my thoughts on the Sig 556

[mmike87]

Every single one of these rifles I have looked at so far, including recently, seems to have slightly canted rail on the receiver. Still. I keep hearing this was fixed, but I keep seeing the rifles. Am I just unlucky?

[Colt6920]

Every single one of these rifles I have looked at so far, including recently, seems to have slightly canted rail on the receiver. Still. I keep hearing this was fixed, but I keep seeing the rifles. Am I just unlucky?

That or cockeyed.

[ToddG]

I know it is beating a dead horse, but why did Sig build these things? Instead of
the STG 90/ 550-2 rifles that would have sold like hotcakes.
The things corporations like Sig/ Colt/ S&W do to shoot themselves in the foot astound me.

The number of people who think an $1,800 SG551 would have sold in quantities large enough to justify the development and production astound me. I'm not picking on you, just making an observation. Given how poorly the 551/552 did in the LE market against Colts, even RRA -- and don't even get me started on the 416! -- why is there this belief that enough people even know what a 551 is to recoup the huge cost of starting stateside production?

I'm not saying I agree with it, but management's goal with the 556 was pretty straightforward: tap into the huge market for AR-style guns. The gun was supposed to look like an AR, work like an AR, and have a street price for the basic model below $1k.

I don't know who you guys think buys most of the civvie AR's in this country, but it isn't folks at M4C and ARFcom. It's regular joes who never read the internet, don't collect guns, and just want one of those military-type rifles for any variety of reasons. That's why they go out and buy the Olys and the Bushmasters and the other "sub-standard" models that folks here scoff at ... because they don't know any better and they don't know much about this stuff. They certainly don't know what a 552 or SCAR or Masada/ACR is.

But a gun that looks like an AR15, with the SIG name on it, that's something they can wrap their minds around.

There was a significant internal debate as to whether it should take AR mags or 550-series mags. There were good arguments for both sides. Personally, I was on the 550-series side, as were most of the rest of the LE & mil division people. But commercial insisted that the commercial market wanted magazine compatibility with existing rifles in the closet, and management saw the product as 95% commercial in nature so that's how the decision was made.

[David Thomas]

It has been a while since I have had the chance to shoot my Sig 556, since the last post in this thread. I still have not had the high round count range sesion that I need with this rifle, but I did put another 210 flawless rounds down range on Saturday, quite accurately and quickly I might add. I remain very pleased with the Sig 556 so far. However, I am judging this rifle based on what it is and not on what it could/should have been. Count me among those that are content to stuff Pmags in the magwell.

[variablebinary]

The number of people who think an $1,800 SG551 would have sold in quantities large enough to justify the development and production astound me. I'm not picking on you, just making an observation. Given how poorly the 551/552 did in the LE market against Colts, even RRA -- and don't even get me started on the 416! -- why is there this belief that enough people even know what a 551 is to recoup the huge cost of starting stateside production?

How is it any cheaper to buy tooling for a re-engineered rifle, than a rifle that was designed 30 years ago?

One requires more man hours, money, infrastructure, R&D, testing, proofing, development of new processes to get right

The other just requires that which is needed to replicate what has already been researched, developed, tested and proofed for performance. A standard, blueprint, and benchmark had already been established. 70% of the work has already been done

Lets be honest, the only reason the 556 is cheaper is SIG USA builds it to less standards than the 55x. Its the same reason DPMS costs less than Colt. And it isnt like the 556 is a screaming bargin at $1500 for the base model. Which is more than the XCR, and above the speculated price of the ACR

And it still didn't fix the biggest issue with the 55x had. Weight. The 556 actually weighs more then the 551 SWAT. Add a quad rail and you've got a 9lbs carbine with a pencil barrel.

In contrast, the SCAR, XCR, and ACR all clock in around 7lbs with a rail.

[Tspeis]

How is it any cheaper to buy tooling for a re-engineered rifle, than a rifle that was designed 30 years ago?

One requires more man hours, money, infrastructure, R&D, testing, proofing, development of new processes to get right

The other just requires that which is needed to replicate what has already been researched, developed, tested and proofed for performance. A standard, blueprint, and benchmark had already been established. 70% of the work has already been done

Lets be honest, the only reason the 556 is cheaper is SIG USA builds it to less standards than the 55x. Its the same reason DPMS costs less than Colt. And it isnt like the 556 is a screaming bargin at $1500 for the base model. Which is more than the XCR, and above the speculated price of the ACR

And it still didn't fix the biggest issue with the 55x had. Weight. The 556 actually weighs more then the 551 SWAT. Add a quad rail and you've got a 9lbs carbine with a pencil barrel.

In contrast, the SCAR, XCR, and ACR all clock in around 7lbs with a rail.

I think the point of his post was that it would be hard to justify the cost of setting up tooling for a rifle that was already not a huge hit with the LE market. Hence the changes they made to the design. Why should they have expected the original 55x series to do any better with the commercial market?

On another note, I ran roughly 200 rounds through a base model 556 the other day and was pretty impressed with how it completely LAUNCHED brass. I look forward to seeing the short barreled models come to the market. I may give one a shot and run it through some carbine classes.


Tspeis

[variablebinary]

I think the point of his post was that it would be hard to justify the cost of setting up tooling for a rifle that was already not a huge hit with the LE market. Hence the changes they made to the design. Why should they have expected the original 55x series to do any better with the commercial market?


Tspeis

Then the question would be, did the "redesign" make the 556 a more viable product than the 55x, and did the "redesign" endear more than than it alienated...

Well what did they fix?

Weight is still here.

STANAG integration about as ergonomic as adding a push-button mag release to the G3

Recently SIG added a HORRID plastic folding hinge that wouldnt pass any agency's drop test. Swiss folder was better and can be adopted to taking M4 stocks if that is your preference

The way they attach the rail is a process riddled with flaws and is impossible to get right on a consistant basis without some SERIOUS QC.

Well see if the 556 is a real improvement where the 55x failed...

[armakraut]

Todd hit the nail on the head. If someone buys an AR15, they're buying a bare-bones A2/CAR or M4/A4 style. The most expensive accessory most will see is a sling.

That being said, original furniture and iron sights would have been a good selling point to the joe-blow market. Not to mention all the others.

Stanag mag compatibility was a 100% good thing.

The other stuff could have, and should have been done at the factory. All for little more than the end price of the current 556 rifles. You wouldn't have european match grade sights, but the gun would have been functionally equal to most AR's.

[VA_Dinger]

Personally I think Sig was screwed either way with the Sig556, at least as far as Internet forums go. If they built a perfect U.S. civilian market 551 clone a large portion of the Internet crowd was going to bitch that they could not use whatever AR do-dad they wanted, nor use cheap and plentiful AR magazines. I have the feeling this crowd would have been the most militant & vocal even if the vast majority of them were never going to buy one anyway. It would have been just something to bitch about.

On the flip side are the true Sig fans who just wanted a cheaper 551 clone for their collection. They are upset at what we got and some of them will even go so far as to spend thousands of dollars to convert there current 556 into a rifle that more closely resembles the original SG551.

Like I said, I think it was a no win situation for Sig but I do agree that the current Sig556 will appeal to the largest segment of the U.S. market. I have handled and shot one. It seemed like a nice rifle, just needs some refinement in it's current form but I am sure Sig will handle it. They are not fools.

[Gutshot John]

I don't own the weapon and have only fired it once. My only complaint was that it was front heavy. It seemed to bounce/move more while shooting on the move, but that could be as much my technique and not being used to it. I did like the ergonomics from a left-hand perspective.

Still I didn't really see the advantages over a standard M4.

I think I would have been interested in a standard 551, but like any compromise, whether it be in the original design or in quality, the 556 doesn't seem like a winner.

I'm still waiting for a better, military quality, piston system.