Sig Sauer Cross at SHOT SHOW
- Thread starter AP2020
- Start date
Left my thoughts on Arfom too, but I like this crowd better and curious to see if anyone concurs
1) That guy needs to shave his neck beard
2) I had few complaints about the rifle, but you can tell it was built on a budget. The stock adjustments were clunky and floppy, the trigger was not bad but did have some creep. I hated that the stock locked folded - the folder was already lacking some ergos, but havig it locked folded could really cause some issues in a fast deployment scenario. It should really be held captive by a detent that you can overcome with straight force. I dont like how front heavy several examples were, but that is just going to be the nature of beast having a LW rifle. Maybe a CF barrel would balance better. The bolt throw and manipulation was exponentially better than The Fix. AICS is a big plus.
Overall, taking everything in account - Id choose this over the Fix and the Christensen Arms MPR, but IMHO, you'll always be giving up something for this style of crossover rifle.
1) That guy needs to shave his neck beard
2) I had few complaints about the rifle, but you can tell it was built on a budget. The stock adjustments were clunky and floppy, the trigger was not bad but did have some creep. I hated that the stock locked folded - the folder was already lacking some ergos, but havig it locked folded could really cause some issues in a fast deployment scenario. It should really be held captive by a detent that you can overcome with straight force. I dont like how front heavy several examples were, but that is just going to be the nature of beast having a LW rifle. Maybe a CF barrel would balance better. The bolt throw and manipulation was exponentially better than The Fix. AICS is a big plus.
Overall, taking everything in account - Id choose this over the Fix and the Christensen Arms MPR, but IMHO, you'll always be giving up something for this style of crossover rifle.
Speaking from experience, never be a beta tester I mean early adopter of a Sig product.
Not saying it's not cool, or not good, but he's pretty much claiming SIG invented the tube gun... I see some innovations on an old design, not a new one or a game changing new one.
Anyone who would look at that and think its' a chassis gun is a complete idiot. If people are coming up to him saying that...
I have to hand it to SIG though, they are really pushing on everything and not sitting (settling). Just the amount of stuff they're doing is impressive.
Anyone who would look at that and think its' a chassis gun is a complete idiot. If people are coming up to him saying that...
I have to hand it to SIG though, they are really pushing on everything and not sitting (settling). Just the amount of stuff they're doing is impressive.
My thoughts on this are similar to yours. I'd get one for a lightweight hunting rifle, though I'd take a Seekins Havak Pro Hunter over this rifle.
I would agree with most everything you said. I got to attend Sig's Range Day at Shot and got to shoot the Cross in 308 suppressed at 2 different stations. Once at 100 and at 100, 200, 500 at steel. I own a Q fix rifle and the recoil and shootability (if that's even a word) is very comparable. The biggest thing I noticed as you mentioned is the bolt on the Sig is easier to lift than my Q. From a bench/bipod my Q sometimes wants to rock a bit if I try to cycle the bolt fast. I didn't mess with the adjustments too much, as there was a line of people waiting to shoot. My Fix rifle is extremely front heavy with the 20" 6.5 barrel (super accurate), but my 308 16" handles and balances way better but is lacking in the accuracy department. I suspect the Cross will be similar with the different barrel configs. I will probably sell one of my Q fix barrels and buy a Cross in the opposite. I hate having barrels laying around and the Cross is at a price point I can justify doing that at.
It's all good until a little time passes by and the issue's begin to show up then later Sig rolls out with Gen 2 making improvements that should've been done out of the gate discontinuing parts support for Gen 1 and tossing the resale value of all Gen 1's in the shitter. I'm sure it'll be a good rifle eventually but Sig has a long history of screwing over early adopters of their products.
I feel your pain, but what you're describing is somewhat normal across the industry. Burris XTR II? RPR's? XXX (pick aname) chassis? Early adopters, and even late ones, always run the risk of a newer and "improved" version being released.
In fact, I can think of only one company that has not announced a new product, and when they did, immediately converted older orders to the new version; the FX-120 trickler system. Otherwise, just about everyone else I know of has, at some point, done exactly what you said. It isn't personal, it's just timing and business.
Essentially, you rolled the dice, and ended up with an MOS of "9999" (open contract); aka "unlucky cocksucker". <shrug> shit happens, and as with everything, caveat emptor
I'm ok with generationally improving products I'm not ok with being a manufacturers beta tester when they show a history of releasing products with issues that should've been ironed out prior. I'm also not ok dropping parts support for guns immediately after they've been either discontinued or generationally improved and fk'ing over anyone who bought one. Like the guy on ARF who went through the trouble of SBR'ing a Sig 556xi who's now a broken firing pin away from having a paperweight because a few months after he bought it Sig discontinues it and parts support along with it. GTFO with this that's the way the rest of the industry does it bullshit.
Similar threads
