I actually don’t know too much about either of these rifles, other than thatthey’re both piston 5.56 assault rifles from pretty much the same generation (Ok, a little bit later for the G-36) and that they both make use of plastic magazines
Both seem pretty similar to me, but how do they compare? Are they both similar in overall performance,or does one outperform the other in reliability, ergos, and accuracy?
Thanks. I’m just asking this purely for educational purposes. I’ve always liked the StG-90, and it’s a damn shame SIG-USA had to fuck it up with the 5.56 and all that crap…
Both are good rifles, but the Sig is better. Hands down. The G36 has had some issues with loss of zero as the gun heats up under fire. Stock breakage as well. The Sig series had some issues with the shortened 552. Neither are perfect, but the 55X series of rifles are considered the pinnacle of assault rifle design for a reason. I certainly wouldnt turn down either one, though.
Interesting, I did not realize that the StG.90 was that highly considered in the world of assault rifles. But I’m not surprised, with it being Swiss and all.
While I haven’t fired or handled the Sig 550, they are considered very accurate and very reliable rifles. If you live in a country where you can buy a genuine Swiss made Sig 550, they can go from 2k-3k USD in price I believe. They do appear to a bit on the heavy side. 9.04 lbs is a bit stout for a 5.56x45 rifle with no accessories. http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/ According to this torture test, Sig 550 rifles appear to be fantastically reliable rifles. Like that of an AK.
Me too. The closest thing you can get in the US is an American made Sig 556. I held one and it didn’t feel very well made to me though. The only way a swiss made Sig 550 could come into the states is a version with a thumbhole stock, and 10 round magazine only.
The closest thing I’ve had to a G36 is a SL8 SBR conversion to a G36k.
I hated the sights. The iron sights were slightly better than what you would find on a MAC 10 and the single/dual optic sights (despite being from Hendsolt) were really kinda crappy with a limited FOV. It reminded me of trying to use those old Aimpoint RDS setups from the early 80s.
The trigger, while not horrible, can’t even begin to compare to the SIG rifle. There are also many reports which suggest the SIG is far more durable and less prone to breakage.
That said, the HK is lighter and can accept side rails without the need for expensive Knights handguards. The SIG does accept a B&T top rail without any modifications.
There are the noted problems with the 552 (which seem to be mostly addressed by the 553) but I have to wonder if the G36c isn’t also very problematic (I have no experience with one).
I eventually sold my SL8/G36k SBR due to LOP issues related to the stock block (not an issue on the factory G36 series) used for the conversion.
That is not correct. A few hundred 550s and 551s (including some -2 models) were imported right before the ban. Sporter compliant “thumbhole” models came in after the ban for a short time until they too were added to the ban list.
And just recently, some LE import 551s with 16" barrels (not LB models) and 552s made into Title 1 firearms with a pinned fake suppressor, were sold on the private sector.
I’m aware they use to import them for the civilian market, but I didn’t mention it because they are so rare and cost a lot of dough. I didn’t know they imported a thumbhole stock version though.
Gotcha, I just re read your post and now understand you were referring to the only way they could come in currently. And yes, there were a few thumbhole “sporters” that came in after the 89 import ban, they seem to be even more rare than the pre89 imports.
Valmet might be the king of AK’s just because the other ones aren’t particularly good. AK’s have not aged particularly well and they haven’t got that much to offer for the modern warfighter. It is pretty clear if you compare to modern systems with monolithic uppers, short stroke pistons, etc…
Sig is clearly superior of the two. It is as or more accurate, very reliable and runs very clean, it features solid upper receiver to mount optics and it is extremely well made. It’s only problems IMHO is the difficulty of having a free float barrel and the heavy weight (esp. for a 5.56 weapon), but Valmet sucks in those areas too.
I have a sick obsession with the 55x without ever touching one:p I do have a 551 conversion project that should be done in a couple weeks and with the weld on rail, 551 parts kit (like new) and a refinish using the original Swiss paint it will be about as close as you can get without spending 10k. After parting out alot of my 556 and the 551 diopter it ended up costing about a quarter of that. The extra $7k+ wasn’t worth it to me personally. It’s much more original then the WCA 551’s at about half the cost. I’m keeping the 551 barrel and trunion in hopes of a cleaner and cheaper trunion swap way down the road compared to whats currently offered.
Does anybody know what exactly happened to the 551’s in the British SAS trials thatMr.Vickers metioned in the “SA 80” thread? I guess t finished last and apparently the trials revealed alot of flaws. I can understand the weight issue but I cant think of much past that. It just seems contradicting to everything i’ve ever heard about the rifle and it was surprising. Like everything that involves military, I wonder if some politics were involved?
When compared to Diemaco and G36 it is a clear thing that 551 will loose. All of the weapons work well enough and there isn’t a bad weapon in the bunch.
AR15 variant will benefit from the extremely large selection of options and is already a familiar weapon to the SAS. C8 is light and manouverable like any M4.
G36 is a proven concept and I feel it does leave lot to be desired with it’s buttstock and manipulations, though. It can be equipped with rails easily enough, though.
SIG is heavy and it is an AK. I think that the manipulation of the weapon may be difficult for someone not used to work with AK’s. It’s and excellent line infantry gun for the age of iron sights, but installing optics and lasers on it is akward to say the least. So anyone using NVD’s is in trouble with this gun. Even though some quad rail systems are available, I think none of them are free floating thus ruining the practical accuracy in unconventional positions. And again, even though it comes with a better stock than the G36 IMHO, the variation or adjustability is not there. One size fits all is a problem for others. I don’t think they really even needed to test it, regardless of how good (or indeed bad) the gun really is or is not, there are just too many problems to start with it for the SAS use. SIG made an absolutely superb gun for the 90’s that hasn’t really been able to keep up with the times. I think comfortable home market does that, just like it did earlier to Valmet.
Yeah, I too also wanted to see what was wrong with the Swiss rifles. I’ve never personally touched an StG 90, but the reason I am so awed by them is because I am absolutely impressed by the Swiss K-31. I figure that the StG 90 has the same level of quality and all that as well.
I could possibly understand if the rifles are not suitable for SAS use; after all, all these Swiss weapons were designed with the intention only to be used in the CH’s interior/territory where they probably have a lot of cantonal arsenals and what not. At least this is my understanding about the K-31. I could see the same logic be used for the StG.57 and the StG.90.
AK’s have not aged particularly well and they haven’t got that much to offer for the modern warfighter. It is pretty clear if you compare to modern systems with monolithic uppers, short stroke pistons, etc…