Is the SIG 556 better than the AR-15?
- Thread starter marineman
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
The Sig has a better trigger and an adjustable gas system. The AR is superior in most other ways, IMO. 556 not worth the money, to me.
But the question itself is flawed, because the better question is: Bushmaster ACR/Masada or Robinson XCR? Those rifles are (or appear to be, in the case of the ACR) superior to the two asked about in this thread.
For a combat rifle, which one? It depends on what country's armed forces I'm in. If I have the logistical support of the US Military, I'll take the AR. If I'm akbar hussein's middle eastern military, I'll take the Sig, due to the adjustable gas system being able to compensate for an un-maintained weapon (to an extent).
But the question itself is flawed, because the better question is: Bushmaster ACR/Masada or Robinson XCR? Those rifles are (or appear to be, in the case of the ACR) superior to the two asked about in this thread.
For a combat rifle, which one? It depends on what country's armed forces I'm in. If I have the logistical support of the US Military, I'll take the AR. If I'm akbar hussein's middle eastern military, I'll take the Sig, due to the adjustable gas system being able to compensate for an un-maintained weapon (to an extent).
nwilliams
Member
Again I think it depends on the application of the rifle. I don't think the 556 has any kind of track record to go off of at this point. Whereas the AR platform whether good or bad at least has a long track history look at. No military that I know of uses the 556 in any sort combat way and its my understanding that the 556 was developed for the civilian and LE market not really for the military.
I think until you put the 556 into some varied combat environments and allow soldiers in the field to experience the rifle you are never going to know for sure how good a combat rifle it is. The AR platform on the other hand has seen it all and had the worst thrown at it.
Personally I like that 556 is more like an AK than an AR I think based on that I would certainly be willing to take a chance and carry one into combat. The AR platform has certainly had its share of ridicule over the years by soldiers in the field.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
And of course so has every other weapon platform ever issued to US soldiers
Pappy Boyington once told me "The Corsair was just too heavy, I wish we'd had something lighter" or something similar, we were many drinks into the evening when he said it so I can't quote it verbatim.
It is the proud tradition of the US Soldier to bitch about his gear
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
Well, after doing a little research, it is in fact not a very new design. All the SIG rifles seem to be a derivative of the Japnese SDF Howa rifles. Not really AKs but I suppose they had some influence on the design.
I can clean my SIG's gas system MUCH faster than my AR's.
I am OVER digging carbon out of AR bolt carrier assemblies!!
I've been scraping carbon out of AR/M-16 bolt carriers since '73 and I've HAD IT!!!
My SIG's trigger feels MUCH better than my AR's.
I LIKE a slightly forward balance point.
My SIG's folding/adjustable stock isn't even possible on an AR.
My SIG's spring-loaded firing pin will almost eliminate the possibility of a slam-fire.
Initial accuracy checks of the SIG have been encouraging. I'm still experimenting with loads but, even so, it seems to shoot on the tight side of 1.5MOA whereas my Colt AR is on the loose side of 1.5MOA.
A Swiss rendition of the AK, made in New Hampshire, with great magazines/GI mag compatability. . .I voted with my wallet and wasn't disappointed!
I am OVER digging carbon out of AR bolt carrier assemblies!!
I've been scraping carbon out of AR/M-16 bolt carriers since '73 and I've HAD IT!!!
My SIG's trigger feels MUCH better than my AR's.
I LIKE a slightly forward balance point.
My SIG's folding/adjustable stock isn't even possible on an AR.
My SIG's spring-loaded firing pin will almost eliminate the possibility of a slam-fire.
Initial accuracy checks of the SIG have been encouraging. I'm still experimenting with loads but, even so, it seems to shoot on the tight side of 1.5MOA whereas my Colt AR is on the loose side of 1.5MOA.
A Swiss rendition of the AK, made in New Hampshire, with great magazines/GI mag compatability. . .I voted with my wallet and wasn't disappointed!
Last edited:
Don't Tread On Me
Member
I'm a big AR fan, and I think the Sig is slightly better.
Now, assuming all things are equal (build quality) ..the Sig is a better design.
A major weakness of the AR is the bolt design. The lugs and cam pin hole are a weakness. You can counter that claim by suggesting that you should just follow the maintenance schedule and understand a bolt is only good for 5,000rds or whatever. The other weakness is the gas system which is filthy. The filth isn't really the problem, but the fact that it blasts away the lubricant and heats up the parts. The counter to this is, that a properly lubricated AR will run totally reliable for double the expected load-out (480rds). Which it does and should. The bolt becomes extremely hot, which effects the lifespan. But more importantly, ever shot is blasting away lubricant and adding gritty carbon. The operation becomes significantly less and less slick.
The Sig takes a lot from the AK. That is evident in the bolt design. It is very solid. I can't imagine breaking an AK or Sig bolt. The extractor is also much stronger.
One weakness of the Sig or most piston systems is that the recoil spring is subject to heating which alters its characteristics. Weakens it sooner, changes its tension. The other weakness is the piston itself. That is an advantage of the gas impingement system of the AR. The AR has a single gas tube. That's it! No piston, no op-rod, no spring, no knobs or screws. Less to rust. Less to break. And a lot LIGHTER. Piston systems weigh more. Another weakness of piston systems is that they are more ammo sensitive. This claim is made of the gas-impingement system but I just don't see it. It is an issue with piston systems. The Sig can be adjusted when the action is slowing down. Increasing the gas flow to blast out the crud or to function with weak ammo. The AK system doesn't care.
Overall, the AK system is the best. The piston is easily 2x over-built and will not break or bend. The recoil spring is kept away from the gas system, so it does not heat up and fatigue. It has a robust bolt that will not crack or shatter. Has a strong extractor. And a fixed external (from the bolt) ejector that will not clog up or break. Add in tapered cases, and feeding and extracting are now even easier...but that is not part of the rifle's design but rather total platform.
HA! Sig vs. AR and the AK wins!!!
Unfortunately, the AK is no where nearly as easy to modify and make as ergonomic as the AR, and even falls well behind the Sig.
The Sig 556 has had some issues. Still a young rifle and they pretty much have the bugs worked out. Not so much design flaws, but rather QC and build quality/parts quality. I do not care for the handguards at all. A lot of people are paying $100 to get original Sig 550 handguards. Making the stock compatible with the AR-15 is a smart move. They should have taken it a step further and made the grip compatible also -- while keeping the Sig trigger which is a better trigger in both pull and feel.
Sig claims the barrel finish is superior to chrome lining. I'm skeptical about that. Usually whenever a company doesn't chrome a chamber and bore they make extravagant claims about whatever alternative process they use.
The AK is an anomaly in that compared to pretty much every other weapon system past and present, it is built to survive with the least amount of armorer support. The AR-15 system has the U.S. Military behind it, which is the greatest logistics master since the Romans. Most other weapon systems are what they are and function as a State's military combat rifle. It will be used by professional or well-trained soldiers within the military sphere. That is perhaps why the AK was and is so successful among rebels, militia, guerrillas all over the world in remote areas. It works without the support. It was designed with conscripts in mind from the Soviet WW2 experience.
The AR would have been a lot better if the lugs were reduced in number and then increased in size as well as the bolt being beefed up, particularly in the cam pin hole area to eliminate or double the service life of the bolt from cracks. The other area is the extractor. A stronger design would have been better.
Aside from rebel warfare in remote areas, or mass conscription of peasants ...the Sig and AR will serve the American civilian just fine on the range or for home defense or during a disaster situation. If Western civilization melts down, you have more to worry about than where you will get your spare parts for your AR-15. If you can't get spare parts for you AR-15, you cannot get ammo either and if you can't get either of those, chances are you can't get food either. Sort of goes hand in hand. But I digress.....
The point is, where one really shines as better than the other is in situations that aren't likely or you're likely to have to cope with.
Now, assuming all things are equal (build quality) ..the Sig is a better design.
A major weakness of the AR is the bolt design. The lugs and cam pin hole are a weakness. You can counter that claim by suggesting that you should just follow the maintenance schedule and understand a bolt is only good for 5,000rds or whatever. The other weakness is the gas system which is filthy. The filth isn't really the problem, but the fact that it blasts away the lubricant and heats up the parts. The counter to this is, that a properly lubricated AR will run totally reliable for double the expected load-out (480rds). Which it does and should. The bolt becomes extremely hot, which effects the lifespan. But more importantly, ever shot is blasting away lubricant and adding gritty carbon. The operation becomes significantly less and less slick.
The Sig takes a lot from the AK. That is evident in the bolt design. It is very solid. I can't imagine breaking an AK or Sig bolt. The extractor is also much stronger.
One weakness of the Sig or most piston systems is that the recoil spring is subject to heating which alters its characteristics. Weakens it sooner, changes its tension. The other weakness is the piston itself. That is an advantage of the gas impingement system of the AR. The AR has a single gas tube. That's it! No piston, no op-rod, no spring, no knobs or screws. Less to rust. Less to break. And a lot LIGHTER. Piston systems weigh more. Another weakness of piston systems is that they are more ammo sensitive. This claim is made of the gas-impingement system but I just don't see it. It is an issue with piston systems. The Sig can be adjusted when the action is slowing down. Increasing the gas flow to blast out the crud or to function with weak ammo. The AK system doesn't care.
Overall, the AK system is the best. The piston is easily 2x over-built and will not break or bend. The recoil spring is kept away from the gas system, so it does not heat up and fatigue. It has a robust bolt that will not crack or shatter. Has a strong extractor. And a fixed external (from the bolt) ejector that will not clog up or break. Add in tapered cases, and feeding and extracting are now even easier...but that is not part of the rifle's design but rather total platform.
HA! Sig vs. AR and the AK wins!!!
Unfortunately, the AK is no where nearly as easy to modify and make as ergonomic as the AR, and even falls well behind the Sig.The Sig 556 has had some issues. Still a young rifle and they pretty much have the bugs worked out. Not so much design flaws, but rather QC and build quality/parts quality. I do not care for the handguards at all. A lot of people are paying $100 to get original Sig 550 handguards. Making the stock compatible with the AR-15 is a smart move. They should have taken it a step further and made the grip compatible also -- while keeping the Sig trigger which is a better trigger in both pull and feel.
Sig claims the barrel finish is superior to chrome lining. I'm skeptical about that. Usually whenever a company doesn't chrome a chamber and bore they make extravagant claims about whatever alternative process they use.
The AK is an anomaly in that compared to pretty much every other weapon system past and present, it is built to survive with the least amount of armorer support. The AR-15 system has the U.S. Military behind it, which is the greatest logistics master since the Romans. Most other weapon systems are what they are and function as a State's military combat rifle. It will be used by professional or well-trained soldiers within the military sphere. That is perhaps why the AK was and is so successful among rebels, militia, guerrillas all over the world in remote areas. It works without the support. It was designed with conscripts in mind from the Soviet WW2 experience.
The AR would have been a lot better if the lugs were reduced in number and then increased in size as well as the bolt being beefed up, particularly in the cam pin hole area to eliminate or double the service life of the bolt from cracks. The other area is the extractor. A stronger design would have been better.
Aside from rebel warfare in remote areas, or mass conscription of peasants ...the Sig and AR will serve the American civilian just fine on the range or for home defense or during a disaster situation. If Western civilization melts down, you have more to worry about than where you will get your spare parts for your AR-15. If you can't get spare parts for you AR-15, you cannot get ammo either and if you can't get either of those, chances are you can't get food either. Sort of goes hand in hand. But I digress.....
The point is, where one really shines as better than the other is in situations that aren't likely or you're likely to have to cope with.
- Status
