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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
How is the accuracy on these guns? …and would someone please shoot the piss out of one of these:D
I dunno Todd, there are merits to your argument, but I still can’t see how designing a new weapon can be more cost effective then replicating a proven design like the 550. Go through all that so it will use a AR magazine?
Since when was Sig interested in producing anything to compete w/introduction
line firearms? You don’t find Sigs at Wallmart. If your argument is true, why have
companies like Knights, Barrett, LWRC, Robinson, Magpul stay in buisness?
Are they cheap? Hell no, but they are still in buisness and thriving because they
focus on a niche in the vast smallarms mkt.
Sig has a proven design in the 550-2 , gas piston, everything, everybody wants
now and they foist this pig on us so they can be a middle of the road choice???
WTF??? Madness.
I understand what your saying, that beancounters and corporate mentality have
a tendency to negate brillance for a 2% increase in profit per unit.
When did mediocraty become profitable? I am not trying to just stir up shit, I cannot for the life of me see why they would WANT to be in the middle.
Of course they can’t complete w/ Colt in military contracts, Colt gives away rifles.
Sig chose to go along to get along, instead of offering the best regardless of cost.
The best ALWAYS COSTS MORE.
Amen.
Some of the detractors can get a little silly with their reasoning.
You’re mistakenly assuming that SIGARMS (now SIG-Sauer in the USA) had unlimited access to the drawings for the 550-series rifles and could simply set up shop identical to what was done in Switzerland. This is incorrect.
Furthermore, directly on point, the tooling (and cost of manufacture) of many parts of the 556 are substantially less expensive. Materiel and methods are different for most of the parts, including the barrel, upper receiver, and lower receiver.
Lets be honest, the only reason the 556 is cheaper is SIG USA builds it to less standards than the 55x.
I’m not going to stand on a soapbox and defend the 556 – I wouldn’t choose one for myself – but the above statement is absolutely incorrect and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the differences between the two weapons. The stamped steel major components of the Swiss guns are more expensive to manufacture compared to modern methods.
And it isnt like the 556 is a screaming bargin at $1500 for the base model.
Since I’m not familiar with commercial prices, all I can say is that if the street price for a base model 556 is $1,500, the company has failed to meet its own design and marketing goals. Either that, or demand has been high enough that they feel it’s worth raising the price.
The original “base” model had no sights, no rail, etc. Has that changed?
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.
When we first started talking about domestic production and possible design changes, “lighter weight” was the thing that everyone in the LE/mil divisions kept chanting. You can see how well that worked …
Since a new CEO was hired about three years ago with the mandate to increase profit margins and unit sales.
If your argument is true, why have companies like Knights, Barrett, LWRC, Robinson, Magpul stay in buisness?
While I understand where you’re coming from, the comparisons aren’t reasonable.
KAC has substantial military contracts and makes lots of other items than just their ARs. If the company had to rely on its AR sales, it would never be able to sustain its current success. That’s not a bust on their guns, just fact.
Magpul … they don’t even make a gun, do they? Their success is based on making outstanding accessories.
Your comparison is like saying, “Wilson Combat survives by building top quality guns, why can’t SIG 1911’s be every bit as good as Wilsons?” The answer is because it’s more profitable for SIG to sell 20,000 mediocre guns at $1,000 a piece than it would be to sell 2,000 great guns at $3,000 each.
You said it yourself … some companies focus on a niche market. They tend to be niche companies. SIG is a mainstream gun company focussed on mainstream mass markets.
I understand what your saying, that beancounters and corporate mentality have a tendency to negate brillance for a 2% increase in profit per unit.
The profit margin on a 556 is many times more than 2% greater than it was on the 551/552.
When did mediocraty become profitable?
When was it not? Patek makes probably the finest watches in the world, and they sell for many tens of thousands of dollars each. But Seiko probably brings in a thousand times more profit every year.
Mediocre being the key word. Therein lays the real problem.
Oh Well, I will get one when CDNN starts blowing them out for $799 or some such. And I think Bushmaster will actually be manufacturing Magpuls Masada.
We seem to have strayed from my original conjecture about Sigs motives in
introducing the 556, if they are truly interested in mainline, massmarket, more
profit, they could of had Bushmaster or Stag or somebody make the rifle,stamp
Sig on it, as they did with their Caspian/Sig 45 auto’s.
I am saying thet there current rifle offers no advantage over Colt, cost more and
the money goes overseas, if that means anything to the buyers out there.
They had a chance to build that Phillip Patek, and chose a Swiss Army chronograph.
From the standpoint of an enthusiast or collector or “operator,” sure. From the standpoint of a company seeing its short-term sales going up up up, not really a problem.
No, on multiple counts:[ul][li] Paying someone else to make your gun means you share the profit and the street cost goes up. The whole point behing the 556 was to have a product that was commercially viable and which was produced in house to maximize profit. Look at the Smith M&P15 … they started with a branded farmed-out product and now they’re making them in house. Why? Mo’ money.[/li][li] Getting Bushy or Stag to make a 550-series piston system would have required a lot of intellectual property sharing that SIG’s owners would never consider.[/li][li] Caspian never built SIG’s original GSR 1911’s. They provided the slides and frames. All the other parts came from various vendors, but the guns were assembled at SIG, test fired at SIG, and shipped to distributors through the warehouse doors at SIG. The whole thing came to a crashing halt, btw, in large part because Caspian was unable to ship frame/slide kits in large enough quantities with tight enough dimensional tolerances to maintain the parts interchangeability that SIG demanded … that was the explanation we were given in the field, anyway. At which point SIG bought a couple of 5-axis CNC machines and started making the frames & slides in house.[/ul][/li]
I am saying thet there current rifle offers no advantage over Colt, cost more andthe money goes overseas, if that means anything to the buyers out there.
They had a chance to build that Phillip Patek, and chose a Swiss Army chronograph.
It was never SIG’s intention to compete with Colt. The rifle was on store shelves and I couldn’t get a sample to show NSW or USASOC.
You’re still making the mistaken assumption that SIG ever had any interest in building a Patek. They’re in business to make money, not for the bragging rights of having the finest weapons in the world.
Todd,
You obviously have some insight here, so, when you say that many of the parts are less expensive, should I take that as lower quality? I know cheap and inexpensive are two different things, so I’d like to be sure.
Would the basic system, forgoing the cheap handguard and stock be a viable duty grade weapon, LE/ SWAT or mil?
I’ve only handled one in the gun shops and shows, and the only problem I saw was the reach for the mag release, which led me to not look much more. I see better quality stocks and rail system available, so one as an “example piece” may be an idea.
FWIW, I think the compatible mag idea was probably a good one, the furhter reach for the release, not so much.
Bob
Glad I’m not in that business, I would obviously go broke.