View Full Version : SIG MCX: When is an AR not an AR?
As many of you may know, SIG has been working on/rumoring about a rifle modeled after the MPX for awhile. Well, the gun has officially been released and it is called the MCX.
Cabela's apparently got in an entire shipment and might possibly be the only available outlet for these new guns. That's just a guess on my part but I say this because I've seen none on gunbroker and neither Osage County Guns nor Bud's is showing it on their websites.
The MCX is currently available in a 16" format as well as a pistol format with SIG arm brace. Guns being sold by Cabela's come with a 300 AAC Blackout barrel installed and include an additional barrel in 223 Remington. Both barrels are complete, to include gas system parts.
I picked one of these guns up over the last weekend and swapped out the factory 3-prong for an AAC 51T on the Blackout barrel. Honestly, I don't need another 223 and don't even plan on using the other barrel at this point.
Anyway, I am going to refer--maybe incorrectly--to the MCX as an AR variant. The design isn't much like an AR internally but it does share some common parts and accepts AR magazines. Manual of arms is AR across the board.
The gun remains unfired at this point. I hope to rectify that this weekend.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/10/8a656377d65614fcfe76efc1ab2f3b30.jpg
How much are they at Cabelas?
Cabela's price is $2100 as the complete kit but they're currently running a sale. Save $200 until the 15th or 16th.
For the sake of your Canadian brethren, please don't refer to it as an AR variant, which it is not.
The wise Canadian federal gun control overlords, or police force I mean, determine the classification of new firearms based on a combination on a combination of factors, including, consulting tarot cards, emotional evaluations of a gun's scariness, "ease" of conversion to full-auto and determination of if a firearms is a "variant" of an existing restricted of prohibited design.
This last requirement has been notoriously used to declare the Armi Jager AP-80 as a variant of the evil and prohibited AK-47, and many other ridiculous examples.
Perhaps it a bit Off-Topic, but just throwing it out there.
I'd love to get my hands on one of these puppies.
For the sake of your Canadian brethren, please don't refer to it as an AR variant, which it is not.
I doubt any Canadian gun control beaurocrat is going to be frequenting M4 looking for classification ideas. But we never know, do we?
Is derivative a better word? The gun does share some internal and external parts but the method of operation is different. The MCX is a piston gun and the bolt carrier is like an AR carrier up front but it has the rear end chopped off. This allows for a full cycling stroke inside the confines of the upper. Since there's no buffer tube the recoil spring (actually two springs in this case) have been affixed to guide rods that run at 10:00 and 2:00 above the bolt carrier.
Dimensionally it is supposedly possible to use an MCX upper on a standard AR lower with the installation of an adapter kit that will interface with the new recoil springs.
In execution, the MCX is quite similar to the Rock River piston gun. I messed with one of those rifles about four years ago. It showed some potential but didn't seem as well executed or as evolved as the SIG.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
The MCX has some very interesting and well thought out design features. I hope they can overcome their previous issues with slipshod QC/QA and release rifles that work. If these work and prove themselves reliable, I will definitely pick up a short upper to use on my M16 lower. Having been an early adopter of the 556, I will sit out the MCX until it has been vetted.
Are these designs from the former owner of AAC? I thought I read somewhere he was leading their R&D department.
Derivative, variant, inspired by, it's all fair game to anti-gunners.
I am a bit behind the curve on the latest developments in the world here. Is this thing at all compatible with AR lowers, or the MCX lower on an AR upper?
I am a bit behind the curve on the latest developments in the world here. Is this thing at all compatible with AR lowers, or the MCX lower on an AR upper?
SIG is supposed to have a conversion kit available for the MCX upper on an M16 lower. I believe the kit will include a plug for the receiver extension hole as well as some type of backstop plate for the recoil spring guide rods.
As for using the MCX lower on an AR upper; I dont see how that'd work because there's no provision to attach a buffer tube.
Are these designs from the former owner of AAC? I thought I read somewhere he was leading their R&D department.
It would seem so.
The MCX has evolved somewhat since this video was taken. Probably the most notable change is the switch to a self-regulating gas system.
SIG MCX LVAW Multi-Caliber Piston AR Assault Rifle/Carbine/SBR Family Ex...: http://youtu.be/H3-bB1RCU4Q
Not my video but here is a quick demo on barrel swaps.
SIG MCX - Caliber Change Truth: http://youtu.be/fHfSoWp6uGc
MorphCross
02-11-15, 17:14
The only version of the MCX that grabs me is a .300 Blackout with a 9" barrel in a pistol configuration with the picatinney rear end, sold as a pistol on my 4473 and marked as a pistol on the receiver. The ability to lob Barnes Black tips at supersonic velocities from factory 20-30 round mags in a compact non-tax stamp format is highly desirable. Add a sling, weapon-light, and your choice of sighting option and it makes a great option for a HD weapon that can easily be transported to training classes in other states without the assorted mother may I's to the BATF that are required on SBRs.
The only question that remains is do you bank on Sig USA and their notorious spotty record.
Not my video but here is a quick demo on barrel swaps.
SIG MCX - Caliber Change Truth: http://youtu.be/fHfSoWp6uGc
Interesting. I fixed your link for you.
SIG is supposed to have a conversion kit available for the MCX upper on an M16 lower. I believe the kit will include a plug for the receiver extension hole as well as some type of backstop plate for the recoil spring guide rods.
As for using the MCX lower on an AR upper; I dont see how that'd work because there's no provision to attach a buffer tube.
Yes, good point about the AR upper, lol. I should have thought of that. Thanks.
Please do keep us updated on this. I'm always interested in learning more and acquiring as many non-AR type rifles as my budget will allow.
I know there are some concerns over SIG USA's past with rifles, but at least to me this seems like a turn in the right direction for SIG. The 556 series guns were from their very start an attempt to bring a cheapened version of an existing platform to the U.S. market, but with the MPX and MCX it looks like SIG is actually trying to do something new and innovative and hopefully they aren't intentionally cutting corners to achieve that end result.
I really like the MCX. I do wish they were offering an 11.5" barrel OEM like some of their preproductions. The ones I've fired were very smooth and controllable in full auto. Well thought out.
Please keep us updated with your experiences with the production model
The ones I've fired were very smooth and controllable in full auto.
Looking at my bolt carrier I see a small notch on the non-ejection port side. I assume this is the auto sear trip. That's just a guess but, if I'm right, it looks like a new auto sear will probably be part of the M16 lower conversion.
As I'm seeing it, it looks to me like the auto sear will have a lever or finger on it that runs forward from the pin hole. This lever would be maybe an inch in length and then have a little nub on top that gets bumped by the notch in the carrier. Running the upper on a stock full auto lower isn't going to work because the bolt carrier is too short and lacks the auto sear engagement surface on its bottom tail end.
Has anyone had the chance to peek inside an MCX select fire lower?
I have to say I'm impressed so far. The platform appears to be well thought out and nicely made. And it has internal feed lip supports that the ACR lacks so it should be more reliable/compatible with various mags.
I referred to the MCX as an AR variant but that's not really correct. What this thing is is a new platform that was designed to use existing AR maintenance/replacement parts and work on existing registered lowers. SiG did a good job of taking a non-AR that works with a decent amount of AR parts.
Shipping the gun with two barrels does increase the price and I'm reading that the gun with only one barrel will sell for $250 less than the kit version. Anyway, the fact that the gun is already available with a second caliber option puts it head and shoulders above the Bushmaster already.
Hopefully SIG will be dedicated to the platform for the long haul. The only real obstacle I see presently is the price.
I plan on shooting this weekend depending on the weather. But rain or shine I'll probably be out there. Fingers crossed that the gun will meet my expectations.
Looking at my bolt carrier I see a small notch on the non-ejection port side. I assume this is the auto sear trip. That's just a guess but, if I'm right, it looks like a new auto sear will probably be part of the M16 lower conversion.
As I'm seeing it, it looks to me like the auto sear will have a lever or finger on it that runs forward from the pin hole. This lever would be maybe an inch in length and then have a little nub on top that gets bumped by the notch in the carrier. Running the upper on a stock full auto lower isn't going to work because the bolt carrier is too short and lacks the auto sear engagement surface on its bottom tail end.
Has anyone had the chance to peek inside an MCX select fire lower?
Yup. Your deductions are correct.
http://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sig_MCX_Breakdown011.jpg
I'm sure there's a better one of the FCG I can find later
RadioActivity
02-12-15, 23:09
Will these in fact be released in FDE?
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/8990046653
Some historical information about the gun and why it was built.
I put 10 rounds through the rifle on the local indoor range earlier just to make sure my windage is good for shooting at longer ranges this weekend.
I shot suppressed with supersonic. Of course the ten round "torture" test means nothing but the gun ran fine up to this point.
Really the only thing I can comment on at this point is the trigger. We gauged it at 13.5 pounds. I can only assume that SIG is using extra power springs for when they release the 7.62X39 conversion. I'm sure they want reliable ignition with Russian primers.
More tomorrow or Sunday, hopefully.
May have missed it, but what are the pistol barrel lengths?
May have missed it, but what are the pistol barrel lengths?
9" IIRC
Here's a look at the rear of the lower receiver. Note the recoil buffer.
31690
Playing around a little with the rifle and a fired case I see that the gap between the charging handle and bolt has been closed up a bit. It now looks like the gap has been reduced to the point that a fired case can no longer become lodged between the top of the bolt carrier and the handle. The charging handle also lacks the "nose" at the front that interfaces with the bolt carrier. These changes should eliminate our favorite AR malfunctions. 31691
sinlessorrow
02-13-15, 20:50
The Sig MCX has been submitted to the French rifle competition against the HK416A5, Croation VHS-2, Beretta ARX-160, and FNH SCAR-L.
Should be interresting. I think the Sig has a real chance at winning based off what I have seen.
The Sig MCX has been submitted to the French rifle competition against the HK416A5, Croation VHS-2, Beretta ARX-160, and FNH SCAR-L.
Should be interresting. I think the Sig has a real chance at winning based off what I have seen.
SCAR mk16 and not the FNAC?
No SIG516 in the trial?
I would think the MCX will have a bit of a rough go against something like the 416 since that weapon has been heavily tested and developed over the last decade. But, if nothing else, the testing will certainly help SIG identify any longevity issues or inherent weakenesses in the design.
Any info on which stock type or handguard variant has been submitted for testing?
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
So, 9" for 5.56?
My understanding is that 5.56 out of barrels this short is a no-go.
Is Sig still retarded or am I missing something?
I ran about 100 rounds through the gun this morning. I started by shooting on a standard USPSA target at 25 and then 50 yards. Using my EOTech I got the gun dialed in to shoot about an inch high at 50 using handloads consisting of 17.5gr of H110 topped with a 125gr bullet.
Accuracy seemed good with most five shot groups running about 2" or so. Not spectacular but certainly fine for a red dot and a big brown target. I also tried some subsonic loaded with 10.5gr of 1680 and a 220 BTHP. These also shot well but were probably three inches low using the top dot in the EOTech.
Afterwards I moved to the pistol range and set two USPSA targets three yards apart. I finished off the session by engaging both targets, some failure drills and some head shots.
The gun was used with and without my AAC suppressor attached. Cycling was brisk and positive while suppressed with both types of ammo but the rifle won't fully cycle the 1680 load without the can. The gun would eject but not pick up the next round in the mag.
I did toss five rounds of sub and five rounds of super in my pocket and loaded a mag at random. I shot this combo suppressed and the gun went "pop" and "bang" just fine.
Other than the noting cycling issues with the light load unsuppressed, the gun ran fine and locked the bolt back using Brownell's and Troy mags.
The action is quick and rather snappy and feels kind of like an AR with a carbine length gas system. There's no buffer in the stock and the reciprocal movement of the bolt is confined to the upper receiver so the gun might cycle a bit flatter than an an average AR.
Overall, I am pleased with the rifle so far. The trigger's heavy but fairly crisp. I'd replace it but I'm kind of waiting to see how soon SIG comes out with a 7.62X39 conversion kit.
I realized after I'd put everything back together that I'd forgotten to include the firing pin retaining pin in the photograph. It, like the other bolt parts, is standard AR.
The bolt assembly is more complicated to strip than a traditional bolt due to the twin recoil springs and guide rod parts. It isn't necessary difficult but it does take a little practice.
31701
sinlessorrow
02-14-15, 14:59
SCAR mk16 and not the FNAC?
Not sure, it was just listed as SCAR-L. The competition is a EU only thing which is why not more are submitting.
Not sure, it was just listed as SCAR-L. The competition is a EU only thing which is why not more are submitting.
If it's EU only, does that mean the MCX would be made in Germany?
Here's the bolt carrier assembly. 31703
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/13/croatian-vhs-2-enter-french-rifle-competition/
Scroll down a good ways for the list of rifles entered in the French trials.
http://archive.navytimes.com/VideoNetwork/3479939283001/GearScout-gets-some-range-time-with-Sig-Sauer-s-MCX
A bit more from Kevin about the gun.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
It was 9° here this morning so I figured I'd head to the range. I did it mostly for the novelty of shooting in the bitter cold but I also thought it might be interesting to see if the cold weather would have any obvious effects on the MCX's performance.
I let the rifle and ammo sit outside for fifteen minutes while I checked in with the range master and got my targets set up. The 100yd range was closed so I did everything from 50 and in.
I started the morning by firing a group of subsonic suppressed followed by a group of supersonic unsuppressed. Both groups were fired using the EOTech's top dot. Aiming point was center mass of the target.
Note the difference in point of impact between the two types of ammo. Now in the EOTech's defense, I have found my 300BLK AR prints about 3" lower suppressed than unsuppressed at 100yds. If I'd have used my can for both groups they'd probably have been a little closer together.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/16/db4be7366b92e02294c1ff2d2bcd4f14.jpg
After these initial groups, I continued to experiment with accuracy testing off the bench. Ammo used was a 125gr bullet topping 17.5gr of H110 and a 220gr BTHP over 10.8gr of 5744. Both loads shot fine but I noticed the subsonic load using 5744 continually failed to lock the bolt back on the last round fired. All subsonic was suppressed.
These are fairly typical groups from both types of ammo.
Supersonic:http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/16/79a4ab33f25c53136990878cbd5b1540.jpg
Subsonic:http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/16/a2641dd428f8c3b797679c165c75c6ec.jpg
I then tried shooting from the prone using a Troy magazine as a monopod. This didn't cause any issues. I finished off the morning with some simple movement drills and selector manipulation drills from fifteen yards. Total rounds fired was 120.
Overall, a fairly fun morning in spite of the cold. As noted the only issues were the failures to lock open with this load of subs.
While cleaning up after myself, I noticed a good bit of unburnt powder on the shooting bench. The powder appears to be 5744. I haven't used much 5744 and don't know if unburnt powder is the norm with this powder in subsonic or if this had something to do with the weather.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/16/266fe86c520d807cafccd73c33e6def5.jpg
KalashniKEV
02-16-15, 16:14
Now in the EOTech's defense, I have found my 300BLK AR prints about 3" lower suppressed than unsuppressed at 100yds.
The optic needs no defense for POI shift suppressed and unsuppressed, or between 2 different loads.
Ammo used was a 125gr bullet topping 17.5gr of H110 and a 220gr BTHP over 10.8gr of 5744. Both loads shot fine
Are these your own handloads?
Something's wrong with those subs.
The optic needs no defense for POI shift suppressed and unsuppressed, or between 2 different loads.
Are these your own handloads?
Something's wrong with those subs.
I should have been more specific in my earlier postings. The optic I'm using here is the 300BLK dedicated 2-dot model. The top dot is supposed to be regulated for supersonic ammo at 100 yards and subsonic ammo at 50. The second dot is calibrated for 150 yards with subs and 300 with supers.
I previously had the sight mounted on an AR and it has given me pretty good results at 100 on paper and 300 on steel. I've messed with it a tiny bit using subs but not really enough to make a good determination on it with that type of ammo. Obviously the dots aren't going to correspond exactly to POA/POI between the two types of ammo. Anyway, if I have a chance next weekend I'll try zeroing with 110gr supers at 100 yards.
Yes. I'm using handloads. Since I haven't seen 1680 anywhere in probably a year and am not too sure 5744 is going to work I might buy a couple boxes of factory subsonic and see how they work.
I sent an email to Western Powders asking if unburned powder is common with 5744 when used in subsonic 300BLK. The response I received said it is.
sinlessorrow
02-17-15, 19:02
So, if you mount this to a M16 lower........does that make it an AR
O.O
So, if you mount this to a M16 lower........does that make it an AR
O.O
Only if a single shot 50BMG upper on an AR lower makes that combo an AR as well.
Not to detract from your rifle purchase, but I am interested in the pistols you saw there.
Mainly the inclusion of the brace. Did you look at one and do you know what literature and atf letter copies came with them? It would seem with the atf latest ruling on the brace continuing it's sale is inviting some sort of litigation by the first owner who gets caught shouldering it with no idea he couldn't.
It makes me wonder if Sigs lawyers decided it is so unlikely any one would be prosecuted for shouldering it that in tern they would never get sued?
sinlessorrow
02-18-15, 16:27
The one,thing I wish they would have done differently is the bolt.
I see no reason to stick to the standard AR bolt lug design in a gun like this. At least remove,the sharp corners and round the lugs. I mean why make a rifle this unique, yet keep the parts most common to break on the AR.
Not to detract from your rifle purchase, but I am interested in the pistols you saw there.
Mainly the inclusion of the brace. Did you look at one and do you know what literature and atf letter copies came with them? It would seem with the atf latest ruling on the brace continuing it's sale is inviting some sort of litigation by the first owner who gets caught shouldering it with no idea he couldn't.
It makes me wonder if Sigs lawyers decided it is so unlikely any one would be prosecuted for shouldering it that in tern they would never get sued?
There were no MCX pistols in stock at the store when I bought the rifle so can't comment on anything regarding the brace.
The one,thing I wish they would have done differently is the bolt.
I see no reason to stick to the standard AR bolt lug design in a gun like this. At least remove,the sharp corners and round the lugs. I mean why make a rifle this unique, yet keep the parts most common to break on the AR.
I don't know what prompted SIG to stick with an AR bolt other than to guess it is cheaper for them. It also allows owners the luxury of sourcing bolts for spares and/or caliber conversion easily.
I've not seen any specs on the bolt. Is it C158? S7? Something else?
A gentleman over on TOS is reporting that he's successfully using a 22LR conversion in his MCX pistol. He says the bolt fits and the gun fires and cycles but the AR charging handle doesn't fit correctly. I'm not sure yet what needs to be done to get the handle to work.
This adds yet another available option for caliber conversion. So did SIG anticipate the conversion to 22LR? If so, maybe they'll release a dedicated 22LR barrel with a slow twist and no gas system.
I don't know what prompted SIG to stick with an AR bolt other than to guess it is cheaper for them. It also allows owners the luxury of sourcing bolts for spares and/or caliber conversion easily.
I've not seen any specs on the bolt. Is it C158? S7? Something else?
Will a standard AR bolt even fit? The MCX bolt doesn't have a standard AR tail (closer to an AR-18/180 than anything else)
http://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sig_MCX_Breakdown008.jpg
Will a standard AR bolt even fit? The MCX bolt doesn't have a standard AR tail (closer to an AR-18/180 than anything else)
http://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sig_MCX_Breakdown008.jpg
Yes. I test fit a standard bolt in my rifle. The bolt went into the carrier fine and everything all went back into the rifle with no issues.
Here is the gas tappet. Note the McFarland-type continuous gas ring. Also note the groove running the length of the tappet's stem. There are three grooves total. 31818
The gas plug. I assume the scalloped shape increases the expansion area inside the gas block. Also, there appears to be a release valve inside the plug that opens under pressure and allows gases to vent out a hole in the block. 31821
I wonder why Sig did not make the bolt carrier ride on guide rails ala other non-AR operating systems.
I wonder why Sig did not make the bolt carrier ride on guide rails ala other non-AR operating systems.
Have any of the AR systems using the abbreviated bolt carrier (ZM, Olympic, RRA) used something different?
Here is the bolt carrier assembly.
I have the 300BLK op rod installed. The 5.56/7.62X39 op rod is probably two inches longer.
The small rectangular bump is what the charging handle catches on.
31826
The springs attach via a block that fits onto the op rod. The springs run on plastic or nylon guide rods. 31827
I've been playing a bit more with what kind of havoc a non-ejected casing might cause inside the action.
As mentioned earlier, the gap between the bolt carrier and the charging handle has been removed so the charging handle impingement should no longer be possible.
What is a possibility is getting a case caught between the inside front edge of the upper and the op rod. Now this took a bit of jiggling and a pencil with a loaded mag in place so it is probably pretty darned unlikely in live fire. Still, here's what that malfunction might look like:31873
Here's a view through the ejection port:
31874
Now I should point out again that the 7.62X39/5.56 op rod is longer than the one used on the 300BLK and should plug this slight gap between the op rod and upper.
Anyway, this wasn't anything too terribly hard to clear. Locking the bolt back and/or pulling the charging handle freed the case up so it can fall out the mag well or be dumped out the ejection port.
This is as close as I can seem to get to a charging handle impingement. This is a casing held in place between the bolt face and the top of the receiver just above the barrel extension.
Again, pulling the charging handle back allows the casing to fall free so it can be dumped out the ejection port.
31875
If and when the weather warms up I want to take a crack at clearing some malfunctions live fire.
MCX is an AR-15, it's just an updated/upgraded version of the AR, just a different name. Kinda like the M1A was the upgraded/evolved version of the M1 Garand, yes different round, etc, but same basic design
MCX is an AR-15, it's just an updated/upgraded version of the AR, just a different name. Kinda like the M1A was the upgraded/evolved version of the M1 Garand, yes different round, etc, but same basic design
That's a pretty good analogy. The Garand was the father of the M-14 and both rifles shared many similar design features but few parts interchanged.
Whatever we eventually decide to call weapons like the MCX, the design heritage is fairly obvious. Perhaps the biggest change is SIG's gas system.
MCX is an AR-15, it's just an updated/upgraded version of the AR, just a different name. Kinda like the M1A was the upgraded/evolved version of the M1 Garand, yes different round, etc, but same basic design
A BCG that doenst require a giant buffer and is fine tuned for a piston while being small enough to maintain the ergonomics of the AR is a great design.
sinlessorrow
02-28-15, 19:14
A BCG that doenst require a giant buffer and is fine tuned for a piston while being small enough to maintain the ergonomics of the AR is a great design.
It's the new market tremd from the looks of the ARAK, Serbu, and Sig so far. I'm sure more are coming.
What kind of extractor spring assembly does this have?
A member of another forum is reporting that he's had some communication with SIG and is being told there's likely some type of new gas system already in the works.
Apparently professional end users are having some kind of issue with the self-regulating gas system becoming fouled after heavy use and SIG is working on a manually adjustable system.
Whether or not this is just internet rumor or something he's heard based on an earlier version of the MCX gas system is unknown. But it might help explain why we're not seeing the 7.62x39mm barrels. It might also explain why no one has seen the gun for sale anyplace other than Cabela's.
What kind of extractor spring assembly does this have?
4 coil with black insert and black donut.
It's the new market tremd from the looks of the ARAK, Serbu, and Sig so far. I'm sure more are coming.
What kind of extractor spring assembly does this have?
The thing is that the Arak is kinda heavy and thicker, while the MCX kept the weight and dimensions closer to a DI design.
sinlessorrow
03-01-15, 15:28
The thing is that the Arak is kinda heavy and thicker, while the MCX kept the weight and dimensions closer to a DI design.
Yeah, but I am sad they chose a standard bolt. The most likely part to break and instead of being innovative, as they were with this design, they chose to stick to the standard bolt. The sinlge most important part of the rifle, which happens to be the earliest to break.
They took so many steps to truly innovate and completely missed the most important part. Not to mention the prone to break cam pin, and the cotter pin which could have also been redesigned.
It was originally a manually adjustable gas system and they changed it prior to release no?
It was originally a manually adjustable gas system and they changed it prior to release no?
As I understand it, yes. At least that's what the pre-release YouTube reviews all seem to indicate.
Yeah, but I am sad they chose a standard bolt. The most likely part to break and instead of being innovative, as they were with this design, they chose to stick to the standard bolt. The sinlge most important part of the rifle, which happens to be the earliest to break.
They took so many steps to truly innovate and completely missed the most important part. Not to mention the prone to break cam pin, and the cotter pin which could have also been redesigned.
Oh well, it would be nice to have the super robust trilug design of the M17S, but PWS and KAC has "stronger than standard but still compatible" bolts right?
sinlessorrow
03-03-15, 14:12
Oh well, it would be nice to have the super robust trilug design of the M17S, but PWS and KAC has "stronger than standard but still compatible" bolts right?
Not sure of PWS, but KAC is not compatible.
The PWS bolt is pretty much the same as the MCX. Standard lug pattern but no provision for gas rings.
The PWS bolt is pretty much the same as the MCX. Standard lug pattern but no provision for gas rings.
And uses a steel that is stronger than the mil-spec carpenter steel.
sinlessorrow
03-03-15, 17:31
The PWS bolt is pretty much the same as the MCX. Standard lug pattern but no provision for gas rings.
Really looking forward to the Upper kits so I can not have to buy a complete rifle.
The member on SIGTalk has posted again. Apparently no changes coming to the gas system at this time.
I came across this MCX review in my Youtube feed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eorJWpjazSo
I really dig the way the handguard is designed so that the bottom rail can easily slide on and off. The monolithic top rail is a plus, and it looks like things attached to the side (e.g. lasers) would return to zero with this design.
As for the barrel change, it's neat, but I personally have never felt the urge to swap out barrels unless they are shot out.
The handguard is too tall for my taste, and I don't know why they went with 6061, especially on the upper, but it is still a neat design overall.
sinlessorrow
03-04-15, 18:11
The more I see the more I like. Still waiting for the conversions. I have no use for the 300blk barrel and a upper and adapter would be more my price range.
The closest 100/200/300 yard range is closed due to the torrent of snow we got Thursday so no "long range" accuracy testing for me this weekend. That's just as well since I have no desire to lose all my brass.
Maybe things will be a bit nicer next weekend...
I took the MCX out yesterday mainly to try a few different subsonic loads. I also tweaked my zero at 100yds and then fired a few rounds at the 200 and 300 yard gongs.
10.5gr of AA1680 with a 220gr BTHP works fine and locks the bolt back.
11gr of 5744 cycles and feeds but won't lock the bolt back.
11gr of AA LT-30 cycles and locks open.
Interestingly, the 5744 load locks open in my carbine gas CMMG as do the other loads listed above. The MCX just doesn't seem to care for 5744. At least not with a 220gr.
And here's a group I shot off the bench. This is eight rounds loaded with H110 and a Nosler 110gr bullet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/tokarev/Mobile%20Uploads/PSX_20150314_155958_zpsn3uydp7a.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/tokarev/media/Mobile%20Uploads/PSX_20150314_155958_zpsn3uydp7a.jpg.html)
I shot a few rounds with 10.8gr of 1680 and a 220gr bullet today. Functioning was fine with and without a can.
FeistyCrawfish
03-29-15, 10:29
I actually like the MCX. It's good to see that Sig is back on track after the abomination that was the 556Xi
I actually like the MCX. It's good to see that Sig is back on track after the abomination that was the 556Xi
I assume the 556xi is discontinued? If not yet it should be.
FeistyCrawfish
03-30-15, 09:04
I assume the 556xi is discontinued? If not yet it should be.
One would hope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RAM Engineer
03-31-15, 16:03
I'm really looking forward to seeing more info on this gun, reviews, AARs, etc. This is the first non-AR rifle I've cared about in a long time.
If and when I get the time, the ammo, and the cash I'd really like to run my MCX through a 2- or 3-day carbine class. There are a couple different options coming up this summer.
I wonder what this is all about.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/04/02/congratulations-to-sig/
RAM Engineer
04-02-15, 16:14
Is Cabelas still the only source for these?
FeistyCrawfish
04-02-15, 19:07
At the moment, I believe so.
Is Cabelas still the only source for these?
There have been a few on gunstroker but they've been way overpriced, in my opinion.
I still haven't seen them on Osage County Guns or Bud's.
The operating system sounds a lot like the AR 180 I used to own.
Is Cabelas still the only source for these?
That's the only place I've seen one. I shouldered it last weekend. I really don't like the stock, but it is surprisingly light and well balanced
I just handled a pistol version today at the Cabelas in Greenville, SC. The trigger was heavy - like 10 lbs heavy. Otherwise, it felt solid and I bet it goes boom when you pull the trigger...using both hands.
I bought one from cabelas. I have about 200rds of mixed 300blk through it and it is working good so far, but the trigger is horrendously heavy.
Short video of the MCX with one of the new SIG suppressors.
https://youtu.be/hY6J9lGLHY4
Anyone else pick one of these up? How's it been working?
technician
06-03-15, 19:47
I've been waiting to read/hear/watch some more reviews on the MCX before purchasing. It seems all the focus is on the MPX right now.
I was able to hold a pistol 5.56 MCX at Cabelas. Premium fit and finish, but felt heavy. I did not pull the unit apart to take a look at the internals.
Not hearing more shouting from the roof tops about the MCX makes me nervous. faliaphotography (Youtube review linked earlier here) had some issues with some .300 Blackout ammo, but I have no experience with that caliber--it may be typical with the subsonic rounds.
It looks like a platform with a lot of potential, and I hate playing wait-and-see.
Here is a fairly recent video of the rifle with a suppressor in .300 Blackout:
https://youtu.be/eH2PudhDDi4
I just read on ar15.com that the next batch of guns will ship with a 2-position gas setting. SIG reportedly made this change because they aren't happy with sound levels of the auto gas system.
No word posted on whether or not the new gas system is adaptable to the existing barrels. Maybe I'll see if I can talk to someone in NH and get an answer. I also wonder if the upper receiver will need modification to access the setting switch.
Larry Vickers
07-09-15, 06:33
As I see the other thread on M4C about the MCX got deleted because of some comments made about Govt programs and such and thus my comments were deleted as well I want to post them here for anyone who is considering buying an MCX;
I shot an MCX ( select fire version in 5.56mm ) and got the run down on the whole system back in Feb of this year. Neat concept but it is not ready for prime time; there is still work to be done on this weapon
There is no free lunch in weapons design and when you shorten the operating group you run into serious timing issues - after all there is a reason that HK discontinued the extremely compact HK416C project. My advice to everyone at SIG developing this as well as end users in military or LE circles is flush the idea of making the gun functionally reliable on full auto and make it a semi auto weapon for all users. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll admit it, but I seriously doubt the MCX will ever be truly combat reliable on full auto. On semi auto they have a chance
If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here.
Thanks, LAV.
I was holding out for a factory FDE one, but looks as if I'll hold out just a bit longer...
SIG has already apparently halted production while they revamp the gas system. It sounds like there are some fouling issues with the auto-regulating system so SIG is switching back to a two position user-adjustable gas system.
I have to wonder about the long-term durability of the ballpoint pen recoil springs and the plastic recoil spring guides. These parts are pretty flimsy.
Mine hasn't given me any problems but I'm not yet even at the thousand round mark. Also, I have been running mine exclusively with 300BLK and a 16" barrel.
As I see the other thread on M4C about the MCX got deleted because of some comments made about Govt programs and such and thus my comments were deleted as well I want to post them here for anyone who is considering buying an MCX;
I shot an MCX ( select fire version in 5.56mm ) and got the run down on the whole system back in Feb of this year. Neat concept but it is not ready for prime time; there is still work to be done on this weapon
There is no free lunch in weapons design and when you shorten the operating group you run into serious timing issues - after all there is a reason that HK discontinued the extremely compact HK416C project. My advice to everyone at SIG developing this as well as end users in military or LE circles is flush the idea of making the gun functionally reliable on full auto and make it a semi auto weapon for all users. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll admit it, but I seriously doubt the MCX will ever be truly combat reliable on full auto. On semi auto they have a chance
If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here.
Thank you for coming back and clarifying your comments. I'm going to take your advice and wait until it has proven to be reliable.
As I see the other thread on M4C about the MCX got deleted because of some comments made about Govt programs and such and thus my comments were deleted as well I want to post them here for anyone who is considering buying an MCX;
I shot an MCX ( select fire version in 5.56mm ) and got the run down on the whole system back in Feb of this year. Neat concept but it is not ready for prime time; there is still work to be done on this weapon
There is no free lunch in weapons design and when you shorten the operating group you run into serious timing issues - after all there is a reason that HK discontinued the extremely compact HK416C project. My advice to everyone at SIG developing this as well as end users in military or LE circles is flush the idea of making the gun functionally reliable on full auto and make it a semi auto weapon for all users. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll admit it, but I seriously doubt the MCX will ever be truly combat reliable on full auto. On semi auto they have a chance
If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here.
Ahh what the hell do you know Larry? :p
CCK out!
What, where is Scuba Steve and his encyclopedia PMP?
Too bad about the MCX - I've always thought that SIG was biting off more than it can chew with the MCX, MPX, Scopes, Suppressors, RDS, Pistols, etc, etc.
Start by doing ONE thing great, then add... of course money is money and it's a business, so oh well.
Not to hi-jack, but have there been any issues with the MPX so far?
YesNoNahYeah
07-25-15, 15:07
Yeah, but I am sad they chose a standard bolt. The most likely part to break and instead of being innovative, as they were with this design, they chose to stick to the standard bolt. The sinlge most important part of the rifle, which happens to be the earliest to break.
They took so many steps to truly innovate and completely missed the most important part. Not to mention the prone to break cam pin, and the cotter pin which could have also been redesigned.
I hear you, but I actually like it. It's two less things to worry about (parts availability and proven design). I think being able to use any old AR bolt will help sell more MCX's for that reason, because people can't make the (legitimate) argument they always make for any non-AR, non-5.56 rifle: that if you need a replacement bolt or extractor spring quickly for whatever reason, it'll be too hard or expensive because it's proprietary. And more MCX sales hopefully means more accessories, support, and improvements, as well as knowledge for the prospective buyer who will be able to know exactly what they're getting into when they buy one thanks to all the people who will own one and can share their experiences with it online.
Plus, it's not like the standard AR bolt doesn't have any room for improvement while still being backwards compatible with existing setups. The LWRC, LMT, and Sharps enhanced bolts are drop-in replacements but are made from allegedly far stronger metals than the Carpenters 158 used to make standard bolts. Maybe Sig could eventually come out with their own enhanced bolt for the MCX to entice people to buy it from them instead of just going with any old AR bolt lying around or new one made by all the other companies that make them.
BoringGuy45
09-03-15, 13:32
If Sig really wants to make this work in terms of sales, though, they need to price it somewhat lower than most new generations of semiauto rifles. Industry wide, manufacturers make the same mistake over, and over, and over, and over again: Charge out the ass for their new guns. ACRs, flawed as they may be, probably would have flown off the shelves if they were priced at the $1200 to $1500 that Magpul estimated when it was still the Masada. But Bushmaster ****ed up and priced them at $3000. Same deal with the SCAR: Overall, a good rifle but nearly 150% the-price-of-a-quality-AR better?? Is the HK MR556 really worth $4000? Sig is now talking about what, about $2200 for this thing? Why can't the gun industry ****ing learn?? You need to get everybody and his brother wanting and able to buy new products.
I've been pretty bored with firearm industry news overall the past few years. It's great that there's constant tweaking of the current systems, and I like the new stuff like Keymod and M-Lok. But I've been hoping to see something really new and exciting. We've constantly been let down with things like the XM8, XCR, Masada/ACR, Massoud, SCAR, HK416, etc. Either the systems didn't work or, if they did, cost a king's ransom and/or were not available to the general public. I hope, just for a little excitement, that Sig is able to make this thing all they want it to be at a decent price. I hope it fools both the experts and amateurs alike and they somehow solve many or all the concerns that people here have expressed, and that it will prove to be a combat rifle as good as or better than the AR.
daddyusmaximus
09-03-15, 16:02
I don't think the price of the MCX will be coming down anytime soon. To me it is a niche gun, and until they allow dozens of other makers the licensing to make copies (like all the ARs out there) it won't be competitive. Being the U.S. military weapon also gives the AR a huge leg up. I'd love a folding stock SBR MCX, but am not willing to lay out that much cash until it's been a proven design for years. I'll probably just put a Law Tactical folder on my current gun.
Just received this video in an email from Sig.
http://youtu.be/_AbnRR_vNlc
No mention of the change in gas settings. Maybe the video was filmed pre-change.
No mention of the change in gas settings. Maybe the video was filmed pre-change.
Supposedly this is the first of 3 videos that will be released highlighting the rifle's features. A member on Sigforum says that he has seen a 2nd gen MCX today that has adjustable gas setting - normal and suppressed.
Supposedly this is the first of 3 videos that will be released highlighting the rifle's features. A member on Sigforum says that he has seen a 2nd gen MCX today that has adjustable gas setting - normal and suppressed.
Hopefully Sig did the gas system correctly this time.......unlike what they did with the 556 rifles with the ports reversed on some rifles or the ports the exact same size on other rifles:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?80037-Another-SIG-556-problem-discovered-Gas-valve-ports-reversed
Does anyone know if the accessories on this page www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx are available anywhere? They aren't on Sig's website that I can find. Has anyone on here SBR'd one yet and managed to get their hands on short barrels and handguards etc?
Apparently, there are indeed Gen2 guns on dealer shelves. Look for an adjustable gas block and cutouts in the hand guard. Below is a picture that was edited by LLD, an administrator on Sig Forum, that shows the cutout:
34992
call_me_ski
09-14-15, 22:35
3503935038Here is a close up. Pardon my iphone pics.
Of interest is that the actual upper receiver is cut differently than the original guns. The gas system might not be adjustable without removing the handguard should the original guns be retrofit with the new gas block without the new upper receiver with the larger windows being replaced as well. I remember some saying that the new barrels will be backwards compatible. That could be the case but it may not be a 100% solution for early adopters without changing the entire top end. at least this time sig seems somewhat forward thinking and included another larger cut a couple inches back to allow the user to toggle the piston setting for a shorter gas system.
here is a pic of the mcx being carried in London during Netanyahu's visit.
35040
Thanks for the photos. I'm still curious to see what SIG plans to do, if anything, to retrofit the existing guns. I'll give customer service a call tomorrow.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
Thanks for the photos. I'm still curious to see what SIG plans to do, if anything, to retrofit the existing guns. I'll give customer service a call tomorrow.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
It seems that you would need to replace the gas system/barrel and handguard which is about 1/2 the upper. Somehow, I don't see that happening for free.
I don't see that happening for free.
No you're probably right. I guess it won't be a concern until/if SIG starts selling 7.62x39 barrels anyway.
No you're probably right. I guess it won't be a concern until/if SIG starts selling 7.62x39 barrels anyway.
Assuming the 7.62X39 has an adjustable gas block, you will need to buy a 2nd gen hand guard (with cut outs for adjustment access) in addition to a barrel, bolt assembly, mags, etc.
My suspicion is that we will see second generation 300Blk barrels out in a few months since the gen 1 Cabela's exclusive guns had 300 kits. I'm unsure if these will have adjustable gas blocks since 300blk and 5.56 are very different beasts when it comes to reliability when suppressed - especially at short barrel lengths.
Another video has been released by Sig.
http://youtu.be/GuORTk8CqPw
First adoption that I'm aware of. I wonder how many rifles they purchased.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/28/london-met-sig-mcx/
First adoption that I'm aware of. I wonder how many rifles they purchased.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/28/london-met-sig-mcx/
That's interesting. Is the Met trying to move away from the MP5 or are they worried about something like the terror attacks that happened on the continent occurring in London in the near future?
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
10-01-15, 14:58
The samples in my shop have adjustable gas blocks so I'm assuming they're Gen 2. No word on 300 or 7.62x39 yet. They do look promising though and I'm hoping to keep one for testing.
What kind of accuracy have people been getting with these rifles? I think it looks pretty interesting but I haven't had a chance to get a feel for one yet. One thing I wish they would do is to use another lower for the 7.62x39 version that would accept AK mags, why couldn't they just do some work to adapt their 55X lower that fits those mags?
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
10-01-15, 15:16
What kind of accuracy have people been getting with these rifles? I think it looks pretty interesting but I haven't had a chance to get a feel for one yet. One thing I wish they would do is to use another lower for the 7.62x39 version that would accept AK mags, why couldn't they just do some work to adapt their 55X lower that fits those mags?
I have not heard any reports and I saw Mr. Vicker's opinions on it so I'm hesitant to keep one for testing at the moment. I'll let customers decide if they want it and I've had many express interest though no one has pulled out a CC or cash yet. I'm not really sure why they didn't make an adaptable mag well. CZ did so with the 805 Bren. Not sure why Sig didn't also add a bolt hold open or even a simple bolt release on the right side. Ambi mag releases but no bolt release even? Strange stuff but it makes me wonder if there will be updates in the future. Another reason I'm hesitant.
I agree that an ambi bolt release was in order. However, the fact that I can just drop the MCX upper into any number of the SBR registered KAC IWS lowers that are sitting in my safe has me very intrigued. Still, I've held out because I do NOT, under any circumstances, buy new rifles in their first year of release - especially from Sig. So, I'm going to patiently wait and see what shakes out of this bad boy.
As for Mr. Vicker's take on the gun, I'd like to hear the details of why he holds that opinion. Did he actually witness malfunctions that he could attribute to the operating system length? Does he have some inside scoop on agency testing? As it stands now, the manner of his review is...disappointing. I suspect that I would not be allowed to post such a scant review of one of his products in such a negative light.
What kind of accuracy have people been getting with these rifles? I think it looks pretty interesting but I haven't had a chance to get a feel for one yet. One thing I wish they would do is to use another lower for the 7.62x39 version that would accept AK mags, why couldn't they just do some work to adapt their 55X lower that fits those mags?
I bet you could stick it on rock river lar-47 lower.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Not sure why Sig didn't also add a bolt hold open or even a simple bolt release on the right side. Ambi mag releases but no bolt release even? Strange stuff but it makes me wonder if there will be updates in the future. Another reason I'm hesitant.
From what I remember reading before in a post by Faliure2Stop when there was some upgrade available for some KAC rifles the unit that was inspecting them asked for a non am I lower, I think he said the reason was to minimize or eliminate retraining. So if the MCX was made for the LVAW program and if the commercial MCX is close to a direct port of that design then I think I know why it doesn't have a lower that has am I controls. Luckily it seems as if the MCX is supposed to be compatible with any AR lower so hopefully the ambi lowers like the ones by LWRC will be compatible. If not then I guess we'll have to settle.
I bet you could stick it on rock river lar-47 lower.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
How hard is it to find a LAR lower and is the only change just the mag well and release? Or would there be a difference in terms of the fire control and selector lever?
I picked up a MCX about two weeks ago. So far I'm happy with the gun, my only gripe is that the front sight screw was so tight I ended up rounding the allen head screw. Yes I tried Kriol and heat...no go. The other "negative" is the trigger. Pull weight is 8 pounds 10 ounces. It is however very clean. My guess (and it's just that) is that they have intentionally kept the trigger a bit heavily sprung for use with the 7.62x39 ammo as some combloc primers can be a bit hard. I will be dropping an ALG or Geissele into the gun soon.
I have had zero malfunctions, but only have about 200 rounds through the gun at this point. I have not benched the gun at 100 yards for accuracy but groups were right with what I achieve with an AR at 50 when I zeroed the gun. The thing that really intrigues me is the modularity of the platform. If you haven't seen it check out the second video the Sig released last week.
Obviously all my impressions are very tentative at this point given the very limited number of round I have through the gun. We will see what happens with further use.
I picked up a MCX about two weeks ago. So far I'm happy with the gun, my only gripe is that the front sight screw was so tight I ended up rounding the allen head screw. Yes I tried Kriol and heat...no go. The other "negative" is the trigger. Pull weight is 8 pounds 10 ounces. It is however very clean. My guess (and it's just that) is that they have intentionally kept the trigger a bit heavily sprung for use with the 7.62x39 ammo as some combloc primers can be a bit hard. I will be dropping an ALG or Geissele into the gun soon.
Is it for sure that the MCX lower takes standard AR triggers? The MPX's trigger resembles an AR trigger and aftermarket triggers may fit, but use of any aftermarket trigger voids the MPX warranty. Apparently there is a trigger bridge in the MPX that is needed to minimize stress on parts.
How hard is it to find a LAR lower and is the only change just the mag well and release? Or would there be a difference in terms of the fire control and selector lever?
Well, you bring up some good questions.
All I can say is the thing is standard length and uses standard receiver pins. So it would assemble together. Is the magazine height right? I don't know. That would really be my main concern.
It would be bad ass if somebody had both of these weapons and could check for us.
Is it for sure that the MCX lower takes standard AR triggers? The MPX's trigger resembles an AR trigger and aftermarket triggers may fit, but use of any aftermarket trigger voids the MPX warranty. Apparently there is a trigger bridge in the MPX that is needed to minimize stress on parts.
Yes. MCX trigger components are replaceable with GI, Geissele, etc.
Yes. MCX trigger components are replaceable with GI, Geissele, etc.
Good to know - thanks. I've only handled a Gen1 Cabela's exclusive and it had a crazy heavy trigger.
Good to know - thanks. I've only handled a Gen1 Cabela's exclusive and it had a crazy heavy trigger.
I don't know but I'm speculating, as are others, that the heavy trigger is for 7.62x39 if and when SIG sells the conversion.
What kind of accuracy have people been getting with these rifles? I think it looks pretty interesting but I haven't had a chance to get a feel for one yet. One thing I wish they would do is to use another lower for the 7.62x39 version that would accept AK mags, why couldn't they just do some work to adapt their 55X lower that fits those mags?
I have only used my MCX (Cabela's self-regulating gas) as a 300BLK and then only with irons and/or red dot but it shoots as good as an AR similarity equipped. I have pulled the barrel a time or two and haven't really noticed any change in zero. Granted, most of the stuff I've done with the rifle has been inside 100 yards but I have had it out to 300 on the local range's gong.
I imagine the gun was designed as a 223/300 and as both a stand-alone product and a conversion kit for existing lowers. Serializing the upper and then selling separate lowers would pretty much negate any benefit to a conversion. Plus I assume ATF wouldn't be too happy with SIG selling unserialized lowers that are backwards compatible with AR uppers.
I also assume the 7.62x39 kit, if and when released, will be just something for the American commercial market and is basically an afterthought to the design.
762x39 version
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/10/12/ausa-sig-sauer-mcx-in-7-62x239/
762x39 version
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/10/12/ausa-sig-sauer-mcx-in-7-62x239/
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery - that stock is "inspired" by (i.e. ripped off from) the B&T gas mask/riot helmet stock for the mp5 and APC series.
pointblank4445
10-18-15, 13:15
If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here.
Apparently, there are indeed Gen2 guns on dealer shelves. Look for an adjustable gas block and cutouts in the hand guard. Below is a picture that was edited by LLD, an administrator on Sig Forum, that shows the cutout:
34992\
So in terms of getting this platform up to speed, where does the Gen 2 sit? Is this upgrade the first of many to come, or does this put the MCX back on track?
\
So in terms of getting this platform up to speed, where does the Gen 2 sit? Is this upgrade the first of many to come, or does this put the MCX back on track?
Who knows. I doubt that we will see major operational changes to the 16" MCX in the near future. However, new barrel lengths and calibers mean the potential for new goblins, and we can only hope that Sig does their homework with each new release.
I'm a big fan of the MCX as a concept. I'm not a big fan of Sig's recent history with rifles (or the rollout of the MPX). Thus, I'm still waiting to see how the mature platform performs in a year or so.
pointblank4445
10-19-15, 14:33
I'm a big fan of the MCX as a concept. I'm not a big fan of Sig's recent history with rifles (or the rollout of the MPX). Thus, I'm still waiting to see how the mature platform performs in a year or so.
I feel EXACTLY the same way. I love the concept, but hate the idea that it's up to Sig. The only thing that still leaves me optimistic is that a 5.56 carbine is not a tricky animal to tame and while Sig itself doesn't leave me with warm and fuzzies, some of the minds working there give me some degree of comfort.
I can fully understand if they are having to spread themselves to cover:
-All manner of 300 BO suppressed/unsuppressed...I'm guessing with subs and supers. This is a tall order alone.
-5.56 SBR and carbine with suppress-able function. This too adds to complication
Plus Sig want's it to be full auto capable too?
That's a lot of variance and a very tall order for a company that's on point; much less the one that's tasked with it. I'm not shocked to hear Vickers say that they haven't cracked this incredibly complex code. What I wish we had is a bit more context on the matter. For example:
In what configuration is it most reliable? The least?
"In what configuration is it most reliable? The least?"
You think a company is going to tell people something like that? I'm pretty sure what they're going for is something they can market as equally reliable in all configurations. Whether they achieve that or not is a different matter, but I doubt they are ever going to say that they were going for anything less. And I will give them fair credit that they are in fact probably trying for just that. They've got a lot of high end engineering talent and for a manufacturing operation that size their QC is still pretty good. What they are trying for is entirely achievable.
And LAV said "If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here." Notice that he is not expressing any lack of confidence in the company here, but rather just saying that they need more time. It seems that he is admitting that they are attempting something very difficult here and need time to work on it. I'm taking his advice.
Because what I really want is: 35517
pointblank4445
10-19-15, 16:08
You think a company is going to tell people something like that?
No, I don't expect them to say anything. What they do say, I'm not inclined to believe. I want to hear from those with a bit more objectivity...and even that has to be taken with a grain.
What I would like to hear is context...like what configuration(s) aren't "ready for prime time"?...or is it not variant-specific is a general design flaw that affects every configuration?...
"In what configuration is it most reliable? The least?"
You think a company is going to tell people something like that? I'm pretty sure what they're going for is something they can market as equally reliable in all configurations. Whether they achieve that or not is a different matter, but I doubt they are ever going to say that they were going for anything less. And I will give them fair credit that they are in fact probably trying for just that. They've got a lot of high end engineering talent and for a manufacturing operation that size their QC is still pretty good. What they are trying for is entirely achievable.
And LAV said "If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one - give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here." Notice that he is not expressing any lack of confidence in the company here, but rather just saying that they need more time. It seems that he is admitting that they are attempting something very difficult here and need time to work on it. I'm taking his advice.
Because what I really want is: 35517
Disclaimer: LAV has forgotten more about firearms than I'll ever come close to knowing. Having said that, I'm not sure how to integrate his opinion into the context of the current MCX. For example, I'm not sure if his comments about not having a free lunch on the operating system length was based on a gun with the self-regulating gas system or the more updated 2-position system. In addition, he did not describe the nature of the malfunctions that he witnessed (assuming that the gun actually malfunctioned). Was it with the 556 guns or the 300blk guns? Suppressed or unsuppressed? I'm with pointblank on this one. That was a non-review.
All of these questions that have gone unanswered make me set his opinion aside until I hear more from suck - I mean customers who go ahead and guinea p - I mean purchase one.
I'm a big fan of the MCX as a concept. I'm not a big fan of Sig's recent history with rifles (or the rollout of the MPX). Thus, I'm still waiting to see how the mature platform performs in a year or so.
My sentiments exactly. I want the MCX to succeed. Exeter's handling of the 556, 551a1, and 556xi were nothing short of a total goat f$&k. And the same captain that brought the market these "gems" is still at the helm. Time will tell. I will not be an early adopter.
BoringGuy45
10-19-15, 22:08
Sig lately seems like the rich man's Kel Tec: High points for being progressive and innovative, but in the basement in terms of parts quality and quality control. This could be an excellent evolution of the AR platform if the get it right, but given their history since Ron Cohan took over, that's a big if.
I think everyone here is being too critical of Sig. So they had a couple of less than successful platforms. So what? They've had many more that were extremely successful. They tried. They're moving on. If they make this one work they'll have scored a huge win. If their new silencer line works then that's yet another feather in their cap.
Bad QC? No. They've proven that with their pistol designs.
and FWIW I'm not a Sig Fanboy. I've never even owned one of their products, although if the MCX and MPX end up being successful long term I sure will.
I think everyone here is being too critical of Sig. So they had a couple of less than successful platforms. So what? They've had many more that were extremely successful. They tried. They're moving on. If they make this one work they'll have scored a huge win. If their new silencer line works then that's yet another feather in their cap.
Bad QC? No. They've proven that with their pistol designs.
and FWIW I'm not a Sig Fanboy. I've never even owned one of their products, although if the MCX and MPX end up being successful long term I sure will.
Sig had horrible QC issues from 2004-2012 that they are just starting to recover from. IMHO, it started with their GSR 1911 that was a disaster. The early P250 was also a nightmare. Even the P-series guns started having premature failures due to decisions to go with cheap MIM parts in critical areas. Until recently, their American rifle line sucked a giant donkey dick that started with the 556 (including the 556 SWAT and 556xi)
Fortunately, things has started to improve over the past 2-3 years. However, it seems to be 2 steps forward and one step back.
pointblank4445
10-20-15, 12:30
I think everyone here is being too critical of Sig. So they had a couple of less than successful platforms. So what? They've had many more that were extremely successful. They tried. They're moving on. If they make this one work they'll have scored a huge win. If their new silencer line works then that's yet another feather in their cap.
Bad QC? No. They've proven that with their pistol designs.
and FWIW I'm not a Sig Fanboy. I've never even owned one of their products, although if the MCX and MPX end up being successful long term I sure will.
"less than successful"?...The 550/551 was a known entity; the work had been done. Sig just had to copy the damn thing, and couldn't even get that right. The pistols are another matter. The current P-series are easily over-shadowed by their late 80's/early 90's ancestors (and I have owned several examples of each).
In past years, Sig has been known to focus more on quantity over quality. While current quality is debatable, to say that it is comparable to its German/Swiss manufacturing is just plain delusional.
It's not my intent to turn this into a Sig-bash, but facts are facts, and Sig has to be out in front every step of the way if they want to succeed...and I hope they do succeed. The MCX has some great potential. But despite my interest in this platform, I'm not about to turn a blind eye to their history and hope everything is all sunshine and rainbows (http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p238-rainbow.aspx)
BoringGuy45
10-20-15, 14:37
I think everyone here is being too critical of Sig. So they had a couple of less than successful platforms. So what? They've had many more that were extremely successful. They tried. They're moving on. If they make this one work they'll have scored a huge win. If their new silencer line works then that's yet another feather in their cap.
Bad QC? No. They've proven that with their pistol designs.
and FWIW I'm not a Sig Fanboy. I've never even owned one of their products, although if the MCX and MPX end up being successful long term I sure will.
Sig's designs are sound, obviously. Also, not everything they've made since Cohan took over has been a complete disaster. The P227 has been getting a lot of good feedback, and the P320 is a very nice pistol. All it would take is for them to stop cutting corners
However, I have owned Sig products. My P229 was a decent. I sold it because after only about 200 rounds, I realized just how much I hated the DAK trigger. I thought about sending it back to have Sig replace the DAK with a DA/SA SRT trigger. But before this, I had a 4 month odyssey of them first refusing to correct another (unrelated) problem with my pistol, then once they actually agreed to do their jobs, they couldn't get any of my requests right, or even reply back to me unless I called repeatedly. I decided I was done dealing with their spotty QC and rude customer service. So I traded it in to a LGS for an M&P45.
As pointblank just said, they had a friggin' lottery ticket in their hands with the 551 line; all they had to do was make it like they do over in Switzerland, or at least close enough to it. Many of us, myself included, would have pulled our wallets out so fast it would start a fire in our pockets. They managed to screw up a rifle that many consider one of the best 5.56 rifle designs in the world today.
Even the Sig forums, 556/551 forums, and other Sig fan related sites are mostly filled with threads about how to make make your Sig gun be more like...well, a real Sig. Most of what they do there is lament about the current state of the company, what it was, and what it should, and could be. When Sig fanboys have trouble mindlessly defending the object of their affection, that's a red flag.
You know I am interested to see how the MCX in 300 Blackout fairs over the next year, it is an interesting design, associated with some new engineering talent and could be the dedicated 300 Blackout platform I am looking for. However, like others here I will not be making an investment in that platform until I see Sig establish a solid track record with it. Call it a case of Sigburn from watching a 556 commando literally fall apart on the range during a local department's testing, or from watching them cut corners on the build of their classic P series, or maybe from wondering if they are employing more website designers then engineers.
All I am really looking for is for Sig to take their products seriously again. To really invest in the design and manufacture of a serious platform that is not targeted to a weekend consumer market. Of course I also could just be waiting for the Elite Legend Tacops Equinox Tribal Extreme Rainbox 6 MCX to come out.
"less than successful"?...The 550/551 was a known entity; the work had been done. Sig just had to copy the damn thing, and couldn't even get that right. The pistols are another matter. The current P-series are easily over-shadowed by their late 80's/early 90's ancestors (and I have owned several examples of each).
In past years, Sig has been known to focus more on quantity over quality. While current quality is debatable, to say that it is comparable to its German/Swiss manufacturing is just plain delusional.
It's not my intent to turn this into a Sig-bash, but facts are facts, and Sig has to be out in front every step of the way if they want to succeed...and I hope they do succeed. The MCX has some great potential. But despite my interest in this platform, I'm not about to turn a blind eye to their history and hope everything is all sunshine and rainbows (http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p238-rainbow.aspx)
This is spot on.
All I am really looking for is for Sig to take their products seriously again. To really invest in the design and manufacture of a serious platform that is not targeted to a weekend consumer market.
Me too. It is a real shame that they shat the bed with the 556.
what is the general consensus of the MCX? SIG has been putting a nice crew of guys to work with them Robby Johnson, Lindsay Bunch, Kevin Brittingham
what is the general consensus of the MCX? SIG has been putting a nice crew of guys to work with them Robby Johnson, Lindsay Bunch, Kevin Brittingham
See pages 1-16 of this thread...;)
It looks like a few people have quite a few rounds down range with them in certain configurations. Definitely keeping an eye out for more user reports. Good guys behind the scenes for sure.
BoringGuy45
10-23-15, 00:28
MCX most innovative design in years. Small, light, good ergonomics.
Sig talent.. well most won't know the afore mentioned names, but they don't suck.
Unlike most, I've had my claws on 300 and 556 versions.. 6.75", 9, 11.5, 14.5, 16", and think well of them.
It's good to hear that. That gives me hope. Now, if only they can take that talent and quality and start applying it to the Sig556 line, I would ejaculate like Peter North.
The MCX greatly surpasses the 55x line in form factor and performance. I would not be one to romance the 551/552/553 lines. Little wonder Sig is dropping the the 55x.
Dano if you would not mind I for one would certainly enjoy you expounding on your experiences with the MCX platform. Obviously you have much more experience and access to it then those of us in civilian roles. Do you see the current "gen 2 models" as a mature evolution of this platform or does it still have room to grow in design before you would consider it acceptable?
I feel EXACTLY the same way. I love the concept, but hate the idea that it's up to Sig. The only thing that still leaves me optimistic is that a 5.56 carbine is not a tricky animal to tame and while Sig itself doesn't leave me with warm and fuzzies, some of the minds working there give me some degree of comfort.
I can fully understand if they are having to spread themselves to cover:
-All manner of 300 BO suppressed/unsuppressed...I'm guessing with subs and supers. This is a tall order alone.
-5.56 SBR and carbine with suppress-able function. This too adds to complication
Plus Sig want's it to be full auto capable too?
That's a lot of variance and a very tall order for a company that's on point; much less the one that's tasked with it. I'm not shocked to hear Vickers say that they haven't cracked this incredibly complex code. What I wish we had is a bit more context on the matter. For example:
In what configuration is it most reliable? The least?
The most reliable would be the first round they put on the market, with R&D fixing issues with the other calibers. Just my 2 cents.
pointblank4445
10-25-15, 21:08
The most reliable would be the first round they put on the market, with R&D fixing issues with the other calibers. Just my 2 cents.
Am I hearing that you think the best guns were the first ones that hit the market...? That's what it sounds like you're trying to say. Go back a few posts regarding how Sig already stopped production and add the gas adjustment for the "gen 2" run. Furthermore, this is pretty much ass-backwards to the way that most regard new products. As a general rule, the initial runs are the most likely to have bugs that may have been missed in R&D. Most savvy consumers new designs until vetted.
If I am misreading your sentiments, please disregard.
Am I hearing that you think the best guns were the first ones that hit the market...? That's what it sounds like you're trying to say. Go back a few posts regarding how Sig already stopped production and add the gas adjustment for the "gen 2" run. Furthermore, this is pretty much ass-backwards to the way that most regard new products. As a general rule, the initial runs are the most likely to have bugs that may have been missed in R&D. Most savvy consumers new designs until vetted.
If I am misreading your sentiments, please disregard.
I was stating that Sig put the most reliable caliber, or maybe its most popular one, that works for most? Regardless, Sig had the military go through this weapon, it should have a solid back ground and R&D.
pointblank4445
10-25-15, 21:27
I was stating that Sig put the most reliable caliber, or maybe its most popular one, that works for most?
Copy that, I thought you may be referring to the schools of thought regarding when to buy a new product...the to major ones being:
- Buy early before they try to cut corners for profit margin.
- Buy late so they can get all the bugs out.
Regardless, Sig had the military go through this weapon, it should have a solid back ground and R&D.
If that's your reasoning be my guest, but that is not going to cut it for me.
With the MCX out in the shops now, I seem to be seeing just the 16 inch inch side folder in 5.56. Cabelas looks like it carries the 300BLK and 5.56 9 inch inch pistols but Its hard to know what is in stock with them, There is not a Cabela's near me. Is anyone else seeing more of these in the wild?
With the MCX out in the shops now, I seem to be seeing just the 16 inch inch side folder in 5.56. Cabelas looks like it carries the 300BLK and 5.56 9 inch inch pistols but Its hard to know what is in stock with them, There is not a Cabela's near me. Is anyone else seeing more of these in the wild?
Not any more. Cabela's got a limited release of gen 1 556 / 300blk guns in pistol configuration with self-regulating gas systems in the early Summer. I've not seen this combo with the gen 2 guns that have adjustable gas systems. So far, only 16" 556 guns are released in the gen2 configuration from what I can tell. If you find a gun with a 9" barrel, then it is probably a gen1 leftover.
Personally, I'd avoid these gen1 guns. You would need to buy a new handguard with gas system cutouts if you ever wanted to switch the barrel. At the rate that Sig is going, replacement parts like handguards will be available sometime around 2030.
I was at the Cabela's in Charlotte 3 weeks ago and they were out of MCX's. I'm in Greenville, SC and plan to stop by Cabela's tomorrow and will let you know if they have anything in stock.
Thanks for the update, I had read about the self regulating gas system, I did not realize there is a gen1 and gen 2 already released.
Not any more. Cabela's got a limited release of gen 1 556 / 300blk guns in pistol configuration with self-regulating gas systems in the early Summer. I've not seen this combo with the gen 2 guns that have adjustable gas systems. So far, only 16" 556 guns are released in the gen2 configuration from what I can tell. If you find a gun with a 9" barrel, then it is probably a gen1 leftover.
Personally, I'd avoid these gen1 guns. You would need to buy a new handguard with gas system cutouts if you ever wanted to switch the barrel. At the rate that Sig is going, replacement parts like handguards will be available sometime around 2030.
I was at the Cabela's in Charlotte 3 weeks ago and they were out of MCX's. I'm in Greenville, SC and plan to stop by Cabela's tomorrow and will let you know if they have anything in stock.
I just left Cabela's in G'ville SC and they had 1 Gen 2 MCX in stock for about $1700. I got to play with one of the Cabela's Gen 1 MCX pistol exclusives this past May at the same store. This Gen 2 gun had a much lighter trigger compared to that Gen 1 pistol. It's still heavier than an average AR, but nothing that needs to be immediately changed (unlike the earlier iteration).
There are a couple of head scratchers with this rifle. First, the lack of ambi bolt release is perplexing. Granted, the rifle's novelty is in the ability to plop the upper on any standard AR lower. But I would have thought that more would have gone into the lower's development. Second, the folding stock is too short and thin at the buttpad. Finally, I'd rather have a M-lok handguard.
Still, it's a very interesting design and I'm probably (i.e. definitely) going to get one once the platform matures in terms of color, stock, caliber, and barrel length options.
BoringGuy45
10-31-15, 21:18
I just left Cabela's in G'ville SC and they had 1 Gen 2 MCX in stock for about $1700. I got to play with one of the Cabela's Gen 1 MCX pistol exclusives this past May at the same store. This Gen 2 gun had a much lighter trigger compared to that Gen 1 pistol. It's still heavier than an average AR, but nothing that needs to be immediately changed (unlike the earlier iteration).
There are a couple of head scratchers with this rifle. First, the lack of ambi bolt release is perplexing. Granted, the rifle's novelty is in the ability to plop the upper on any standard AR lower. But I would have thought that more would have gone into the lower's development. Second, the folding stock is too short and thin at the buttpad. Finally, I'd rather have a M-lok handguard.
Still, it's a very interesting design and I'm probably (i.e. definitely) going to get one once the platform matures in terms of color, stock, caliber, and barrel length options.
I'm with you on both these things. To each his own, but I also prefer M-Lok to Keymod. I've always hated wire-type stocks; I'm a bit of a bitch when it comes to cheek weld comfort. If this particular platform takes off (I know, I'm sinning by using the term "platform"), I'd imagine we'll see companies like Magpul, MI, and ALG/Geissele making accessories for it. I've been impressed with Magpul's Zhukov AK stocks; I'd like to see them make something similar for the MCX. If I can get that and a decent-looking, hopefully lower profile M-Lok handguard from Geissele, I'll be a happy man (the current Keymod offering is uglier than Hillary Clinton's scrotum).
While the stock is a bit thin, it certainly isn't uncomfortable with the punishing recoil of the 5.56 round. One of the reasons the stock was kept thin was to reduce the profile of the gun when it was in the folded position.
While the stock is a bit thin, it certainly isn't uncomfortable with the punishing recoil of the 5.56 round. One of the reasons the stock was kept thin was to reduce the profile of the gun when it was in the folded position.
I think that the stock "issue" is temporary since Sig is releasing 4 other options, and I'm sure that the aftermarket will respond in kind.
However, there is one other head scratcher that I failed to mention in my last post. I'm not completely sold on design of the barrel retention screws. Several people on AR15.com and Sigforum have mentioned that these screws have loosened in both the MCX and MPX after 500-1000 rounds. I much prefer the ratchet screws found in the SCAR platform. Granted, LMT uses a similar design (from what I can tell) as Sig, but LMT calls for 140 inch-pounds of torque in their MRP design as opposed to the 60 inch-pounds being reported online for the Sig.
As to the stock, I'm waiting on the Sig adaptor for the AR lower so I can use the MCX upper w/10.5" bbl and the Sig folder on already SBRed AR lower. THAT will be a small package...
I can't comment on the barrel screws to this point as I don't have a great deal of rounds through the gun. If nothing else they are easy to access and check during routine maintenance.
I'm with you on both these things. To each his own, but I also prefer M-Lok to Keymod. I've always hated wire-type stocks; I'm a bit of a bitch when it comes to cheek weld comfort. If this particular platform takes off (I know, I'm sinning by using the term "platform"), I'd imagine we'll see companies like Magpul, MI, and ALG/Geissele making accessories for it. I've been impressed with Magpul's Zhukov AK stocks; I'd like to see them make something similar for the MCX. If I can get that and a decent-looking, hopefully lower profile M-Lok handguard from Geissele, I'll be a happy man (the current Keymod offering is uglier than Hillary Clinton's scrotum).
Dude a Zhukov style stock with the Sig pic adapter would be the cat's meow.
C'mon Magpull. You can do it!
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
11-01-15, 18:26
I think that the stock "issue" is temporary since Sig is releasing 4 other options, and I'm sure that the aftermarket will respond in kind.
However, there is one other head scratcher that I failed to mention in my last post. I'm not completely sold on design of the barrel retention screws. Several people on AR15.com and Sigforum have mentioned that these screws have loosened in both the MCX and MPX after 500-1000 rounds. I much prefer the ratchet screws found in the SCAR platform. Granted, LMT uses a similar design (from what I can tell) as Sig, but LMT calls for 140 inch-pounds of torque in their MRP design as opposed to the 60 inch-pounds being reported online for the Sig.
I have to wonder, could that issue be remedied without redesigning the whole rifle?
I have to wonder, could that issue be remedied without redesigning the whole rifle?
I'd think that it would be a very easy issue to fix - if it truly is an issues. So far it's just a few internet reports. Time will tell.
MAC has a review of the MCX:
http://youtu.be/zmyluo3aT0Y
It looks like he fired 500 rounds or so through various mags without malfunction. That is a step in the right direction. I'd like to see what he thinks after suppressing it.
The last time I handled a Sig MCX I was expecting the folding stock to be too long but I think they designed the fixed version to be somewhere between a WARSAW and an M16A2 length stock. Smart move on their part. The gun feels very solid when shouldered with the folding stock, almost as much as my 870 Wingmaster. I would like to see the adjustable version of the stock or at least the kit to retrofit an AR lower. My biggest problem though is that I don't have an extra $1800 to buy one do these little beauties.
pointblank4445
11-04-15, 14:03
The last time I handled a Sig MCX I was expecting the folding stock to be too long but I think they designed the fixed version to be somewhere between a WARSAW and an M16A2 length stock. Smart move on their part. The gun feels very solid when shouldered with the folding stock, almost as much as my 870 Wingmaster. I would like to see the adjustable version of the stock or at least the kit to retrofit an AR lower. My biggest problem though is that I don't have an extra $1800 to buy one do these little beauties.
$1400 and getting lower every day on gunbroker. I just saved you $400...you're welcome.
$1400 and getting lower every day on gunbroker. I just saved you $400...you're welcome.
Haha, thanks. But that was supposed to imply I was broke :help: luckily I'm just a college student.
pointblank4445
11-06-15, 07:34
Haha, thanks. But that was supposed to imply I was broke :help: luckily I'm just a college student.
Copy that; I just didn't want you to pay $1800 if you didn't have to. Given that $1650 was a phenomenal price a few weeks ago; it's over-priced today. I'm hoping they'll settle in at the $12xx range or lower before the first of the year.
The MCX, MPX, CZ Scorpion EVO, and Beretta ARX100 (to a lesser extent) are the platforms that I've been anxiously awaiting. Until recently, I felt some time pressure to jump in ahead of ATF 41P so that I could SBR each. Now that NC has become a CLEO shall sign state I'm inclined to wait.
Of those that I've listed, the MCX is pretty ripe for civilian purchase. The MPX still needs some work ahead of the Gen2 release, and CZ is upgrading the EVO in 2016. The Gen2 MCX guns have been out for a few months and have an overall favorable reception in the 16" configuration.
There are a couple reasons why I'm still waiting. First, I can't help but notice that the Gen2 300blk barrels with adjustable gas systems are nowhere to be seen. The initial run of gen1 Cabela's guns included a 300blk option with self-regulating gas system at the time of release. Thus, I'm curious if the Gen2 300blk gas system needs some more work. In addition, where are the 556 short barrels? I don't need another 16" AR variant.
Second, I like my rifles the same way I like my women - hot, short, silenced, and BROWN!
The MCX, MPX, CZ Scorpion EVO, and Beretta ARX100 (to a lesser extent) are the platforms that I've been anxiously awaiting. Until recently, I felt some time pressure to jump in ahead of ATF 41P so that I could SBR each. Now that NC has become a CLEO shall sign state I'm inclined to wait.
Of those that I've listed, the MCX is pretty ripe for civilian purchase. The MPX still needs some work ahead of the Gen2 release, and CZ is upgrading the EVO in 2016. The Gen2 MCX guns have been out for a few months and have an overall favorable reception in the 16" configuration.
There are a couple reasons why I'm still waiting. First, I can't help but notice that the Gen2 300blk barrels with adjustable gas systems are nowhere to be seen. The initial run of gen1 Cabela's guns included a 300blk option with self-regulating gas system at the time of release. Thus, I'm curious if the Gen2 300blk gas system needs some more work. In addition, where are the 556 short barrels? I don't need another 16" AR variant.
Second, I like my rifles the same way I like my women - hot, short, silenced, and BROWN!
If you happen to be in the Raleigh area, you can try my MCX out some time. :)
One thing that I am annoyed with is the rep at Sig Academy told me the rifle would come with an adapter so I could use a normal muzzle device. It did not come with this adapter, and I haven't had much luck with Sig customer service. There's no way to safely run my suppressor for now. :(
Does it need an adaptor? I thought I'd read that the new muzzle profile made devices work without shims or washers.
If you happen to be in the Raleigh area, you can try my MCX out some time. :)
One thing that I am annoyed with is the rep at Sig Academy told me the rifle would come with an adapter so I could use a normal muzzle device. It did not come with this adapter, and I haven't had much luck with Sig customer service. There's no way to safely run my suppressor for now. :(
Interesting. Tell me more about this issue. I'm aware that the MCX has a tapered crown. I've also heard that some people have had trouble removing the factory FH; it seems that Sig has hired the Incredible Hulk to tighten these.
However, I've not heard that the barrel design requires an adapter to use other muzzle devices.
BTW, thanks for the offer but I live in Winston-Salem.
Interesting. Tell me more about this issue. I'm aware that the MCX has a tapered crown. I've also heard that some people have had trouble removing the factory FH; it seems that Sig has hired the Incredible Hulk to tighten these.
However, I've not heard that the barrel design requires an adapter to use other muzzle devices.
BTW, thanks for the offer but I live in Winston-Salem.
Both Sig and Silencerco have told me that if you want to use a brake, you need an adapter that sits on the taper and provides a 90 degree shoulder to time the brake against. You can't use shims or a peel washer on the taper.
Supposedly a flash hider is fine if you don't need to time it. It'll bottom out against the taper.
Both Sig and Silencerco have told me that if you want to use a brake, you need an adapter that sits on the taper and provides a 90 degree shoulder to time the brake against. You can't use shims or a peel washer on the taper.
Supposedly a flash hider is fine if you don't need to time it. It'll bottom out against the taper.
Well that blows. I wonder why they use that taper.
Well that blows. I wonder why they use that taper.
It's actually a really smart idea. Every good suppressor uses a taper mount: Surefire, Silencerco, Griffin, Thunderbeast, etc. Sig has taken the taper off the mount and moved it to the barrel profile. Their new suppressors have a matching taper inside, so when you thread them on you get full engagement.
The downside is that in the mass market of AR accessories, they have limited our ability to use different muzzle devices until the adapters become available. I'm going to try fitting one of my Trifecta flash hiders today, and check alignment. I'll post my results.
Alright, tested it. The stock flash hider came off easily after I removed the handguard and put the barrel in a set of wooden vice blocks.
Torqued a Saker Trifecta flash hider on, attached my Saker 762, and it's not concentric. Looking down the bore it's lopsided, quite a bit. I don't think I'd get a baffle strike since I'm running the 762 version, but I'm not going to risk it.
Alright, tested it. The stock flash hider came off easily after I removed the handguard and put the barrel in a set of wooden vice blocks.
Torqued a Saker Trifecta flash hider on, attached my Saker 762, and it's not concentric. Looking down the bore it's lopsided, quite a bit. I don't think I'd get a baffle strike since I'm running the 762 version, but I'm not going to risk it.
Thanks for the update. It sounds like the barrel taper is a great design if you plan to use Sig suppressors. Unfortunately, I'm heavily invested in Surefire and KAC cans. Thus, I'm going to pass until there is an adapter.
I have an AAC 51T flash hider screwed directly against the taper on my 300BLK barrel. I've had no problems with it while using my AAC suppressor.
Silencerco also told me to use the adapter, and not to run their muzzle devices up against the taper.
BoringGuy45
11-13-15, 14:45
Just got one into the store today. Really slick rifle! It has the familiarity of the AR, which is excellent. Overall, felt solid. What I would like to see upgraded and/or changed in future generations of this rifle:
-It's a bit of a PITA to put those springs and guide rods back together. If I need to remove them to take down the bolt, I want a way of removing the whole thing as a unit to make it more efficient rather than having to take apart the spring and guide rod. That would be a good upgrade.
-Better trigger (easy enough though; I would put in a Geissele anyway)
-As I said before, I'd like Magpul to make a Zhukov style stock for this thing. I didn't like the wire stock.
-I want a thinner, lower profile M-Lok still
All in all, without actually firing this thing, it's pretty much what I expected. And that's a good thing.
I went Geissele G2S in mine to replace the 100 lb trigger. I'm debating a form 1 followed by chopping the 16" barrel down, or wait and see what Sig comes up with.
Edit: Sig is sending me the taper barrel adapter for normal muzzle devices. Yay!
http://i.imgur.com/jGbJJcy.jpg
Looks like some Anti terror police in Britain get some use out of the SIG MCX, The Article states Sig 516 but pictures ATB SBR MCX.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322976/Chilling-new-face-police-Britain.html
Looks like some Anti terror police in Britain get some use out of the SIG MCX, The Article states Sig 516 but pictures ATB SBR MCX.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322976/Chilling-new-face-police-Britain.html
Hahahaha....the caption in the photo detailing the various kit states that the effective range is 350 ft.
I went Geissele G2S in mine to replace the 100 lb trigger. I'm debating a form 1 followed by chopping the 16" barrel down, or wait and see what Sig comes up with.
Edit: Sig is sending me the taper barrel adapter for normal muzzle devices. Yay!
http://i.imgur.com/jGbJJcy.jpg
I wouldn't mind getting a barrel adapter for mine. Was there anyone specific you talked to at SIG about this?
Hahahaha....the caption in the photo detailing the various kit states that the effective range is 350 ft.
I imagine the MCX is VERY effective at 350 ft!
I wouldn't mind getting a barrel adapter for mine. Was there anyone specific you talked to at SIG about this?
I would give Jim a call. He was very helpful and knew all about the adapter:
Jim Hadley
Technical Service Specialist - Silencers
jim.hadley@sigsauer.com
D: +1 (603) 610-3849
Finger-f****d one at the local gun shop. Felt well-balanced and pretty lightweight. Didn't care for the metal stock though.
Was marked at $1495. Will wait and see where (if anywhere) these end up going and more feedback from end-users before I make the leap.
BoringGuy45
11-18-15, 15:26
One nice thing to see is that Sig is being pretty smart with the price. Most other-than-AR rifles tend to be twice the price of an AR, whereas the MCX is priced just about at that of a quality AR. I'll probably never get a SCAR because it's almost $3000 and shows no sign of dropping anytime soon. But for $1500, I'll do an MCX.
I'm intrigued by all the recent photos out of Great Britain. Do we have any info on how many MCX's were bought and what it was chosen over? Pretty impressive for a rifle that's been out not even a year.
I'm intrigued to use a fullauto compatible MCX upper on my m16.
Have the factory SBRs hit the street yet? Been holding off on .300 blk just for this gun.
Have the factory SBRs hit the street yet? Been holding off on .300 blk just for this gun.
The only short barrels that I've seen were the Cabela's gen1 pistols that were part of the MCX's exclusive release in the Spring. I've not seen any 2nd gen short barrels and I've been checking Gunbroker and Sigforum daily.
I'm intrigued by all the recent photos out of Great Britain. Do we have any info on how many MCX's were bought and what it was chosen over? Pretty impressive for a rifle that's been out not even a year.
I don't think we'll hear too much about the adoption but my guess is they want something to replace the G36s in inventory. The G36C is by all accounts a great gun but it isn't as user friendly as an AR and for units that are supposed to be doing jobs before the SAS arrive, well it pays to have a winner of a service carbine. They may also be trying to replace the MP5 as I have seen, as on TV, that CO19s used them as a primary over service pistols whenever they think someone has a weapon on them. If I had the choice between the two options I'd also prefer to use a subgun over a handgun just because I'm not a good shot with a pistol but I'm passable with a rifle. Whatever the reason my guess is that they tested them pretty thoroughly as they don't just have money to throw around for beta testing.
I'm intrigued to use a fullauto compatible MCX upper on my m16.
Larry Vickers posted way back in this thread that he felt full-auto was a weakness in the MCX. I tend to listen to SME's like Larry.
BoringGuy45
11-19-15, 19:30
Larry Vickers posted way back in this thread that he felt full-auto was a weakness in the MCX. I tend to listen to SME's like Larry.
I do too, but also earlier in this thread, Dano endorsed the design as superior to the Swiss SG550 series in every way. So I'm assuming in his opinion, it's good to go for full auto. Given that modifications have been done on the MCX even within this year, the current crop of MCX's could possibly be different than the one Larry shot.
I'm just speculating and not trying to put words in any of our SME's mouths. I'll let them chime in and clarify.
MountainRaven
11-19-15, 21:59
I spoke with a guy I know who is on a first name basis with Ken Hackathorn about the MCX... and if Ken and Larry both shot the same gun, it sounds like it was one of the early/first-gen guns.
Larry Vickers posted way back in this thread that he felt full-auto was a weakness in the MCX. I tend to listen to SME's like Larry.
He was also lacking in specifics and basically said that the gun was not ready for prime time due to its short gas system. I would like to know what were his specific observations.
Got the taper adapter. It's just a little spacer that is conical on the ID. Not threaded. When you place it over the barrel it ends right at the rear of the threads for the muzzle device. Torqued my Trifecta flash hider on, and the alignment is better, although still not perfect. I shot it today and have a repeatable 3 moa downward shift in POI at 100 yards with my Saker 762 mounted.
MountainRaven
11-20-15, 20:54
Got the taper adapter. It's just a little spacer that is conical on the ID. Not threaded. When you place it over the barrel it ends right at the rear of the threads for the muzzle device. Torqued my Trifecta flash hider on, and the alignment is better, although still not perfect. I shot it today and have a repeatable 3 moa downward shift in POI at 100 yards with my Saker 762 mounted.
How does your off-set keymod Scout mount work with the MCX's handguard?
How does your off-set keymod Scout mount work with the MCX's handguard?
It doesn't work, unfortunately. The rise of the handguard from the keymod slots to where it curves at the top is too tall. You can use our inline mount on the sides, but personally I don't think this is ideal.
Edit: I misspoke. We will have a scout mount for the mcx handguard. I'll solicit beta testers from m4c when I have a few prototypes.
Larry Vickers posted way back in this thread that he felt full-auto was a weakness in the MCX. I tend to listen to SME's like Larry.
Thanks, I'm aware of that. I still want one if they prove ultimately reliable.
He was also lacking in specifics and basically said that the gun was not ready for prime time due to its short gas system. I would like to know what were his specific observations.
Yeah I caught that part about the short gas system, but not sure exactly what he meant (as in which portion of it). Was it the placement of the gas port being too far back? Was it the shortening of the recoil stroke by not having a buffer tube? The stubby BCG?
pointblank4445
11-21-15, 10:19
Yeah I caught that part about the short gas system, but not sure exactly what he meant (as in which portion of it). Was it the placement of the gas port being too far back? Was it the shortening of the recoil stroke by not having a buffer tube? The stubby BCG?
I think I already mentioned this, but given the intended variations on barrel lengths, calibers and use with and without suppression, I would like to know exactly which configuration(s) was this directed toward. Even with piston systems there are rules when it comes to barrel length, port size etc. And correct me if I'm wrong but Vickers' critiques kept referring to Sig's desire to get this thing to run full-auto (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?165246-SIG-MCX-When-is-an-AR-not-an-AR&p=2147547#post2147547)...which adds another level of complexity. While I have a great deal of respect for both Dano and LAV, but either of their input (good or bad) alone with limited context is not enough to encourage or dissuade me from buying an MCX.
Until we can get a full explanation of any of these shortcomings directly from the source, it's fruitless to just sit here and speculate.
I think I already mentioned this, but given the intended variations on barrel lengths, calibers and use with and without suppression, I would like to know exactly which configuration(s) was this directed toward. Even with piston systems there are rules when it comes to barrel length, port size etc. And correct me if I'm wrong but Vickers' critiques kept referring to Sig's desire to get this thing to run full-auto (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?165246-SIG-MCX-When-is-an-AR-not-an-AR&p=2147547#post2147547)...which adds another level of complexity. While I have a great deal of respect for both Dano and LAV, but either of their input (good or bad) alone with limited context is not enough to encourage or dissuade me from buying an MCX.
Until we can get a full explanation of any of these shortcomings directly from the source, it's fruitless to just sit here and speculate.
Did the original configs of the gun have an auto regulating gas system? while the latest that have come out have a manual switching gas system
Did the original configs of the gun have an auto regulating gas system? while the latest that have come out have a manual switching gas system
It seems the earliest guns had a manual gas system. At least all the pre-2015 SHOT Show guns appear to have been manually adjusted. Then came the Cabela's guns with the automatic adjustment. And now we're back to user-adjustable.
I think I already mentioned this, but given the intended variations on barrel lengths, calibers and use with and without suppression, I would like to know exactly which configuration(s) was this directed toward. Even with piston systems there are rules when it comes to barrel length, port size etc. And correct me if I'm wrong but Vickers' critiques kept referring to Sig's desire to get this thing to run full-auto (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?165246-SIG-MCX-When-is-an-AR-not-an-AR&p=2147547#post2147547)...which adds another level of complexity. While I have a great deal of respect for both Dano and LAV, but either of their input (good or bad) alone with limited context is not enough to encourage or dissuade me from buying an MCX.
Until we can get a full explanation of any of these shortcomings directly from the source, it's fruitless to just sit here and speculate.
I think you hit the nail on the head. My suspicion is that any demons are far more likely to be related to full auto use - something that is not too much of a concern for civilians. This is based on the undertones of LAV's critique and the fact that enough semi-auto rifles have hit the market that we should be hearing if it's a chokeaholic.
Having said that, BUYER BEWARE. This is a product from a company that is proving to be less than ethical in its rollout of new products. The manner in which Sig is releasing the MPX should give everyone great pause when planning to invest in a platform based on promises of future modularity/adaptability.
pointblank4445
11-21-15, 13:05
Having said that, BUYER BEWARE. This is a product from a company that is proving to be less than ethical in its rollout of new products. The manner in which Sig is releasing the MPX should give everyone great pause when planning to invest in a platform based on promises of future modularity/adaptability.
Absolutely! That is where my primary hesitation lies; however, I remain cautiously optimistic given some of the history and personnel behind this particular design.
I'm curious, what is it going to take for you guys to get the green light on the MCX?
If you're keeping tally, one yellow-label likes it, another suggests waiting, and the other one threw a temper tantrum that got deleted so that's pretty much a wash. Personally, I'm hoping that the price would continue to fall but it seems that the best prices have stabilized close to Sig's individual LE pricing (http://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/CmsContent/documents/2015-SIG-SAUER-LE-IOP-Pricelist.pdf). I admit that $1250 is the point now that I would throw caution to the wind and be a guinea pig. Short of that, I'm waiting for some other braver souls that have them to give us some class AAR's and detailed usage reports.
Is there a buttstock option other than the metal one?
I'm curious, what is it going to take for you guys to get the green light on the MCX?
Two things for me: 1) A demonstrated track record of factory support with barrels (9" 300blk, 11-12" 556, etc.) and spare parts. 2) At least 1 year service record of reliability. The British police (LMP) began using them 2 months ago, so the clock started in September assuming that LMP actually shoot their guns.
As it stands now, the 16" 556 MCX does absolutely NOTHING over what my SCARs do, and are less supported / proven than the SCAR platform. That is to say, I have SBR SCAR 16s' in 10 and 14" varieties that run suppressed like a Charlie Sheen wipped whore. The MCX in its current state can't say that.
Now, things change very dramatically if Sig produces a reliable 9" 300blk barrel option for the MCX; even more if they make good on their AR lower adaptor, stock options, and FDE color. A 9" 300blk MCX with a folding stock in FDE that is reliable suddenly brings something to the table that my 10" SCAR 16S CQC does not...
So, the faster Sig gets barrel, stock, and color options to the civilian market, the more likely fence sitters like me will bite.
From my understanding the Met only shoot their guns in training since they leave all the heavy lifting to Hereford. But for normal street crime they seem to usually not fire on suspects.
I have used my MCX to teach two classes at this point and have had zero issues. Mind you I don't shoot nearly as much as the students while teaching but I'm in the 400-500 round area at this point. Yes, example size of exactly one so obviously YMMV.
I am also eager to see if SIG can bring the accessories on line as I can see a 10.5" barrel and the stock adaptor finding a home on one of my SBRed AR lowers. Knowing how long it takes manufacturers to get spooled up and actually get the promised products to market means I won't be holding my breath. In the mean time I will be getting the barrel cut to 14.5" and a SilencerCo suppressor mount pinned.
hello gents,
I was up at swat roundup in florida the other week and got a chance to talk with the sig reps and shoot some mcx rifles. I spoke with John Hollister for alittle bit while I was there specifically about the MCX. They had three different display MCX rifles there, a 9 inch 300 blk, 16inch 5.56, and a 11.5inch 5.56. If my memory serves me correctly the 300 model was in fde and according to John had around 27,000. rounds through that particular weapon without any parts replacements. After hearing that I asked what the parts replacement schedule was on the rifle and he stated they recommend a comparable parts replacement schedule to an ar15. However this particular rifle has gone way past that according to them. I was able to shoot the 300 black model both full auto suppressed and semi. That was my first time exposed to 300 blackout and I can say I am very very interested. Also this model had the metal skeletonized stock. The 300 black model with the short barrel configuration was extremely handy and very well balanced. The metal stock that comes standard on the civy models we have been seeing was actually not as bad as I anticipated. I personally would probably change it out but its not terrible. I also saw and handled a model that had the stock that folds on itself with two metal rods (mp5 looking stock). I am not a fan of this style stock personally, looks high speed but not for me. The next model I shot was the 11.5 5.56 both in full and semi, and that rifle was incredibly light as it did not have a suppressor attached. It balanced well and man can you maneuver and drive this weapon. I really liked that 11.5 model. Both rifles had a recoil impulse comparable to a standard ar15, I think my scar and a well tuned DI ar are smoother but its not a deal breaker, its 5.56 after all. I asked about barrels and he stated that until they catch up with the demand for rifles they wont have spare barrels. I can say I am very interested in this rifle but I am hesitant based on my personal past experience. I bought a brand new sig 716 rifle when they were first released and I had to send it back immediately due to the chamber not being cut properly. Sig handled it very well but it still will always sit with me. Also sig does have a reputation in the past decade for suspect QC on their products. I want to buy this rifle but I feel like its smart to wait and make sure kinks and new born issues are worked out.
I have used my MCX to teach two classes at this point and have had zero issues. Mind you I don't shoot nearly as much as the students while teaching but I'm in the 400-500 round area at this point. Yes, example size of exactly one so obviously YMMV.
I am also eager to see if SIG can bring the accessories on line as I can see a 10.5" barrel and the stock adaptor finding a home on one of my SBRed AR lowers. Knowing how long it takes manufacturers to get spooled up and actually get the promised products to market means I won't be holding my breath. In the mean time I will be getting the barrel cut to 14.5" and a SilencerCo suppressor mount pinned.
You're a brave man - cutting a barrel when there is absolutely zero replacement capability...
From my understanding the Met only shoot their guns in training since they leave all the heavy lifting to Hereford. But for normal street crime they seem to usually not fire on suspects.
That's fine assuming their training schedule averages more than 100 rounds per month...:lol:
I do too, but also earlier in this thread, Dano endorsed the design as superior to the Swiss SG550 series in every way. So I'm assuming in his opinion, it's good to go for full auto. Given that modifications have been done on the MCX even within this year, the current crop of MCX's could possibly be different than the one Larry shot.
I'm just speculating and not trying to put words in any of our SME's mouths. I'll let them chime in and clarify.
I just want to be careful here. Dano was specific to my inquiry that he felt the design was baked in semi form, because he specified semi you can draw your own conclusions as to it's performance in full auto which is where LAV's concerns lie. That said, I am a semi only civilian now and based on the sample I got play with last week I am drawing closer and closer to acquiring one for my person inventory. I won't go into the specifics but needless to say I was fairly impressed with the MCX's performance. That said SIG's weakness has always been the QA when a product is generally released to the public.
You're a brave man - cutting a barrel when there is absolutely zero replacement capability...
Meh...I have a good gunsmith...
That's fine assuming their training schedule averages more than 100 rounds per month...:lol:
Well by "heavy lifting" I mean a Bataclan, Beslan, or Iranian Embassy type incident. They do raid a lot of buildings for firearm related crimes and seem to catch a number of people trying to pass off air pistols/air soft guns as real firearms. Luckily for them the Met seems able to just overwhelm them before they can get their air soft gun in view. But my guess is if a van of SWAT team members rolled up on me with their subguns out that I'd be quite willing to surrender too :) I've seen the results of non compliance enough in the states so there's no way I'd not do it in Western Europe.
BoringGuy45
11-22-15, 14:08
I just want to be careful here. Dano was specific to my inquiry that he felt the design was baked in semi form, because he specified semi you can draw your own conclusions as to it's performance in full auto which is where LAV's concerns lie. That said, I am a semi only civilian now and based on the sample I got play with last week I am drawing closer and closer to acquiring one for my person inventory. I won't go into the specifics but needless to say I was fairly impressed with the MCX's performance. That said SIG's weakness has always been the QA when a product is generally released to the public.
If the rifle is weak as a full auto gun, won't it still be weak with heavy, rapid fire semi-auto use as well? It makes me wonder if this is just an expensive range toy with little practical application. Regardless of the fact that most assault rifles are used on semi-auto in combat, it's expected that it will be capable for full auto fire. If the MCX can't do that, I'm thinking that it's going to fade away like the ACR, XCR, BEAR, etc.
pointblank4445
11-22-15, 14:57
If the rifle is weak as a full auto gun, won't it still be weak with heavy, rapid fire semi-auto use as well? It makes me wonder if this is just an expensive range toy with little practical application. Regardless of the fact that most assault rifles are used on semi-auto in combat, it's expected that it will be capable for full auto fire. If the MCX can't do that, I'm thinking that it's going to fade away like the ACR, XCR, BEAR, etc.
I'm not 100% sold on the idea that full-auto function equates to being the end-all of function. While it's a vastly different system, I've had Mike Woodward of TSC Machine do a few HK roller lock builds for me. We had many lengthy discussions about buffers, carrier weights, locking piece angles, and bolt bounce. While the emphasis of my builds were always semi-auto precision, he always cautioned me that IF I ever wanted to use a sear pack and use auto or burst, that I would likely need to make some internal changes to assist in optimum performance in auto versus the way I wanted them set up. Again, I know this is just one example of a vastly different operating system, but I think it may be relevant here.
I'm assuming some type of bolt bounce could be the problem with full-auto. There is no buffer in the MCX and no floating weights in the recoil system.
My guess is that Dano and LAV shot the guns pretty fast on semi. There is also a difference between what works on full auto and semiautomatic for weapon systems. Most piston guns for example can run fine in semi auto with certain lighter buffers but will need a heavier buffer in order to also work on full auto. Why this is the case I can't say because it'd be worse than speculation I am sure that there are others who can explain the physics behind this.
I've shot mine as fast as I can manipulate the heavy factory trigger and it hasn't had any issues. I've done this with and without a suppressor.
If the rifle is weak as a full auto gun, won't it still be weak with heavy, rapid fire semi-auto use as well? It makes me wonder if this is just an expensive range toy with little practical application. Regardless of the fact that most assault rifles are used on semi-auto in combat, it's expected that it will be capable for full auto fire. If the MCX can't do that, I'm thinking that it's going to fade away like the ACR, XCR, BEAR, etc.
I'm assuming some type of bolt bounce could be the problem with full-auto. There is no buffer in the MCX and no floating weights in the recoil system.
Yet there are multiple people in this thread, including one on the previous page, who have fired the gun on full auto at LE demos without failure. In fact, I can't find a single report of it choking where the author described an actual malfunction.
This is a much better start than I expected.
If the rifle is weak as a full auto gun, won't it still be weak with heavy, rapid fire semi-auto use as well? It makes me wonder if this is just an expensive range toy with little practical application. Regardless of the fact that most assault rifles are used on semi-auto in combat, it's expected that it will be capable for full auto fire. If the MCX can't do that, I'm thinking that it's going to fade away like the ACR, XCR, BEAR, etc.
Let's not jump to conclusions here. LAV as yet to come out with why he thinks the MCX isn't ready. To just make a blanket statement like that and not back it up with any facts is BS. Some special military groups are already using the MCX so I think it's far ahead of the ACR, etc.
Has anyone asked Mr Vickers for more specifics on the Ask SME Board?
What units are using the mcx that you guys know of?
Whoever put out the request for the Low Visibility Assault Weapon. The MCX won that beating out whoever else was part of the competition.
teutonicpolymer
11-22-15, 20:26
I'm interested in this rifle... Sig keeps making beta testers of their first adopters so I wouldn't buy one yet but it's not as if I can afford one for a while anyhow.
It reminds me of the Galil ACE in some ways.
MountainRaven
11-22-15, 23:46
Googled, "Low Visibility Assault Weapon," and ended up on TOS. Which, in turn, has lead me to two posts on SSD.
One shows an MCX in 300BLK with a carbon fiber handguard at MARSOC's table at MDM (Modern Day Marine) 2015: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/24/mdm-amazing-what-shows-up-in-the-marsoc-booth/).
Keen-eyed observers at TOS noted that the MCX at MARSOC's booth was an older model and per SSD, it's probably a T&E gun.
So that's interesting....
Second shows a telescoping/folding stock for the MCX/MPX: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/23/mdm-sig-sauer/).
And on a related note: Anybody seen the telescoping MP5-style stock modules for sale?
TheChunkNorris
11-23-15, 00:30
Someone on the HK forums mentioned something about a rumor that the MCX can possibly be in the competition to replace the FAMAS. The French are looking to get 90,000 units, Most people seem to think the HK415A5 is a clear cut winner but no one really knows which option Sig is bringing to the table and FN may have thrown the SCAR16 into the pot as well.
Second shows a telescoping/folding stock for the MCX/MPX: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/23/mdm-sig-sauer/).
Ugh, looks like it was designed by Command Arms.
patriot_man
11-23-15, 05:10
Googled, "Low Visibility Assault Weapon," and ended up on TOS. Which, in turn, has lead me to two posts on SSD.
One shows an MCX in 300BLK with a carbon fiber handguard at MARSOC's table at MDM (Modern Day Marine) 2015: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/24/mdm-amazing-what-shows-up-in-the-marsoc-booth/).
Keen-eyed observers at TOS noted that the MCX at MARSOC's booth was an older model and per SSD, it's probably a T&E gun.
So that's interesting....
Second shows a telescoping/folding stock for the MCX/MPX: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/23/mdm-sig-sauer/).
And on a related note: Anybody seen the telescoping MP5-style stock modules for sale?
You can call SIG to place an order. $300
A lot of people have been waiting for >6 months for their backorders to be filled and are getting pissed that the new 16" MPX 9mm's have the sliding stock, thus SIG is not filling back-orders
Googled, "Low Visibility Assault Weapon," and ended up on TOS. Which, in turn, has lead me to two posts on SSD.
One shows an MCX in 300BLK with a carbon fiber handguard at MARSOC's table at MDM (Modern Day Marine) 2015: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/24/mdm-amazing-what-shows-up-in-the-marsoc-booth/).
Keen-eyed observers at TOS noted that the MCX at MARSOC's booth was an older model and per SSD, it's probably a T&E gun.
So that's interesting....
Second shows a telescoping/folding stock for the MCX/MPX: Link (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/23/mdm-sig-sauer/).
And on a related note: Anybody seen the telescoping MP5-style stock modules for sale?
I like that carbon fiber handguard. Looks like a Lancer product (?). I have two weapons with Lancer CF HG and I like them.
I like that carbon fiber handguard. Looks like a Lancer product (?). I have two weapons with Lancer CF HG and I like them.
A Lancer product would make sense since the two companies have already partnered for forends for the 516 and 716.
MountainRaven
11-23-15, 14:50
You can call SIG to place an order. $300
A lot of people have been waiting for >6 months for their backorders to be filled and are getting pissed that the new 16" MPX 9mm's have the sliding stock, thus SIG is not filling back-orders
It also appears - maybe - that the tele-stock is slightly different on the MCX than on the MPX.
They are different. The MCX version has a shorter rail due to the shell deflector being in the way. If you use the one designed for the MPX, it will not fully collapse. Other than that, they are exactly the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.