Sig 556
- Thread starter Kansas Bound
- Start date
- Status
rellascout
member
Not that it matters but his original statement is false. You are adding "standard" AR-15. The first individual stated you can't do it with an AR. There was no caveat of standard in his statement.
TimboKhan
Member
With a scope, I can see spending as much as possible/reasonableto get good optics. With a red dot, I am not so sure. IF your just going to go out and shoot the rifle for fun (which a lot of people do.), you absolutely don't need much more than a $40.00 red dot, and you will have plenty of fun. If your a SWAT team member, you should go with an ACOG or something.
For me, I am willing to spend around $2-300.00 on a optic for my Bushmaster. I mostly shoot it for fun, but it is also my HD rifle. I want to be able to have a system thats a little bit faster than the irons, and I want to have a system that will let me hit accurately out to 300 yards (at most). For my purposes, a couple hundred bucks will get the job done.
For me, I am willing to spend around $2-300.00 on a optic for my Bushmaster. I mostly shoot it for fun, but it is also my HD rifle. I want to be able to have a system thats a little bit faster than the irons, and I want to have a system that will let me hit accurately out to 300 yards (at most). For my purposes, a couple hundred bucks will get the job done.
redactor
Member
Does it come in 7.5x55?
Grayrider
Member
I recently picked one up and am thinking this may become my primary 5.56 caliber rifle. Long having been a fan of the FAL and AK, the Sig has a nice combinations of features from both rifles. Add to that the not insignificant advantage of being able to use AR magazines (there are quality ones now), stocks, and rear sights--you have a pretty impressive set of features. At $1200 or so you are not spending any more than one would on a quality AR. If ARs do not do anything for you, then this is an exceptional alternative.
Heavy? I don't think so. About the same as my SAM-5 (likely for sale now) or a heavy barreled AR. Sights? Well you can easily add a good front sight with AR rear, buy the version with factory BUIS (as I did), or just use a robust optic. I put a Trijicon Reflex on mine. Furniture? Buy the original Sig stocks if you do not like what it comes with. Personally I think the 556 stocks are fine, however I plan to buy a set of green furniture for the 551 and add a green Magpul CTR. Just to add my own touch really, as I don't think it is needed.
The trigger is exceptional by the way. I really like the controls as well. I shoot left handed, so this gives me ambi-safeties and the charging handle on the right side as I prefer. The original Sig paddle mag release would have been nice, but having the ability to use AR mags is worth the trade off.
Personally I cannot see any reason to suggest an AR for a first purchase over this. It will shoot well, be cheap to add accessories (what do you need more than mags and a sling?), and will hold its value should a future ban hit far better than an AR. Have you seen what pre-ban Sig 55x series rifles go for these days?
I think I need another one for my boy. Anyone need a lightly used SAM-5?
John
Heavy? I don't think so. About the same as my SAM-5 (likely for sale now) or a heavy barreled AR. Sights? Well you can easily add a good front sight with AR rear, buy the version with factory BUIS (as I did), or just use a robust optic. I put a Trijicon Reflex on mine. Furniture? Buy the original Sig stocks if you do not like what it comes with. Personally I think the 556 stocks are fine, however I plan to buy a set of green furniture for the 551 and add a green Magpul CTR. Just to add my own touch really, as I don't think it is needed.
The trigger is exceptional by the way. I really like the controls as well. I shoot left handed, so this gives me ambi-safeties and the charging handle on the right side as I prefer. The original Sig paddle mag release would have been nice, but having the ability to use AR mags is worth the trade off.
Personally I cannot see any reason to suggest an AR for a first purchase over this. It will shoot well, be cheap to add accessories (what do you need more than mags and a sling?), and will hold its value should a future ban hit far better than an AR. Have you seen what pre-ban Sig 55x series rifles go for these days?
I think I need another one for my boy. Anyone need a lightly used SAM-5?
John
It is such a nice shooting rifle that I'm seriously considering buying a second one before the next election. If I was a betting man, I would bet money on the notion that these will be available for a fixed period of time, and it will probably be a shorter period of time than we would like it to be. I'm just sayin'... because I've seen more nice rifles dry up and become unavailable than I care to admit.
Grayrider
Member
Agreed. I well remember inexpensive AUGs, Sigs, Galils, Valmets, FNCs, AR70s, Dragunovs......
John
John
Nightcrawler
Member
I've examined several Sig 556 rifles, and here are my thoughts on them:
-Overall, I like it. It's short, light, handy, and is based on one of the finest service rifles out there.
-Price-wise you can find it for about the same price as a similarly-equipped AR-15 clone from some manufacturers. The hand guard comes with a full-length bottom rail and short side rails, enough to mount a fore grip and a light.
-The collapsing stock was not done well. Here's why. The standard Sig 550 series rifles have "low" sights, mounted very close to the bore axis. The stock is dropped a bit from the top of the receiver to accommodate this. This was standard for years in most service rifles, as mounting optics is only a recent thing for the average grunt.
The AR-15, however, has "tall" sights, to accommodate the straight-line design necessitated by the straight buffer tube in the stock. This worked out quite well when people started cutting the carry handle off and replacing it with a Picatinny rail, though.
So, the Sig 556 has "tall" folding sights that will, for instance, co-witness with an EoTech, but the stock is still dropped a bit from the top of the receiver. As a result, you won't be able to get a great cheek weld with most optics you might use. I would recommend a bolt-on cheek riser of some kind for the stock. There are several examples of such on the market.
-Additionally, I don't think the Sig 556 uses a standard stock tube size. Correia and I tried to pull the stock off of one example we had in his shop and replace with with a MagPul CTR stock, which frankly would look WAY cooler on the Sig, and it wouldn't fit. Take that for what it's worth. If SigArms hasn't corrected this, they really ought to.
-Could SigArms have made it any uglier? The Sig 550 is a fine looking rifle. The Sig 556 has, in my opinion, too many...um...well, the stock and fore grip are just too busy. Too many nooks and crannies for dirt and mud to get packed into. I'd greatly prefer a fixed stock and standard hand guards, though I understand why they went with the hand guard rail and the telescoping stock.
-The magazine release button is a bit too far forward; a right handed shooter might have a bit of trouble hitting it with his trigger finger. I'm left handed, so I grab the mag with my right hand and hit it with my right thumb.
-All in all, I liked it, as I said. If you like it, I say go for it. I doubt you'll be unhappy with it.
-Overall, I like it. It's short, light, handy, and is based on one of the finest service rifles out there.
-Price-wise you can find it for about the same price as a similarly-equipped AR-15 clone from some manufacturers. The hand guard comes with a full-length bottom rail and short side rails, enough to mount a fore grip and a light.
-The collapsing stock was not done well. Here's why. The standard Sig 550 series rifles have "low" sights, mounted very close to the bore axis. The stock is dropped a bit from the top of the receiver to accommodate this. This was standard for years in most service rifles, as mounting optics is only a recent thing for the average grunt.
The AR-15, however, has "tall" sights, to accommodate the straight-line design necessitated by the straight buffer tube in the stock. This worked out quite well when people started cutting the carry handle off and replacing it with a Picatinny rail, though.
So, the Sig 556 has "tall" folding sights that will, for instance, co-witness with an EoTech, but the stock is still dropped a bit from the top of the receiver. As a result, you won't be able to get a great cheek weld with most optics you might use. I would recommend a bolt-on cheek riser of some kind for the stock. There are several examples of such on the market.
-Additionally, I don't think the Sig 556 uses a standard stock tube size. Correia and I tried to pull the stock off of one example we had in his shop and replace with with a MagPul CTR stock, which frankly would look WAY cooler on the Sig, and it wouldn't fit. Take that for what it's worth. If SigArms hasn't corrected this, they really ought to.
-Could SigArms have made it any uglier? The Sig 550 is a fine looking rifle. The Sig 556 has, in my opinion, too many...um...well, the stock and fore grip are just too busy. Too many nooks and crannies for dirt and mud to get packed into. I'd greatly prefer a fixed stock and standard hand guards, though I understand why they went with the hand guard rail and the telescoping stock.
-The magazine release button is a bit too far forward; a right handed shooter might have a bit of trouble hitting it with his trigger finger. I'm left handed, so I grab the mag with my right hand and hit it with my right thumb.
-All in all, I liked it, as I said. If you like it, I say go for it. I doubt you'll be unhappy with it.
The Sig 556 is a pretty nice gun but it has some issues.
First it doesn't seem balanced, it really seems front heavy (though that might be because I rarely shooting 16" ARs). The "three stage" trigger didn't appeal to me. The safety is awkward to use, and so is the magazine release.
First it doesn't seem balanced, it really seems front heavy (though that might be because I rarely shooting 16" ARs). The "three stage" trigger didn't appeal to me. The safety is awkward to use, and so is the magazine release.
rellascout
member
I think not. Its just not worth arguing about. There is a clear modification path that allows an AR15 to have a folding stock. This is not true of the other guns mentioned.
Back on topic the 556 is a fine rifle but for the money and what you get it is a disappointment IMHO.
The biggest disappointment is no stock folder, crappy factory rear sight and crappy front sight.
The rifle is heavy and as others have stated it does not balance as well as I would like it to. Its ergos are okay but they are change from other systems.
irmediator
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1
ZM LR-300, folding stocks and gas piston systems for ARs
The ZM LR-300 Gas Piston System has the recoil spring in the forearm around the piston, not in the buffer tube. The bolt carrier is about half the size, and recoil is said to be precieved as lighter. That is why the ACE folding mechanism can work with their stocks. The problem that I'm finding is that it appears from first glance from the ZM website, that they only offer complete uppers and rifles in carbine lengths. Although I haven't called them yet, I'm wondering if they offer just kits for all rifle lengths? Another question I have is that the pistons look rather thick, and I'm wondering if they will fit through the hole of where the gas tube fits through on any AR15 upper, or whether ZM uses their own brand designated uppers that will only work with their piston systems? I was also wondering other options as well, like for example, converting an AR10 in .308 to accepting a ZM style gass piston system, or having one in either 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC????
The real leap forward that I see with ZM is that the recoil system is in the forearm. Other gas piston systems only are short stroke systems with light springs, that must rely on the buffer and spring to dampen recoil. If you don't care about having a folding stock, and want a really good quality drop-in kit for your AR, take a look at either the PSW system or the Adams Arms system. I like the PSW system, since one can clean the whole gas system without removing the forearm!!!! Such a system can be used with the integrated (ONE PIECE) upper and forearm unit by VLTOR. See links below.
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=124&t=362787 (PSW)
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=124&t=374524 (Adams Arms)
http://www.vltor.com/vis.htm
http://www.zmweapons.com/index.htm
http://yhm.net/store/media/LR.pdf
http://yhm.net/store/lr.html
http://www.shootingusa.com/TV_SCHEDULE/SHOW_26-02/show_26-02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR_300
The ZM LR-300 Gas Piston System has the recoil spring in the forearm around the piston, not in the buffer tube. The bolt carrier is about half the size, and recoil is said to be precieved as lighter. That is why the ACE folding mechanism can work with their stocks. The problem that I'm finding is that it appears from first glance from the ZM website, that they only offer complete uppers and rifles in carbine lengths. Although I haven't called them yet, I'm wondering if they offer just kits for all rifle lengths? Another question I have is that the pistons look rather thick, and I'm wondering if they will fit through the hole of where the gas tube fits through on any AR15 upper, or whether ZM uses their own brand designated uppers that will only work with their piston systems? I was also wondering other options as well, like for example, converting an AR10 in .308 to accepting a ZM style gass piston system, or having one in either 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC????
The real leap forward that I see with ZM is that the recoil system is in the forearm. Other gas piston systems only are short stroke systems with light springs, that must rely on the buffer and spring to dampen recoil. If you don't care about having a folding stock, and want a really good quality drop-in kit for your AR, take a look at either the PSW system or the Adams Arms system. I like the PSW system, since one can clean the whole gas system without removing the forearm!!!! Such a system can be used with the integrated (ONE PIECE) upper and forearm unit by VLTOR. See links below.
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=124&t=362787 (PSW)
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=124&t=374524 (Adams Arms)
http://www.vltor.com/vis.htm
http://www.zmweapons.com/index.htm
http://yhm.net/store/media/LR.pdf
http://yhm.net/store/lr.html
http://www.shootingusa.com/TV_SCHEDULE/SHOW_26-02/show_26-02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR_300
atlanticfire
Member
I have also been looking into the Sig. I have held many as I works for a distributor and they do feel very front end heavy. If there was something I could changed out for that bulky front end I would consider it. What’s the word on accuracy vs a high quality M4 for those who have owned either?
George Hill
Member
Siggy:
Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
Member
This is my next gun, im headed to the powderhorn to get it in a week or two.
Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
Member
>george
you name your guns?
you name your guns?
HorseSoldier
Member
It does give brass a very solid, AK style fling. Overall I'd call it something well in excess of "positive ejection."
nwilliams
Member
Wow talk about another resurrected thread......
Not really a reason for me to give up on my 556 seeing as though I don't reload.
What's wrong with nicknaming your guns? I've called mine Siggy before also
Not really a reason for me to give up on my 556 seeing as though I don't reload.
What's wrong with nicknaming your guns? I've called mine Siggy before also
gga357
Member
buy it!!! I love mine. MI makes 556 BUIS sights I like them. wish they had a 7.62x51 version I would be all over it.
Duelist
Member
I bought my 556SCM (NY Edition) a few weeks ago. I really like it. I like the fact that it is a little muzzle heavy (seems to hang on target better) the 2 position gas system, and the charging handle (I have a Garand and an AK on order, so it makes sense to have a rifle that has some manual of arms commonality) Those are the pros.
The Cons are:
Stock sights are next to worthless. The rear sight has limitied elevation adjustment and looks flimsy as hell. The front post is windage adjustable, but is so wide that it is the same width as a 1' target at 50 yards.
The safety and magazine reach are a little too far away for my smallish hands. However, if anybody ever makes a smaller diameter aftermarket grip, this problem might be remedied.
Cheek weld with optics is going to be interesting. I bought high ARMS rings. I did a mock up with a cheap BSA scope, and my weld wasn't bad. YMMV.
The stock "fish gill" fore end is prone to cracking. I will eventually replace mine with an aluminum one.
The Cons are:
Stock sights are next to worthless. The rear sight has limitied elevation adjustment and looks flimsy as hell. The front post is windage adjustable, but is so wide that it is the same width as a 1' target at 50 yards.
The safety and magazine reach are a little too far away for my smallish hands. However, if anybody ever makes a smaller diameter aftermarket grip, this problem might be remedied.
Cheek weld with optics is going to be interesting. I bought high ARMS rings. I did a mock up with a cheap BSA scope, and my weld wasn't bad. YMMV.
The stock "fish gill" fore end is prone to cracking. I will eventually replace mine with an aluminum one.
Destructo6
Member
SIG must use the "commercial" size buffer tube on the 556, wich is slightly larger in diameter than the milspec version. Magpul makes a version for both, since most AR manufacturers use the "commercial" diameter with their offerings.
I've been very please with my SIG 556. I can shoot as well with this, using GG&G/Samson BUIS, as I can with any other 5.56mm rifle I have, which includes a Colt M4 with 2x ACOG and SLR106fr with PK-ASv optic.
I will say that I was (am) annoyed that SIG now offers real iron sights (diopter rear/hooded front) for the 556, but at an additional $230+.
- Status
