I have a argument going with a Sig fan boy (I love getting them going over at fan boy central), where are there parts from? He claim the stock and lower are Swiss, but I swear I read one time their 100% US made and hemroids at that. Oh any other usual negative info would be awesome also.
Thanks
Curious, why be a troll on another forum?
A guy asked a serious question, he wanted to know about should he go with a SCAR 16 or 551A1, now I dont own a 551A1 but I had a 556, and to be honest, when you have a fan boy knocking the SCAR platform, in favor of a Sig, I felt the need to correct the guy on what a 551A1 is, it is not a 551, or a 550 or 552, it is nothing more than a cheap pos, and why pay a bunch more for a total POS, when for a little more you can get a SCAR? I was merely pointing out what a 551A1 was, I had a 556, couldnt sell it fast enough, but this guy is convinced its (their) Swiss SAN Sigs
ETA, Nornally, I dont get in those, but this guy asked a honest question, he was uninformed, and no one should waste their hard earned money when you have a good option, and a crappy option, on missinformation, it went to hell after that, damn fan boys.
The 551A1 or whatever Exeter is calling it these days is coming with a real Swiss stock (in some cases) and a “Swiss style” lower. The stock very well could be genuine, the lower, is surely not unless they picked one up from somewhere like CGS.
As to Sig 556 or SCAR, I really don’t think there is much to compare. handle both and the choice should be obvious…Shoot both and you probably need to be slapped if you choose the Sig.
Sigh…:bad:
The 551A1 is SIGUSA’s attempt to “polish a terd” by making the consumer think they are getting a better quality rifle. The lower is still cheaply made and is still prone to easy parts breakage from what I have been told. Anyone that has handled an actual 55X series rifle will immediately know the difference between these rifles.
As I have stated before, if SIGUSA would just get their heads out of their administrative asses they could make a very good quality shooter. Quit with the “upgraded” lowers and just do it right the first time, use actual 551 lowers made by SIG.
I have one. As confirmed by others, the buttstock and magazines are Swiss made, but that’s pretty much it. The lower on the 551A1 is made where ever the 556 lowers are made, which I assume to be in the USA. Besides, if they were supplying Swiss FCGs, etc., not only would the price be considerably higher, but they’d also be running into 922(r) issues.
I can’t speak for other examples, but the fit/finish on mine seems excellent, and judging from initial reports, they appear to be generally better made than earlier 556s. The is a minor amount of looseness between the upper and lower on mine, but considering that it’s ultimately an AK, it’s a non issue.
AFAIK, Sig USA is also supplying Swiss made buttstocks on all their 55x rifles, starting around 3 months ago. You can order Swiss made handguards directly from Sig USA right now as well (I’m not sure how long that’s going to last though).
Meh. For the potential $3,000+ difference in price between what a proper 551 should cost and a 551A1, I’ll take the A1. Besides, due to 922(r) (and excluding the 50 or so $10k+ pre-1989 examples), we’re never going to have a factory new 551 here again anyway…it has to be compromised with US-made components regardless.
Correct on the price. However, if SIGUSA bought large amounts of 551 lowers it may drive the price down. 922(r) would be fairly easy to achieve since it requires only ten or more american parts to comply. The upper alone should be enough (see scatterguns 556 on the other thread). Hell, those lucky bastards that got those 552’s would have a easy time 922 for SBR purposes (I hate all 70 of you). This summer I got to spend a whole day with a LEO select-fire 556. Beat the hell out of it and basically had it to myself for almost half a day with the SIG rep. I put three cases through it in various modes if fire (the first two thousand were dry) and it did not malfuction once. Unfortunately he and I agreed that the lower is cheaply made and would not hold up in heavy use for long. This had been his demo gun for around a year and the lower was already having issues that it should not have (stock failing to lock in, bolt release failing and bolt lock back not working half the time).
I know most would never beat the hell out of their rifles in this fashion and if you are just a once in a while shooter, you would probably never notice. All of the guns I own (save three safe queens) have got to pass one test; can I trust my life to it. If I am expected to shell out $1500.00 on a rifle it had better work, everytime I shoot it. If parts fail (as they will if used heavily) then it should be from heavy use, not because you have shot 200 rounds through it.
Here is a list parts I made as it relates to 922(r) for the 556. This would be a 556 with US barrel, US receiver, US Swiss-type lower, US gas piston, US cocking handle, and US bolt carrier with all other parts being Swiss.
Thanks for this…the 922(r) situation isn’t quite as bad as I had assumed then.
So, if I eventually pick up an actual Swiss 551 lower from CoGS later this year, I could swap in a US-made hammer and be able to keep the rest of the lower components Swiss.
Oh, that would be a beautiful dream, wouldn’t it? They’ve already got the Swiss furniture and Swiss mags in stock, and the prices are great, relatively speaking. Even if the price point for the complete lowers was around $1k, it’d still be a significantly better deal than the $1500+ price they currently fetch.
Actually, I own two SCARs, I jumped into the Sig 556, as soon as they were available, what a POS, canted rail, gas port was off, so it was only reliable with the gas turned on full. I sold that turd didnt loose but maybe a 100. but still. The reason I jumped on it, as back in 88 or 89? I bought a genuine 550, but sold it right before the ban thinking I could get another one, well that didnt happen. A friend of mine still has it, and he ended up buying one, and when we compared them their so far apart, its criminal Sig even uses 551! The furniture while it may be Swiss, it sure isnt Sig SAN, they look the same, but sure dont feel the same, the 550’s feels much higher quality, I would call it Swiss Tapco, sure their stuff looks the same but it sure doesnt feel it. He was rather unimpressed with the shitty sights also, and the fact all they did was change the FH, and restamp it, hell it doesnt even have the swing away trigger guard. What I was trying to do, was tell the OP to not waste his time with the 551A1, and go with the SCAR 16, as there not even in the same class, and propmptly got jumped by Sig fan boys.
If the choice is purely based on stock performance between the SCAR or 551A1, the SCAR should be the clear winner.
It’s a different deal if he, like me, is looking to build a 551 clone.
No hes looking for a good non AR rifle that if needed will go the distance, and not some safe queen, a shooter.
A year later. How’s your clone coming.
Larry stated the Sig 551 came in last in the SAS trials, and I am sure the SigUSA version is even worse.
That says a lot. Did any of that have to do with price per unit though? It’s fairly common knowledge that the 92FS beat the 226 in the M9 competition largely because of the much lower cost per unit. SIG couldn’t beat the price Beretta was offering the government.
According to larry it came in last in performance behind the G36 and behind the C8. According to him the SAS chose the best weapon that they tested, the post is somewhere on this site but im not sure where.
Also Beretta beat Sig in the trials, that is a well known myth. Sig failed in dry mud tests and was to be disqualified but to keep costs down they gave sig the pass on the dry mud. Aside from the Dry mud lart beretta and Sig(SACO) were pretty much dead even during most of the competition.
So is Mr. Vickers saying the SG550 is a piece of junk or is he saying that it didn’t meet some test criteria?
You be the judge, it may be decent but it came in last behind both the C8 and the G36.
Far too many many outside influences in a military trial to ever mean a damn thing to me. The 55x in my opinion is outdated with its non-free float barrel, weight, cost/method of production and total lack of modularity. These could very well be the factors that turned SAS off.
With all that said, It’s still the Rolex of fighting rifles and built like a tank.
The design of the op system alone speaks volumes considering earlier in thread Alaskacop ran 3 cases of ammo through a crappy US select fire clone in a day without a single stoppage. Id consider that running a rifle pretty hard.
ETA; The only negative in regards to performance that ive found in my personal experience is that due to the large/heavy off axis piston in the 55x i noticed considerably more muzzle flip compared to an AR. My follow ups are significantly quicker with an AR. The 55x is extremely soft shooting but has some movement with the large reciprocating mass.
Part in red :suicide: Clearly the SAS were forced to place the 551 last in their trials, its all a conspiracy.