New Sig Spear (6.8x51 Sig Fury) now shipping

#51
LRRPF52 said:
61d437b198eb1b3d506df7e7255ef8d8c95e42e928083.png


Normally when you win a contract, you don’t go offering your submission finalist design to the public.

SIG NGSW carbine, suppressor, and .277 Fury ammo for sale to civilians to try to recoup RDT&E funds?......check

Beretta RM227 bullpup NGSW + True Velocity system for sale to civilians announced at SHOT......check

iu


Textron Systems/AAI/Hk......crickets

Army Awards $20 million contract to Winchester to tool-up for new 6.8 NGSW ammo.

Vortex awarded NGSW-FC contract worth up to $2.7 Billion
Click to expand...
Textron dropped out completely. so SIG and GD were the only ones left, and GD divested interest to Lonestar and Beretta

To me selling to the public is a smart move, as it allows them to prove out the concept, and recoup some of the investment. I expect more than a few will find use with SF of various persuasions.
 
Last edited:
#52
It'd be interesting to see a move to a whole new platform and caliber, but if it doesn't happen the DoD should standardize on the m4a1 as the base model for non-infantry. Issue something like the 416/m27, SCAR L, or even full ambi Barrett Rec7, LMT, or LWRC piston guns for infantry and those who work right alongside infantry.
 
#53
357Max said:
Hell LWRC is already tooled for this with their 6.8 receivers. Magpull 6.8 mags for CQB stuff done. Just build metal mags for longer coal and put the right caliber in it.
Click to expand...

It’s truly a shame the Six8 isn’t more popular. They went the right way design-wise making the magwell bigger, but what to do with all my STANAG mags…
 
#54
TheOE800 said:
It’s truly a shame the Six8 isn’t more popular. They went the right way design-wise making the magwell bigger, but what to do with all my STANAG mags…
Click to expand...
I have plenty of STANAG mouths to feed. More food for them (y)

If PRI made a steel Six8 mag, LWRC would not be able to keep up with receiver set orders. There damn nice & under rated receivers. Stiff as a mono with ease of barrel install.
 
#55
LRRPF52 said:
Am I the only one who finds it curious that at least 2 of the 3 finalists for NGSW are releasing their rifle/suppressor/hybrid ammunition submissions to the civilian market?

Keep in mind that no contract award for rifles, LMGs, or ammo has been announced, unless I missed something, whereas the Electro-Optical Aiming System award has been announced.

What does that tell you....
Click to expand...
I thought I read somewhere that Winchester had been awarded the contract to make 6.8x51 ammo.
 
#62
LRRPF52 said:
Am I the only one who finds it curious that at least 2 of the 3 finalists for NGSW are releasing their rifle/suppressor/hybrid ammunition submissions to the civilian market?

Keep in mind that no contract award for rifles, LMGs, or ammo has been announced, unless I missed something, whereas the Electro-Optical Aiming System award has been announced.

What does that tell you....
Click to expand...
Well I think you can look at this with two incentives to release it publicly. One huge beta test. Let the people do the work

Two of you get a massive Interest and it successful it may help swayth towards your design because of the public support
 
#63
Maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t seen anything on barrel life.

I’ve heard them discuss the case modifications to handle the pressure but at 80k and from what I have seen as far as expected velocity we have basically a 6.8 pushing 6.5x284 numbers but at higher pressure.

Now I loved my 6.5x284 chambered by John pierce it was one of the most accurate rifles I’ve ever owned but they should have put a gauge on the barrel like a gas gauge You would be able to watch the needle move with each shot. Run to full capability I think that barrel was good for 1800 rounds give or take
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: sinister and LRRPF52
#64
NY700 said:
Maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t seen anything on barrel life.

I’ve heard them discuss the case modifications to handle the pressure but at 80k and from what I have seen as far as expected velocity we have basically a 6.8 pushing 6.5x284 numbers but at higher pressure.

Now I loved my 6.5x284 chambered by John pierce it was one of the most accurate rifles I’ve ever owned but they should have put a gauge on the barrel like a gas gauge You would be able to watch the needle move with each shot. Run to full capability I think that barrel was good for 1800 rounds give or take
Click to expand...
Some of the magnums are in the 800 usable round range. It all really depends on what goes on at the throat; I’m not sure the pressure directly corresponds with flame front or other components of throat wear. Maybe Frank is supplying Sig with 400MODBB?
 
#65
NY700 said:
Well I think you can look at this with two incentives to release it publicly. One huge beta test. Let the people do the work

Two of you get a massive Interest and it successful it may help swayth towards your design because of the public support
Click to expand...
At $79.99 per box of 20 rounds, they’ll be getting nothing from the public. DoD doesn’t really work that way either. They couldn’t give a rip what anyone in the public sector has to say since the public is basically entirely ignorant of all the RDT&E that goes on at the various test centers, research labs, and what drives the program requirements for any defense program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jsp556 and GUNNER10
#66
Like any other segment in the DoD, there are a ton of players in the RDT&E world. Even for people that have spent significant time at the test centers, its not exactly uncommon to feel like things are dictated by a magic 8 ball. With that being said, I think the most valuable aspect about the RDT&E world is that a ton of the test data gets back to the vendors and products are constantly being improved 2 to 5 percent at at a time.

As for barrel life on the 6.8x51, I would assume it probably falls somewhere between 6.5CM and 300WM, but it really all depends firing cycles. It also depends on what application the rifle is being used for. Longer range/accuracy applications are going to have a much higher accuracy requirement than banging man sized steel at sub 300 yards.

Its a neat round that i would like to mess around with if it could be reloaded, otherwise I think its hard to beat 6.5cm for most applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GhostFace and 232593
#68
Gtscotty said:
Sounds like the Sig entry was announced as the winner of the NGSW competition today.

www.armytimes.com

Army chooses Sig Sauer to build its Next Generation Squad Weapon

The weapon has an advanced optic, shoots 6.8mm and will replace the M4 carbine and M249 SAW.
www.armytimes.com www.armytimes.com

Still haven't seen any 6.8 cases or ammo in the wild, I wonder if that will change?
Click to expand...
friend of mine in WV was crazy enough to order one of the Spears, cleared efile F4 yesterday. They’re planning to mail me some of the spent cases to mess around with, should be good fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bevo
#69
#72
Noobilicious said:
Sig bagged the NGSW contract for 100K rifles supplied: the biggest take away from this is that 80K pressure is mainstream now
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily think so, the main reason they went for the pressure class was a specific requirement to fit the performance in a given cartridge size.

even if you scaled up or down the bimetal case tech, you might not see the same returns since force doesn’t scale in a linear fashion.

i think we may see a boost in performance in .308 Win derived cartridges, a “+P” or “Super” standard if you will, but there is a bit of research that needs to be done first on what actions can safely handle something like that vs not.

it’s not that crazy of an idea considering what we do with 9mm Luger today
 
#75
mrtoyz said:
View attachment 7783414Been waiting on this for a few years. With all of their faults, I love their innovation and drive.

Barrel swaps (6.8x51, 6.5cm, 308)
Rear and left side charging handles
Ambi bolt catch, release and mag release
Folding stock
2 stage”match” trigger

Web link - Sig Spear
Click to expand...
Does the price include SiG's new printed baffle suppressor?
 
#76
What troops really think of the Army’s new XM7 rifle

And it’s a total POS. US Army and PEO Soldier cherry-picked only positive comments from soldiers, while deleting these, so one of them went to Reddit.

“I was recently quoted in multiple publications saying nice things about the Sig XM7 / Vortex XM157, and unfortunately, the 10 minutes worth of critiques I had before saying one nice thing didn’t quite make the cut,” u/vindictivevader wrote in an r/army post. The user, who appears to be Sgt. Colston himself, goes on to explain the issues that he experienced during the live fire and about 2,000 rounds through one XM7. “I have never seen a weapon have so many malfunctions. Namely, failure to extract/eject even when properly cleaned (checked by sig guy) and on adverse gas setting using the GP round.” When new weapons are fielded by the military, product experts are sent by the manufacturer to train the end users. The XM7 is designed to be run with its suppressor and the adverse gas setting allows increased gas into the system to cycle the weapon more violently in case it is dirty. “two-piece casing blows apart occasionally, stuck casings are common in the XM250.”
6.8-Case-Base.webp
1743563282806.gif
6.8-Case-Blown.webp
1743563282902.gif


XM157-Red-Screen.webp
1743563282994.gif
The XM157 was touted as an advanced digital optic that takes the guesswork out of long-range shots using lasers and computers. However, a digital scope is bound to have teething issues. “The Vortex XM157 is shit. I usually like vortex products, but this one is bad,” u/vindictivevader wrote. “Several ocular focus adjustment rings/diopter adjustments just randomly migrated, the brightest setting is nowhere near bright enough (almost invisible on a sunny day)…Severe zero migration on the lasers.”
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 232593, keenedge, AustinP69 and 2 others
#77
LRRPF52 said:
And it’s a total POS. US Army and PEO Soldier cherry-picked only positive comments from soldiers, while deleting these, so one of them went to Reddit.
The XM157 was touted as an advanced digital optic that takes the guesswork out of long-range shots using lasers and computers. However, a digital scope is bound to have teething issues. “The Vortex XM157 is shit. I usually like vortex products, but this one is bad,” u/vindictivevader wrote. “Several ocular focus adjustment rings/diopter adjustments just randomly migrated, the brightest setting is nowhere near bright enough (almost invisible on a sunny day)…Severe zero migration on the lasers.”
Click to expand...
Ouch, hopefully he's right and it's simply teething issues and not indicative of a deeper problem. it's not like Vortex to fuck up that badly either
 
#78
One of the acquisition managers said it’s a total abortion. He’s a former JSOC/11B career guy. Very good dude.

The XM7 is malfunctioning regularly. FTFeed, FTExtract, FTEject are normal. We’ve seen the same with the civilian Spears in videos where SIG-sponsored shooters were trying to make it look good.

Stocks are breaking off because of that dumb rail mount on the back of the receiver, cross bolts are weak, folding mechanism is failing, recoil impulse is very sharp and loosens the bolts.

Barrels are burning out after only 800rds in some cases.

You need to replace the BCG with a Blank-Firing BCG, which is costly and adds more complexity. The edited soldier’s comments mirror this in that they have a major sensitive items accountability problem when pulling the real bolt carriers out and have to stow them somewhere.

The handguard deviates like on MCX, only worse due to the recoil forces and weight.

You need the suppressor on, otherwise there are going to be hearing loss problems.

Accuracy has been more in the 4-8 MOA region in reality, which means hit probability at distance is less than an M4 or M110.

The XM157 Electro-Optical Fire Control System is dying within 900-1000rds. “Red Screen of death"

Once you configure the XM7 with suppressor, XM157, Surefire WPL, and sling, you’re looking at a 14lb weapon.

And to top it all off, the hardened steel penetrator round doesn’t defeat armor anywhere near the program requirements.

PEO has been selectively-editing soldier feedback to highlight cherry-picked positives, while ignoring gross failures in all aspects of the system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 232593, GhostFace, steve123 and 3 others
#79
How about DOD sending all the 6.8 barrels back and swapping in 18" 6.5 Creedmoor barrels. 120 gr BTHP with standard loading may hit 2750 fps easily. Good energy out to 800m + . Without a suppressor it's roughly the same length and probably lighter.
Done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AustinP69
#80
LRRPF52 said:
One of the acquisition managers said it’s a total abortion. He’s a former JSOC/11B career guy. Very good dude.

The XM7 is malfunctioning regularly. FTFeed, FTExtract, FTEject are normal. We’ve seen the same with the civilian Spears in videos where SIG-sponsored shooters were trying to make it look good.

Stocks are breaking off because of that dumb rail mount on the back of the receiver, cross bolts are weak, folding mechanism is failing, recoil impulse is very sharp and loosens the bolts.

Barrels are burning out after only 800rds in some cases.

You need to replace the BCG with a Blank-Firing BCG, which is costly and adds more complexity. The edited soldier’s comments mirror this in that they have a major sensitive items accountability problem when pulling the real bolt carriers out and have to stow them somewhere.

The handguard deviates like on MCX, only worse due to the recoil forces and weight.

You need the suppressor on, otherwise there are going to be hearing loss problems.

Accuracy has been more in the 4-8 MOA region in reality, which means hit probability at distance is less than an M4 or M110.

The XM157 Electro-Optical Fire Control System us dying within 900-1000rds. “Red Screen of death"

Once you configure the XM7 with suppressor, XM157, Surefire WPL, and sling, you’re looking at a 14lb weapon.

And to top it all off, the hardened steel penetrator round doesn’t defeat armor anywhere near the program requirements.

PEO has been selectively-editing soldier feedback to highlight cherry-picked positives, while ignoring gross failures in all aspects of the system.
Click to expand...

An ill-conceived design, for a poorly thought-out purpose? Built by Sig?

What could possibly go wrong?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TonyTheTiger, Shoreglide, st1650 and 3 others
#82
GUNNER10 said:
I don't think better is the correct word, both the Scar 17 and Spear are modernized, large frame AR18's,

I think that despite sigs history of shoddy qc and product abandonment, I think one is more likly to see interesting variants of the spear from sig, for example, I could see Sig do a rattler version of the spear in 8.6cm. That could be cool, I could see Sig release an accuracy barrel for the spear, where as FN doesn't care, or can't get acceptable accuracy out of the 17 and only offers that option in the form of a stand alone weapon system. Looking at the construction, it would appear that electro optics would fare better on the spear than the Scar.

I had a scar 17 and its not a bad weapon, its just the expedited result of a mid 2000's RFP that never really underwent a product improvement phase. Essentially the same mk17 that was field in 2008 is what you see now. Breaks, optics, horrible to suppress, plastic 1913 rail sections, weak stock hinge. If the speak, addresses these short comings, its could be interesting.
Click to expand...
We carried Gen 1 SCAR 17s on contract. They sucked: unreliable, inaccurate and somewhat fragile
 
  • Like
Reactions: Black max and TacticalPlinker
#85
TacticalPlinker said:
How about DOD sending all the 6.8 barrels back and swapping in 18" 6.5 Creedmoor barrels. 120 gr BTHP with standard loading may hit 2750 fps easily. Good energy out to 800m + . Without a suppressor it's roughly the same length and probably lighter.
Done.
Click to expand...
From everything I’ve seen, I think the baseline design of the system is flawed. You can tell they tried to get away from an AR-10 as much as possible, by delivering an external piston AR-10 with crappy folding stock and wonky handguard attachment method.

The cartridge requirements were handed to the contenders, so the problems with it are built into the system.

Had they just chambered SR-25s or M110s for it, they wouldn’t have any of the accuracy problems, provided they sourced decent barrels. Not saying that’s even anything we should be looking at, just that it would solve accuracy/precision.

Hk would have done a much better job in that space as well. They have dialed-in their ability to at least make a 1.5 MOA or better large frame with the 417 and M110A1 SASS.
 
#86
TacticalPlinker said:
How about DOD sending all the 6.8 barrels back and swapping in 18" 6.5 Creedmoor barrels. 120 gr BTHP with standard loading may hit 2750 fps easily. Good energy out to 800m + . Without a suppressor it's roughly the same length and probably lighter.
Done.
Click to expand...
How about throwing this abortion in the trash, Firing every piece of shit involved in its procurement and clawing back money from SIG and Vortex for providing defective garbage. If I was the Program manager it would be the first step.

I said this was going to happen years ago. It happened every time and SIG is the biggest train wreck of a company out there. If they would have went with HK or FN, they would probably at least come up with something salvageable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacticalPlinker and st1650
#87
LRRPF52 said:
From everything I’ve seen, I think the baseline design of the system is flawed. You can tell they tried to get away from an AR-10 as much as possible, by delivering an external piston AR-10 with crappy folding stock and wonky handguard attachment method.

The cartridge requirements were handed to the contenders, so the problems with it are built into the system.

Had they just chambered SR-25s or M110s for it, they wouldn’t have any of the accuracy problems, provided they sourced decent barrels. Not saying that’s even anything we should be looking at, just that it would solve accuracy/precision.

Hk would have done a much better job in that space as well. They have dialed-in their ability to at least make a 1.5 MOA or better large frame with the 417 and M110A1 SASS.
Click to expand...
If they really are hell bent on something. Why not just do a 6 creed with an armor piercing bullet. 100-115gr slinging at 3100 FPS out of a 14" barrel with a good bullet is going to punch through just about anything short of level 4 enhanced plates. Do a nitrated or chrome lined barrel and you are probably going to get at least a 5k round service life from the barrel/bolt, which is ALOT for a military rifle.

The army gets to learn again the hard way..... Casualties on the battlefield are rarely from small arms. Maybe in SOCOM/JSOC where they can already procure whatever they want, but in Big army and Big Marines.........Arty, Indirect and direct HE with some Air Support is how the enemy gets destroyed.

More 40MM grenades , launchers and Carl Gs in the squad. An improved LW knee mortar. Drones with C4 attached to them.

Wasting money on some futuristic battle rifle that even if it did succeed, wouldn't move the needle at all. In fact, it is a step back with increased weight of the weapon system , ammo and reduced basic load. Its not like our Soldiers and Marines already have enough weight to carry. What they should be investing in is making everything as small and light as possible. That is going to increase lethality and survivability more than some 80K psi wonder cartridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyTheTiger, GhostFace, st1650 and 1 other person
#88
When they first were talking about the 7.62x51 ICSR, I knew someone had been smoking crack and wasn’t familiar with weapons or Infantry MTO&E, or lessons-learned over the past 130 years.

Then they switched to the 6.8 NGSW and stuck with a x51 based cartridge with .473” case head, which is a non-starter for most dismounts in the squad and platoon.

We’ve been needing a true intermediate cartridge solution for at least DMs and LMGs for ages, with the biggest missed opportunity being the .276 Pedersen in the 1930s, followed by WWII and the 1950s service rifle development that doubled-down on .30 Caliber.

One of the things that emerged in all of this was a discussion about cost. The biggest cost is actually ammunition shipping weight, where billions are spent in moving pallets from manufacturing centers to distribution hubs, then to ASPs or deploying or deployed units, then down to the Battalions, Companies, and Platoons.

6.8x51 makes that worse across the force since it’s obviously a lot heavier and bulkier than 5.56.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount, Ernest 5.56 and st1650
#89
DeathBeforeDismount said:
How about throwing this abortion in the trash, Firing every piece of shit involved in its procurement and clawing back money from SIG and Vortex for providing defective garbage. If I was the Program manager it would be the first step.

I said this was going to happen years ago. It happened every time and SIG is the biggest train wreck of a company out there. If they would have went with HK or FN, they would probably at least come up with something salvageable.
Click to expand...
I am involved with an ammunition manufacturer and we see government tenders all the time. Reading this thread I agree with almost everything that has been said (the Sig kind of sucks). The MRGG is 6.5 CM and the USN, USAF, Homeland, FBI and others are really starting to pick up on the small frame 6 ARC offerings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRRPF52 and rpoL98
#91
Edsel said:
Why are these rifles…

…so fugly?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a really good-looking piston-operated AR-10. (Maybe PWS is the exception)

The POF Revolution is probably the best-looking of them all, since it’s an AR-15 chambered in .308 Win.

The Hk417 and all the rest of the op-rod/piston guns just look like dog crap.

Handguard ends up being way too bulky even with slick MLOK, receivers are too big/bulky, weight is all out-of-balance, just ungainly weapons all-around because of the cartridge.

The original Dutch ArmaLites are a joy to handle and shoot in contrast.

The modern SR-25s and AR-10s from reputable companies have mostly been aesthetically-pleasing.

iu

iu


iu


pof-usa-rogue-308-win-ar-15-5-6-1200x800.jpg
 
#92
From the DOTE report

• Soldiers assessed the usability of the XM157 as below average/failing, and
• The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure.


The Army should:
1. Continue to redesign the suppressor to reduce heat signature and burn risk.
2. Continue to reduce noxious off-gassing of the XM250 and XM7.
3. Continue to improve the operational reliability of the XM157, XM250, and XM7.
4. Continue to address the complete list of recommendations found in DOT&E’s classified combined Ops Demo and LLA report published in May 2024.
 

Attachments

  • 2024ngsw.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 13
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
#93
LRRPF52 said:
What troops really think of the Army’s new XM7 rifle

And it’s a total POS. US Army and PEO Soldier cherry-picked only positive comments from soldiers, while deleting these, so one of them went to Reddit.

“I was recently quoted in multiple publications saying nice things about the Sig XM7 / Vortex XM157, and unfortunately, the 10 minutes worth of critiques I had before saying one nice thing didn’t quite make the cut,” u/vindictivevader wrote in an r/army post. The user, who appears to be Sgt. Colston himself, goes on to explain the issues that he experienced during the live fire and about 2,000 rounds through one XM7. “I have never seen a weapon have so many malfunctions. Namely, failure to extract/eject even when properly cleaned (checked by sig guy) and on adverse gas setting using the GP round.” When new weapons are fielded by the military, product experts are sent by the manufacturer to train the end users. The XM7 is designed to be run with its suppressor and the adverse gas setting allows increased gas into the system to cycle the weapon more violently in case it is dirty. “two-piece casing blows apart occasionally, stuck casings are common in the XM250.”
6.8-Case-Base.webp
View attachment 8654709
6.8-Case-Blown.webp
View attachment 8654710

XM157-Red-Screen.webp
View attachment 8654711The XM157 was touted as an advanced digital optic that takes the guesswork out of long-range shots using lasers and computers. However, a digital scope is bound to have teething issues. “The Vortex XM157 is shit. I usually like vortex products, but this one is bad,” u/vindictivevader wrote. “Several ocular focus adjustment rings/diopter adjustments just randomly migrated, the brightest setting is nowhere near bright enough (almost invisible on a sunny day)…Severe zero migration on the lasers.”
Click to expand...
Once you run the DOTMLPF that thing becomes extremely expensive.
 
#94
Ernest 5.56 said:
From the DOTE report

• Soldiers assessed the usability of the XM157 as below average/failing, and
• The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure.


The Army should:
1. Continue to redesign the suppressor to reduce heat signature and burn risk.
2. Continue to reduce noxious off-gassing of the XM250 and XM7.
3. Continue to improve the operational reliability of the XM157, XM250, and XM7.
4. Continue to address the complete list of recommendations found in DOT&E’s classified combined Ops Demo and LLA report published in May 2024.
Click to expand...
This is shockingly one of the only accurate DOTE reports I’ve read in the last 50 years. For those that aren’t aware, these are oversight offices in the Pentagon/DC who are supposed to oversee DoD programs. They are packed with ignoramus bureaucrats and program officers who generally know jack and squat about the critical technologies, unit postures, and employment realities of the weapon systems. This is most especially true with the JSF/F-35 program, which has no less than 3 oversight offices in DC who get every report wrong.

DOTE reports normally have service annexes, where the actual end-users have a chance to comment on the report. In this case, it looks like they actually align, where the service agrees with the main findings. With F-35 and DOT&E, they never have.

That’s how big a POS the XM7 is.

The fact that the program office recommends redesigning and attempting to correct uncorrectable features of the XM7 and XM250 shows how they still ultimately failed in their oversight mission.

The only correct recommendation would be to cut losses, terminate the NGSW program, and conduct an audit of the program officers. The thing is a pile of trash.

I can’t believe that the back-end information I have aligns with the openly-published deficiencies. That is extremely rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ernest 5.56
#97
Kac sr25 with 16 inch 6.5 creed barrel. Chrome barrel. Boom problem solved. Reliable, accurate, light, and plays well with current accessories. Skip the smart scope. Tech just isn’t there for that. Decide on a common ammo and get an acog made for it .
 
  • Like
Reactions: the monk
#99
TonyTheTiger said:
Didn't we have a bunch of Sig nuthuggers hanging around here a while back? Where did they go?
Click to expand...
My initial post on the Sig LT was pretty positive.

Here is a longer term review. The people at Sig who put on the muzzle device are demons, I never had more trouble removing a muzzle device in my life. I had to soak it, heat it, soak it again, heat it again, all in all about four days of effort to remove it. I could not sight in my PEQ. I would use it, get it sighted in and a few weeks later it would be off. I was thinking that something was wrong with the PEQ and it turned out the hand guard moved around. Arisaka makes a fix for it but it is ridiculous that Sig keeps shipping them with this problem. The next problem with the rifle (and the biggest in my opinion) is random fliers. I do not care what SIG says, I was never able to get the rifle to group consistently. The ammo did not matter, the environmentals did not matter, if I was shooting off of a bag or bipod did not matter, it would not group. It turns out the freaking barrel flexes on them. I removed the barrel, torqued it to spec and the same problem. I removed the barrel, had a gunsmith torque it to spec and the same problem. The gunsmith tried to bed the barrel somehow, same problem on the third try. The stock on the Sig sucks unless you have short arms like a TRex or unless you are somewhere between 5-6 and 5-10 in height. The lack of adjustability is borderline moronic. Speaking of adjustability, their suppressor setting are actually something like normal and adverse. If you put any can on the gun, it becomes significantly more gassy. I tried an RC2, and RC3 and a Hux and the Sig was gassy. Also, because it does not have a buffer tube with weight and spring, the factory settings are what they are and to me it felt choppy. (This could also be me being pissed that over six months I began to hate the rifle) In the end, I cleaned it really well and I sold it on Gunbroker.

PS the 320 sucks ass as well.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: LRRPF52 and Ernest 5.56
#100
Yeah, any experienced infantryman could tell you this sig getting every contract thing was an abortion from day one.

They are a shit company with no morals who only give a damn about profit. And they aren't even good at that, because having all your issued products be shit is not good for long term profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ut755ln
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cswedeen
SIG Spear-H vs Scar 17
Replies
18
Views
7K
thedude824
T
Milf Dots
New Sig Sauer MCX SPEAR LT in 5.56 nato
Replies
79
Views
26K
LilGucci
LilGucci
Rcmf5525
Firearms WTT/WTS Sig MPX 8"
Replies
18
Views
2K
Rcmf5525
Rcmf5525
J
Guidance Requested: Planning Out My Next AR
Replies
18
Views
1K
TonyTheTiger
TonyTheTiger
Michael Trainowski
8.6 Blackout Build Upgrade
Replies
9
Views
1K
Michael Trainowski
Michael Trainowski
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts