[papascull]

: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

 

[Muzzle Flash]

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.

 

[cazio]

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

 

[ullie]

: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...

: 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...

 

[goshawkdriver]

"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.

 

[ullie]

"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...

 

[Zeus]

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

 

[ullie]

...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

 

[ptco911]

If the owner is set on the diopter sight, why ask the question?

 

[elnonio]

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.

 

[papascull]

Filing the front

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:

 

[elnonio]

Re: Filing the front

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!

 

[ullie]

Re: Filing the front

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...

 

[ullie]

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...

 

[Scott_F]

"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.

 

[elnonio]

Unfortunately, lowest bidder as well most likely.

We're all the lowest bidder...

 

[PJS50]

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....

 

[Muzzle Flash]

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.

 

[elnonio]

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.

 

[ullie]

Re: Filing the front

...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...