail on an M4, you can put one on a SIG.

Infact there is an adjustable buttstock for the HK, but if you read my post more carefully you'd note I said G36 leaves lot be desired with it's buttstock.

Looks like there is one for the SIG as well.

[Jippo]

SteyerAUG, what are you trying to prove?

I see omissions in the design that would make me choose another rifle for special forces use. Are you trying to tell me there are no omissions, and that the rifle is just bad (as in non-functional kind of way) when compared to the other ones tested?

Really, I have toyed with the guns in question and no matter how much I love the Sig, I would never choose it for the work in question. For the reasons stated.

If you do not like my point of view that is fine, but I am not going to get into an argument about it. It just so happens SAS decision makes perfect sense to me, that's all.

[SteyrAUG]

SteyerAUG, what are you trying to prove?

Nothing, I'm just addressing some of your observations. I think it is reasonable that if you raise certain issues, others may address them, especially if they don't seem to be completely merited.

I see omissions in the design that would make me choose another rifle for special forces use. Are you trying to tell me there are no omissions, and that the rifle is just bad (as in non-functional kind of way) when compared to the other ones tested?

Funny, I don't recall saying that. In fact if you were to search most posts on the subject you would find that I generally prefer the AR to nearly every other rifle. I think an AR carbine (my preference specifically being the 6520 and the 6933) is probably the best all around small arm.

Really, I have toyed with the guns in question and no matter how much I love the Sig, I would never choose it for the work in question. For the reasons stated.

And I wouldn't take a G36 over one for the reasons I have stated.

If you do not like my point of view that is fine, but I am not going to get into an argument about it. It just so happens SAS decision makes perfect sense to me, that's all.

Why is it that when you state your opinion it is fine, but when I do the same it is an argument? I happen to recall the Maylay tests where the SIG 550 actually won out over the M-16 and HK33 was chosen over both. Not really sure that means anything. Most government tests are NOT the be all end all.

The US chose the Beretta 92 over all other handguns in 1985.

The UK ended up going with the L85A1 when they replaced the L1A1.

Israel actually went with the Galil which was supposed to be the best of the AK and FAL combined but ended up being a heavy AK that wasn't particularly accurate.

And the G36 specifically had a LOT of problem initially, just like the XM8 when that failed to become the new US uber weapon.

As for the SAS, it's hardly surprising that they opted for an M4 type weapon. This seems to be what most modern western forces are standardizing around.

I personally don't see anyone other than the Swiss picking the Stg90. For one thing it's too damn expensive. For another the Swiss have a bunch of pain in the ass neutrality issues regarding export of small arms. And last but not least, the AR/M4 type carbine is better all around.

[Jippo]

Why is it that when you state your opinion it is fine, but when I do the same it is an argument?... Most government tests are NOT the be all end all.

Hey, don't get me wrong! I have known to be wrong many times, if you do not believe me, ask my Mrs. And it is not that I do not appreciate your opinion, either.

It is more like that I made an assumption (even though based on facts and 1st hand experience) which is not worth arguing about.

As for the SAS, it's hardly surprising that they opted for an M4 type weapon. This seems to be what most modern western forces are standardizing around.

Nevermind that it is a weapon they have been using for couple of decades now.

I personally don't see anyone other than the Swiss picking the Stg90. For one thing it's too damn expensive.

551's and especially 552's have found their way out of Switzerland and are used in Europe at least by the French army. But mostly by police organisations and their special units (France, Germany, Finland, at least). Obviously price is not so much of an issue with them as they are small units with good funding.

[SteyrAUG]

Nevermind that it is a weapon they have been using for couple of decades now.

I'm aware.

551's and especially 552's have found their way out of Switzerland and are used in Europe at least by the French army. But mostly by police organisations and their special units (France, Germany, Finland, at least). Obviously price is not so much of an issue with them as they are small units with good funding.

They are also in heavy use by the Saudis and a few other oil rich places. But most countries won't arm their military with a rifle that costs three times as much as the M4.

Certain, small countries like Switzerland, Finland, etc. have environments that favor a Kalashnikov based system. Additionally they don't have NATO type alliances which could take them to the sandbox so they can tailor their small arms needs to national defense only.

France will of course do whatever is "different" and any choice is probably an improvement on the FAMAS.