It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:39 pm
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 33 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sig Diopter Rear Sight- Help!
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:23 pm
Posts: 74
:roll: I have read that this sight is supposed to be a POS, but I cannot help but think that Sig would purposely use them then. Is there any thing that can be done to it to make it a good and reliable sight ( don't bother saying use the trash can.)? I would really like to use Sig gear on my rifle. Thanks- John :(

_________________
MMCS(SS) Retired US Navy
SIG-220,230,226,228,229 & 556
Glocks-17,19,20,21 22,23,26,30,36,
1911's-DW CBOB, DW PM7,14 Colts, 3 SA's, 1 S&W
Beretta-92SF,92C, 2-Pre"B" CZ-75's,
H&R M1 Garand, M1 carbine, SA SOCOM 16,
S&W MP-15 Sport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:35 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:16 pm
Posts: 62
Have you ever hear the saying, Don't believe everything you read?

If you have a problem with it, send it back to SIG, they will take care of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:01 pm 

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:50 pm
Posts: 10
Location: West Virginia
I just picked up my 556 patrol and as far as I can tell it's a solid sight. I think most people want a flip up sight that they can use and co-witness with a red dot sight. Just my opinion.

Cazio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sig Diopter Rear Sight- Help!
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:51 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
papascull wrote:
:roll: I have read that this sight is supposed to be a POS, but I cannot help but think that Sig would purposely use them.


...IMO...it's all about saving and making money John...and what " Sig's conception is" of what the "average" consumer will accept...and be happy with...most "recreational shooters" buy a rifle...take it to the range every once and a while...and fire a few rounds...and in this context...their accessories work...for the most part...

papascull wrote:
: I would really like to use Sig gear on my rifle. Thanks- John :(


...the Sig diopter isn't a POS...however...IMO there are better options...honestly...

...why do you want to use Sig gear...their optics are waaay overpriced...and the quality and durability just isn't there...they work most of the time...and are good enough for light recreational use...but the value just isn't there...IMO...there are far better options...

...my school of thought is...better to buy " reasonably good" quality...one good rifle...one good optic...one good set of sights...instead of several low end " sometimes costly" products that you will eventually outgrow or need to replace...

...if you want a nice diopter sighting system...i would recomend the Aurora set...less that half the price of the Swiss set...and argueable just as good...or close...and far superior to the Sig diopter IMO...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:36 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:12 pm
Posts: 108
Location: SoCal
"I would really like to use Sig gear on my rifle."
I like to keep my rifle as original as possible too...Dunno why I just feel like switching out external pieces like handguards,stocks, sights etc., takes away the value and the authenticity/uniqueness of having a Sig 556. I know its probably silly, but I didn't buy a Sig to turn it into something else.

_________________
FLY NAVY!!
SIG556ER Aimpoint M2, GripPod, Fenix TK12r2
Sig p220 (west german) .45
Remington GI 1911 .45
Sig p226 9mm
S&W 916 9mm
S&W Airelight w/Crimson Trace .38Spec
Lotso shotguns!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:10 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
goshawkdriver wrote:
"I would really like to use Sig gear on my rifle."
I like to keep my rifle as original as possible too...Dunno why I just feel like switching out external pieces like handguards,stocks, sights etc., takes away the value and the authenticity/uniqueness of having a Sig 556. I know its probably silly, but I didn't buy a Sig to turn it into something else.


...to the best of my knowledge...the Sig gear...such as their holosight and diopter isn't made by Sig Sauer...it's made by a second party...imported into this country...repackaged...and sold with a Sig logo...you're paying two..three...or more times the money for that logo...and far more than it's worth...it's marketing...giving you the illusion you're actually getting something extra for your money...but paying dearly for it...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:00 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Northeast,Wisconsin
I believe the holo sight and diopter are made by iTac.
http://www.topgunsupply.com/itac-sig-sa ... riser.html
http://www.sportsmans-depot.com/product ... SIGHT.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:04 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
...if you are going to use your iron sights...why in the world would you spend ~ $200 for a Sig diopter when you can get an Aurora diopter for ~ $225...and a complete Aurora set for ~285...

...honestly...you can't even compare the two...the Aurora sights are virtually identical to the origional Swiss diopters...as close as you're going to get...at less than half the price...

... http://auroraind.net/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=26

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:04 pm
Posts: 674
Location: Kansas
If the owner is set on the diopter sight, why ask the question?

_________________
I have ten thousand for defense, but none to surrender; if you want our weapons come and get them.


Last edited by ptco911 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:07 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Quantico, VA
ptco911 wrote:
If the owner is set on the diopter sight, why as the question?


The SIG diopter is adequate for what it is. It is not, in my view, unreliable (which is what the original poster thinks it may be).

While it is true that it is not the best option either, there were some issues with Aurora's QC as well. Recent purchasers may chime in to comment on that. Also, the fact that the website shows a drawing of the rear sight instead of a picture does not give me a warm and fuzzy.

While I prefer the AR15 type sights, due to familiarity if nothing else, I have nothing against the SIG diopter sight and in fact purchased a 556 with a diopter on.

My only gripe was that the rifle shot way to low at 100 even with the drum set to 300, and unfortunately I ran out of elevation to correct the issue. While I have no qualms adjusting front posts, I'm a little uneasy to fix the SIG hooded front sight, since the post is not replaceable and is beveled: by taking metal off the top, you end up with a wider top. The hood also makes working on it more complicated. So, once I've calculated how much metal to remove, I will take this one to my smith for action.

The hood and diopter currently sit on my daughter's 522, though I wonder whether it may not make more sense to put the Samson FS and LMT rear on that.

_________________
S/F
Antonio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Filing the front
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:32 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:23 pm
Posts: 74
:P Well, elnonio, I have filed the front down using the barrel as a center for the target which put me on the paper. Ullie once told me that, ofcourse he said to not file any more. I also agree with him there. I have not had the chance to shoot it yet with any of the sights on. I had also ordered the front as a take-off from a fellow on this site. I had bought the ER version of the 556 (no longer available from Sig) and it had the wide flip-up post on front and the "lollipop" flip-up on th rear. Rather poor sights. I DO like the Sig diopter... but with all the complaints from guys on the site about the quality of it, I began to worry. Hence, this thread from this PO. I need to take the 556 out and see where I am hitting ASAP. John Scull :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
MMCS(SS) Retired US Navy
SIG-220,230,226,228,229 & 556
Glocks-17,19,20,21 22,23,26,30,36,
1911's-DW CBOB, DW PM7,14 Colts, 3 SA's, 1 S&W
Beretta-92SF,92C, 2-Pre"B" CZ-75's,
H&R M1 Garand, M1 carbine, SA SOCOM 16,
S&W MP-15 Sport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Filing the front
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:49 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Quantico, VA
papascull wrote:
:P Well, elnonio, I have filed the front down using the barrel as a center for the target which put me on the paper. Ullie once told me that, ofcourse he said to not file any more. I also agree with him there. I have not had the chance to shoot it yet with any of the sights on. I had also ordered the front as a take-off from a fellow on this site. I had bought the ER version of the 556 (no longer available from Sig) and it had the wide flip-up post on front and the "lollipop" flip-up on th rear. Rather poor sights. I DO like the Sig diopter... but with all the complaints from guys on the site about the quality of it, I began to worry. Hence, this thread from this PO. I need to take the 556 out and see where I am hitting ASAP. John Scull :lol: :lol: :lol:


Actually, I posted on another thread the way to calculate the amount of front sight to remove. This is not meant to be a guesstimate game, which in the case of the hooded sight could be a costly experiment!

In short, you first want to get your rear sight at mechanical zero, or a little below to allow for more up elevation than down elevation. Carefully shooting the best group you can at, say, 50 yards, the formula is (all in inches):

(sight radius x distance from point of aim)/distance to target

So, with a sight radius of (say) 17.5 inches and a group that is 15 inches low at 1800 inches (50 yds) the amount to remove would be 0.146 inches. As you can see, a little goes a long way, and it would be all to easy to over do it!

_________________
S/F
Antonio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Filing the front
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:27 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
papascull wrote:
:P I have filed the front down using the barrel as a center for the target which put me on the paper.

I have not had the chance to shoot it yet with any of the sights on.

I need to take the 556 out and see where I am hitting ASAP


...you haven't zeroed your rifle with live ammunition ?...or tried to...

...why would you file down your front sight ?...bore sighting just gives you a starting point to get on paper...

...if the front sight and rear sight are "compatable"...you should never come close to maxing out or running out of elevation adjustment...if you do...there are one or more issues with the weapon that is causing it to shoot too low !!!

...it is my understanding that some of the Samson sights were assembled with the tall AR "standard" front sight post that is used in the "standard" front sight base of the M16...in which case you could file it down a little...OR...change it out to the shorter front sight post...as used in the "taller" F marked front sight base of the M4...IF you cannot zero your 556 in elevation using the shorter front sightpost...or are close to bottoming it out...your rifle is shooting too low...and should be returned to Sig for adjustment...

...the Sig hooded front sight and the Sig Sauer rear diopter are designed to be used in conjunction with each other...there should not be a need to file down the front sight...you should be able to zero @ 100 meters using anything close to NATO standard ammunition in velosity by using the 100 meter setting on the diopter and the elevation ring...POA=POI...as per manual...if you run out of elevation travel...or close to it...my best guess is that your 556 is shooting too low and needs to go back to Sig Sauer for adjustment...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:55 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
elnonio wrote:
My only gripe was that the rifle shot way to low at 100 even with the drum set to 300, and unfortunately I ran out of elevation to correct the issue.


...using the 300 meter setting @ 100 raises your POI several additional MOA @ 100 meters...you not only maxed out your elevation...but maxed it out at the 300 meter setting @ 100 yards...or meters...really doesn't matter...

...my best guess is that your rifle is shooting too low...and needs to go back to Sig Sauer...you might try some other sights just in case your diopter is really screwed up...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:50 am
Posts: 23
ullie wrote:
goshawkdriver wrote:
"I would really like to use Sig gear on my rifle."
I like to keep my rifle as original as possible too...Dunno why I just feel like switching out external pieces like handguards,stocks, sights etc., takes away the value and the authenticity/uniqueness of having a Sig 556. I know its probably silly, but I didn't buy a Sig to turn it into something else.


...to the best of my knowledge...the Sig gear...such as their holosight and diopter isn't made by Sig Sauer...it's made by a second party...imported into this country...repackaged...and sold with a Sig logo...you're paying two..three...or more times the money for that logo...and far more than it's worth...it's marketing...giving you the illusion you're actually getting something extra for your money...but paying dearly for it...


Unfortunately, lowest bidder as well most likely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:13 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Quantico, VA
Scott_F wrote:

Unfortunately, lowest bidder as well most likely.


We're all the lowest bidder...

_________________
S/F
Antonio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 37
ullie wrote:
elnonio wrote:
My only gripe was that the rifle shot way to low at 100 even with the drum set to 300, and unfortunately I ran out of elevation to correct the issue.


...using the 300 meter setting @ 100 raises your POI several additional MOA @ 100 meters...you not only maxed out your elevation...but maxed it out at the 300 meter setting @ 100 yards...or meters...really doesn't matter...

...my best guess is that your rifle is shooting too low...and needs to go back to Sig Sauer...you might try some other sights just in case your diopter is really screwed up...


Ullie,
Mine was the same way right out of the box... 8" low at 100yards through the 100M aperture; 6" low at 100yards through the 300M aperture...
The Sig supplied front/hooded sight on my SWAT model was WAY too tall for the rear dipoter to be able to give a 100y zero... I returned the rifle to Sig and the blade on the front sight fix is literally close to 1/2 the height of what my rifle originally came with (I would "guestimate" the new front blade is about 3/16" shorter than the original blade; I wish I would have measured the original before sending it out... :x )..
Oh well....

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:53 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:16 pm
Posts: 62
I sighted mine in last weekend. Holds zero fine. My only 2 complaints are that the windage adjustment seems pretty coarse and the front sight post is rather large.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:42 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Quantico, VA
PJS50 wrote:
Ullie,
Mine was the same way right out of the box... 8" low at 100yards through the 100M aperture; 6" low at 100yards through the 300M aperture...
The Sig supplied front/hooded sight on my SWAT model was WAY too tall for the rear dipoter to be able to give a 100y zero... I returned the rifle to Sig and the blade on the front sight fix is literally close to 1/2 the height of what my rifle originally came with (I would "guestimate" the new front blade is about 3/16" shorter than the original blade; I wish I would have measured the original before sending it out... :x )..
Oh well....


Since I was initially ridiculed for stating that the front sight post could/should be filed to the correct size (as opposed to there being an issue with the rifle, aside from the front sight height, that warranted return to SIG), I guess I'm not surprised that the SIG fix to the issue was to return the rifle with a shortened front sight.

For those new to the thread, the correct amount to remove when the sights run out of adjustment is: sight radiusx(POA-POI)/distance
all in inches, after the elevation adjustment has been reset to allow for more future up elevation.

_________________
S/F
Antonio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Filing the front
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:15 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
...i'll say it again...

..."IF" the front sight and rear sight are "compatable"...you should never need to come close to maxing out or running out of elevation adjustment...if you do...there are one or more issues with the weapon that is causing it to shoot too low !!!

...the Sig hooded front sight and the Sig Sauer rear diopter are designed to be used in conjunction with each other...there should not be a need to file down the front sight...you should be able to zero @ 100 meters using anything close to NATO standard ammunition in velosity by using the 100 meter setting on the diopter and the elevation ring...POA=POI...as per manual...if you run out of elevation travel...or close to it...my best guess is that your 556 is shooting too low and needs to go back to Sig Sauer for adjustment...

...when using a diopter sighting system...you need to " ensure that the periphery of the foresight tunnel and the diopter aperture are concentric."...this is right out of the manual...the front sight post should be roughly in the center of the foresight tunnel in order to get the proper sight picture...likewise...as with most diopter systems...you shoot POA=POI with the front sight post's top "center over target"...all elevation adjustments to zero the weapon are made with the rear sight only...you can innitually zero the weapon at a shorter range using the shorter range settings on the drum or use your "near zero" ...which is roughly 33 meters...with the 300 meter drum setting...and then confirm your zero...perferably at 300 meters using the 300 meter aperature as your final zero "with" the "correct ammunition" for which the diopters are calibrated...significantely reducing the height of the front sight post reduces the efficiency of the system...

...these sights are manufactured for Sig Sauer... outsourced to a vendor...and mounted on the 556 as sold to the consumer "as a set"...i would have to believe that Sig Sauer is able to spec out the "sight set" so that the front and rear sight are "compatable" in height...and indeed...most are...shortening the front post is a "quick" and "cheap fix" for Sig Sauer...one that i would find unacceptable...

...this is most likely a quality control issue...and the most likely cause is that the rifle is shooting too low for what ever reason...to low for the adjustment range inherant in the sights...this is not all that unusual...it happens sometimes and is usually caught during the test firing stage...at least when the tester sets up a target and actually fires at it...this is something that should never have passed their inspection during the test firing phase...it would seem logical to consider that if the consumer cannot zero the rifle after purchase...then...neither was Sig able to do so during their test firing phase...yet the rifle was still shipped out to the consumer..something just isn't right here IMO...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Filing the front
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 37
ullie wrote:
...i'll say it again...

..."IF" the front sight and rear sight are "compatable"...you should never need to come close to maxing out or running out of elevation adjustment...if you do...there are one or more issues with the weapon that is causing it to shoot too low !!!

...the Sig hooded front sight and the Sig Sauer rear diopter are designed to be used in conjunction with each other...there should not be a need to file down the front sight...you should be able to zero @ 100 meters using anything close to NATO standard ammunition in velosity by using the 100 meter setting on the diopter and the elevation ring...POA=POI...as per manual...if you run out of elevation travel...or close to it...my best guess is that your 556 is shooting too low and needs to go back to Sig Sauer for adjustment...


...these sights are manufactured for Sig Sauer... outsourced to a vendor...and mounted on the 556 as sold to the consumer "as a set"...i would have to believe that Sig Sauer is able to spec out the "sight set" so that the front and rear sight are "compatable" in height...and indeed...most are...shortening the front post is a "quick" and "cheap fix" for Sig Sauer...one that i would find unacceptable...

...this is most likely a quality control issue...and the most likely cause is that the rifle is shooting too low for what ever reason...to low for the adjustment range inherant in the sights...this is not all that unusual...it happens sometimes and is usually caught during the test firing stage...at least when the tester sets up a target and actually fires at it...this is something that should never have passed their inspection during the test firing phase...it would seem logical to consider that if the consumer cannot zero the rifle after purchase...then...neither was Sig able to do so during their test firing phase...yet the rifle was still shipped out to the consumer..something just isn't right here IMO...


What can I say... You said it yourself that IF the sights are compatible... blah blah... I contend that they were NOT (compatible), so that is why my new/shorter front sight appears to be a factory "Sig" (or subcontracted Sig) part... They must have a couple different specification front/rear "sets" that they use... I'd be willing to bet that the diopter sight has it's own front blade height, which mine did not get initially...
I was using facory ammunition and couldn't even come close to a 100 yard zero. And yes, I know how the hooded front post/rear aperture are supposed to be aligned....

Yes, Its' a QC issue, that same kind of issue that allowed my rifle to leave the factory with considerable "slop" in the top-front rail... As far as factory test firing, my rifle never came with any kind of test target (which is standard proceedure for any Sig weapons???). so who knows if that rifle ever saw even close to "zero" on their test range either.
Besides, from my past experience, factory test firing is not intended to produce a "zero" anyway. It is done just to ensure that the weapon is safe and functions properly, so any gunsmith/tech would not even be concerned about the sights "compatibility" anyway.... no? IF this is the case, the tech probably just moved the rear sight a notch or two up and down to see if that too was "functioning". I seriously doubt even that considering the "optional" nature of the diopter sights.
The sight probably just came out of a bag and got installed on the rifle AFTER the rifle was test-fired...

Sig's employees are human, and as such, CAN and do make mistakes... I chalk up my experience to that, plain and simple... Unfortunately, mistakes can also happen more than once....

Now, the person who engineered the foam thickness inside the hard case that my 556 rifle came in is an idiot! THAT was just poor engineering, right off the drwing board!!!! LoL...

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:52 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Quantico, VA
PJS50: thanks for reminding me of a detail: my diopter did not come installed on the rifle, but was in a sealed package. Ain't no way SIF testfired my rifle with the diopter.

Concur on pretty much everything else.

_________________
S/F
Antonio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:51 pm 
556 After-Market R&D Team
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 8:44 am
Posts: 775
I visited the SIG factory in Switzerland perhaps 15 years ago, and recall the test firing was done with the rifle attached to a massive frame - it was not shot by a human operator. In fact, it might have been that only the upper was clamped in the frame, though here I am not sure.

Bottom line is that it is possible the rifle was test fired without sights.

Of course, a lot has changed in 15 years, including ownership of the company, and assembly location, so my observations are perhaps worthless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Filing the front
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:21 am 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
PJS50 wrote:
What can I say... You said it yourself that IF the sights are compatible... blah blah....


...they are sold as a "set" specifically for the 556...that indicates to me that they are intended to be used with each other...you would think anyway...

... http://www.sigsauer.com/SigStore/ShowPr ... ductid=302

PJS50 wrote:
Besides, from my past experience, factory test firing is not intended to produce a "zero" anyway. It is done just to ensure that the weapon is safe and functions properly, so any gunsmith/tech would not even be concerned about the sights "compatibility" anyway.... no?


...actually...quite a few manufacturers test fire their rifles for function and accuracy...including FN...Steyr...SAKO...Heckler & Koch...Colt Defense...LMT...CZ...BOFERS...i could go on and on...in fact SWISS ARMS tests their rifles out to 300 meters !...NORINCO even zero's their AKs before leaving their factories... :lol:

...it's a shame Sig Sauer apparently doesn't...if they did...i would guess your rifle would have been rejected...that's what most manufacturers do if their rifles don't meet a certain standard of accuracy and function...along with other criteria in their inspection protocols...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:34 am 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
7art wrote:
Bottom line is that it is possible the rifle was test fired without sights.


...the Swiss guns are tested with sights off a mechanical rest out to 300 meters...on the commercial guns...they usually include a test target...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:24 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:31 pm
Posts: 427
Location: New Hampshire
ullie wrote:
7art wrote:
Bottom line is that it is possible the rifle was test fired without sights.


...the Swiss guns are tested with sights off a mechanical rest out to 300 meters...on the commercial guns...they usually include a test target...


I've always wondered about that. The 4 new Sigs I've purchased over the past 2 years didn't have a test target included. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:25 pm 
Site Mod

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2251
Location: North Idaho
racenet wrote:
I've always wondered about that. The 4 new Sigs I've purchased over the past 2 years didn't have a test target included. :?


...the SIG SAUER pistols...produced in Germany by J. P. Sauer und Sohn GmbH...are strictly inspected and marked as such under German Law including being "proofed" in state controled/run "proof houses"...function tested...and zeroed with the correct height sights...and supplied with the final acceptance "test target" signed by the shooter...including the date...model...serial number...caliber...range...and number of rounds fired...

...my 1995 Sig 229 with the German made frame does not have any proof or acceptance marks since it was assembled in the United States...nor was a test target provided...

_________________
Image

(\ __ /)
(=' . '=)
(") _ (")


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 37
When my rifle was returned, I got a test target returned with it...
The rifle was fired at a distance of 25 yards..... (crickets in the background)....
Maybe the Sig facilities here in the US aren't as well equipped as Switzerland, huh?
I am in the process of making another bullet trap to use in my warehouse at work. This one "should" be able to take .223, and I have at least 80 feet clear run in my warehouse :)

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:53 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:59 am
Posts: 107
As I posted about some time ago, my Sig diopter sights also had insufficient elevation adjustment.

The solution is not to file the front sight down, however.

The fix is quite simple, and requires only the disassembly of the rear sight, along with a few seconds of dremel/file work to a part that never sees the light of day.

If interested, the post is somewhere buried in this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 37
Thanks Gunny, but Sig has already returned my rifle with a shorter front sight and the two (front and rear) works perfectly now...
Just curious, what is the height of your front sight blade off of the top-forearm rail (do you have a SWAT model rifle?).
To measure I just stood my dial caliper upside down on the top of the front picatiny rail, directly behind the front sight hood and using the ID measuring blades, I opened up the caliper until the measuring blade was flush with the top of the sight blade behind it...
Just curious... I (idiot!!!) didn't measure my rifle's original front sight blade height before I sent it back to Sig, but I am positive that it was WAY higher than the aperture on the rear-drum....

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 33 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron