Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/10/2006 6:13:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 8:07:45 PM EDT by Variablebinary]
Nice. Very nice. I must have it















Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:25:12 PM EDT
I loved the original. But I will buy one of these.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:33:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 7:57:55 PM EDT by Variablebinary]




Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:36:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 7:58:13 PM EDT by Variablebinary]
Minds are changing
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:38:22 PM EDT
Now that is badass. I still like the 552.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:42:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 6:47:55 PM EDT by archad]
I really like the vertical fore grip on the one at the shot show push the button a bipod pops out. I will take pics and post tommorrow.....I just got my luggage 24hrs later did not have my digital camera....stay tuned.....
ETA customgock.com pics show the with VFG (6th Rifle from top)I'm talking about. For as price MSRP is $1295. Available??? The Rep told me late this year......
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:47:58 PM EDT
I don't like it as it is. Maybe if all the furniture looked more like a 552 and the scope rail was lower....
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:58:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jmkrick:
I don't like it as it is. Maybe if all the furniture looked more like a 552 and the scope rail was lower....



That rail can be removed, and there is a flat top version called the 556 SWAT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:02:26 PM EDT
i like that. that is a very nice rifle. I bet it costs an arm and a leg.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:20:43 PM EDT
side folder for it?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:27:29 PM EDT
still a no-buy for me.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:36:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 9:36:55 PM EDT by cbsbyte]
Since it will never be legal in Mass, I will not have to worry about wanting one of those ugly things.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:51:41 PM EDT
Don't like the buttstock or the pistol grip - kind of reminds me cheap TAPCO shit.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:11:09 PM EDT




Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:28:56 PM EDT
Arent these heavy as hell?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:53:18 PM EDT
Does anyone have a guess on how much money they want for it?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:55:30 PM EDT
I've heard rumors of a folding stock being released later.

How would they accomplish that with that lower reciever?

That looks like a one-piece lower.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 7:50:15 PM EDT
WOW! SWEET!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:09:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 8:11:34 PM EDT by CBR900]

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
Arent these heavy as hell?



No. The NEW 556 has one 16" version that is within .5 lb of the M4's weight as listed in the M4's TM.

THE OLD 550/551 or Stgw 90 - yes, that is heavy as hell. How heavy? According to Jane's, the OLD gun weighs 9 lbs, 1 Oz. (pg. 335). For comparison, the old Garand weighs 9 lbs, 8 Oz.

So - do you see how stupid it is of some people who are demanding that Sig sell the OLD HEAVY version )as heavy as a Garand and only a .223?!?!) - that takes magazines that are NOT made in the US and cost more than $50 each? (not to mention the OLD guns use an AK-47 style magazine release).

The NEW 556 is perfect. I'll buy one just as is.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:11:33 PM EDT
bleck.
I wanted a SIG, not a SIG that looks like an AR.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:20:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
bleck.
I wanted a SIG, not a SIG that looks like an AR.



huge +1
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:26:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
bleck.
I wanted a SIG, not a SIG that looks like an AR.



I can understand the lower that takes M16 mags instead of the mags the original used, and I can sort of understand the railed handguard, but why did they add a weird grip and a collapsing stock? One of the big reasons people like this design was because it was an accurate, reliable, 556 rifle with a FOLDING STOCK. This thing is too much like an AR to justify buying one IMHO.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:44:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CBR900:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
Arent these heavy as hell?



No. The NEW 556 has one 16" version that is within .5 lb of the M4's weight as listed in the M4's TM.

THE OLD 550/551 or Stgw 90 - yes, that is heavy as hell. How heavy? According to Jane's, the OLD gun weighs 9 lbs, 1 Oz. (pg. 335). For comparison, the old Garand weighs 9 lbs, 8 Oz.

So - do you see how stupid it is of some people who are demanding that Sig sell the OLD HEAVY version )as heavy as a Garand and only a .223?!?!) - that takes magazines that are NOT made in the US and cost more than $50 each? (not to mention the OLD guns use an AK-47 style magazine release).

The NEW 556 is perfect. I'll buy one just as is.




A 14" SIG 551 weighs 7.5lb. (SIG website)

A 14.5" M4 weighs 5.65lb. A 16" weighs 5.95lb. (Colt website)

If a 16" SIG 556 really weighs 6.45lb, I'd be impressed, but I find it highly unlikely. 7lb maybe, which would put it at the same weight as a Colt 6721 HBAR.

If you are comparing the weight of a 20" 550 to a 14.5" M4, and you're surprised that the M4 weighs a lot less, you're a moron.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:52:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
bleck.
I wanted a SIG, not a SIG that looks like an AR.



I can understand the lower that takes M16 mags instead of the mags the original used, and I can sort of understand the railed handguard, but why did they add a weird grip and a collapsing stock? One of the big reasons people like this design was because it was an accurate, reliable, 556 rifle with a FOLDING STOCK. This thing is too much like an AR to justify buying one IMHO.



+1
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:01:29 PM EDT
Since when do you have to start justifing rifle.......nobody needs one.

U buy what you like......the bullet is the same.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:04:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
bleck.
I wanted a SIG, not a SIG that looks like an AR.



You said a mouthfull brother.
+ a zillion

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:29:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 7:30:40 AM EDT by olds442tyguy]
The close ups make me realize how ugly I think the grip, stock, and handguard really are. I'll take a 556 SWAT if they ever offer it with the original style furniture. I can live with the Brugger and Thomet four rail handguards, but that stock is the gheyest AR stock I've seen, and the grip looks like ergonomic hell. (Grips that try so hard they become uncomfortable and akward.)
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:40:44 AM EDT
I already are making provisions in my closet for it but I already decided I want the swat and the stock has got to go as with the grip, the raised rail on the receiver is not cool and the hadguards on the normal model look like crap but I can buy why they put on the three rails because it adds a little more versatility. But the swat has class the four rails make it look better and offer more versatility. at least the stock can be swaped out for you fav ar stock and you aren't stuck with it I don't know how the grip is because of sketchy details but the stock bugs me more
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:20:17 AM EDT
*sigh* if it wasnt for that stupid fricken stock and grip...and lack of HK style rear sight. *shakes head in disgust*
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:31:35 AM EDT
which one is the SWAT? the shoter one with what looks like a flash supressor machined into the barrel?

I hope they make one with a folding stock, original sights, grips and handguards.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:43:03 AM EDT
I'd rather spend my money on optics for my BM M4gery.

Looks like a polished turd.

Swing and a miss!

HS1
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:03:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Nice. Very nice. I must have it



Agreed! I just hope they reconfigure the rear of the lower to accept standard 55x buttstock mounting hardware then use an adapter to attach an AR stock.

No wonder so many manufacturers are luke warm to the idea of offering military-style rifles to US consumers. Sig gives us something new and most people just bitch and moan about how aweful it looks. Personally I don't like the cheesy AR telestock, the "ergonomic" grip, or the cheesy plastic railed handguards. But I plan on swapping this stuff out anyway. A Magpull UBR or CTR stock will help alot. A standard Sig 55x grip will fit the lower. Put a B&T rail up front, use the low-mount rail on the receiver and I think it will be a fantastic rifle.

Folks, the price is right on these and they can be reconfigured how you like. We need to support Sig for being bold and offering a new rifle of the 55x lineage that WE CAN OWN. I for one will be getting at least one, probably two or three 556s.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:20:20 PM EDT
but, but, but, minds are changing?!? doesn't everyone want a crazy fobus grip? doesn't everyone want an M4-type stock on everything they own? doesn't everyone want a crazy h.r. giger railed foregrip?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:26:33 PM EDT
Every AR I have has had somthing changed on it. I swap stuff on and off all the time. It seems like most everyone here does the same. Why would the SIG be any different? I will get one, and just like my ARs, I will change some things, until I get it how I want it. I'm just glad we can get the SIG now.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:30:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 12:34:36 PM EDT by sta1treeman]
Besides the Mags, and Stock, what else on the Sig is interchangable with the AR? Looks like that is about it.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:34:04 PM EDT
I too would rather have a true Sig than an AR hybrid. I understand why Sig would design thier weapon this way, as designing a weapon just for civilians wouldn't be cost effective. A telescopic stock is infinatly more useful to a LE agency than a folder. Having many different sized officers, all wearing body armor can make a telestock very necessary. According to the benevolent Variablebinary, a true Sig folder can be installed with the help of an adapter. I have no reason to second guess his assessment as he appears to have some of the best and most credible information on the internet re the Sig 556. I fully intend to buy one as fuction is more important than form and I am convinced that it will look more traditional by the time its produced, or with the help of availible components. If Sig didn't care about what we said, they wouldn't have introduced this weapon. Granted, it wasn't just a decade of whining that changed thier mind, but the increasing market for LE patrol rifles and AR alternatives, especially ones with pistons. Every picture I see, I like it more and more. I am buying one, most likely a SWAT model, sans any type of fugly rails. I am greatful that it uses STANAG magazines as opposed to SiG magazines. While coupled, transparent magazines look cool, 50.00 per or greater is not cool. IMO 550 magazines are equal to HK G36 magazines, and that IS NOT a complement.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:40:16 PM EDT
If the cost is close to what everyone has said, it's not that much more than a GP AR upper, and it is a complete gun, and a SIG. There is no doubt I'm getting one.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:11:55 PM EDT
What's that bolt sticking out right in the way of the selector?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:24:00 PM EDT
What is optic on top if the sig?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:31:53 PM EDT
I'd give a day's pay just to see pics of this thing with a flat rail, TD pistol grip, and a Magpul 93 or PRS.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:08:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Knife_Sniper:
What is that optic on top if the sig?



I'd like to know as well, tag.

Danny
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:11:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:

Originally Posted By Knife_Sniper:
What is that optic on top if the sig?



I'd like to know as well, tag.

Danny



I asked that question awhile ago, and no one seemed to know. It has quite a bit in common with the Xm8/G36 optic at a glance
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:29:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:41:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 2:41:52 PM EDT by Blanco_Diablo]
How 'bout making a folding stock that looks exactly like the SIG550 stock?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:48:05 PM EDT

Charging handle is on the wrong side.

No thanks.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:52:52 PM EDT
WTF were they smoking when they designed that fugly rifle.

Why couldnt they sell what everyone wanted? A Sig 550 series. I dont know anyone who wished for this hybrid.

They should hang the entire marketing dept.

Glad FN didnt pull this bullshit.

Woosaa
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 3:07:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Magpul:

Originally Posted By MMcCall:
I'd give a day's pay just to see pics of this thing with a flat rail, TD pistol grip, and a Magpul 93 or PRS.



Here is some of what you asked for.

www.magpul.com/pics/sig1.jpg

www.magpul.com/pics/sig1a.jpg

We are doing up some pics using the UBR as a folder but we would like to angle the fold so that it gives correct cheek weld but still clears the ejection port when folded.



Very nice! Thanks for tossing that up here.

The furniture can be modded, that part doesn't bother me as much as the raised rail. If we want it raised, we'll use a riser, mmkay SIG? Thanks.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 3:09:33 PM EDT
The SIG 556 needs a charging handle on the left hand side so a right handed shooter can charge and operate it efficiently from a firing or near firing grip, like you can do with a FAL, the SCAR, even an AR, etc.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 3:11:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 3:14:25 PM EDT by airbiscuit]
Yes, but you can't polish a turd bleeckkkk


Originally Posted By HighStrung1:
I'd rather spend my money on optics for my BM M4gery.

Looks like a polished turd.

Swing and a miss!

HS1

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 3:15:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MMcCall:

Originally Posted By Magpul:

Originally Posted By MMcCall:
I'd give a day's pay just to see pics of this thing with a flat rail, TD pistol grip, and a Magpul 93 or PRS.



Here is some of what you asked for.

www.magpul.com/pics/sig1.jpg

www.magpul.com/pics/sig1a.jpg

We are doing up some pics using the UBR as a folder but we would like to angle the fold so that it gives correct cheek weld but still clears the ejection port when folded.



Very nice! Thanks for tossing that up here.

The furniture can be modded, that part doesn't bother me as much as the raised rail. If we want it raised, we'll use a riser, mmkay SIG? Thanks.



The rail can be removed and mounted high or low to fit cheek weld better depending on the type of stock used. I posted a pic of the mounting system, but I think it was in another forum
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 3:37:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sta1treeman:
Every AR I have has had somthing changed on it. I swap stuff on and off all the time. It seems like most everyone here does the same. Why would the SIG be any different? I will get one, and just like my ARs, I will change some things, until I get it how I want it. I'm just glad we can get the SIG now.

I see it the same way...change the stuff you don't like...I want one so I can turn it into exactly what I want. I like the fact that some AR accessories will be interchangeable...provides more options to the shooter. Since it's a SIG, you know it will be reliable, and well-built. That's worth a lot to me right there.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top