CountryBoy19
Grandmaster
You may have seen this thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...headed_downrange_for_a_while.html#post2036116
If not, that will explain a little more about why I'm posting this review.
I recently took a training class with Tactical Evolutions in Evansville. I'm not sure if Tactical Evolutions offers classes to the general public because their class is focused on DoD work. They do training for DoD personnel that are going to places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
They provided all rifles and ammunition and they took care of said equipment so this review may be lacking a little bit in details, but I did want to post up some of the issues that we had with the rifles.
Most people in the class had Sig 516 rifles but there were a few other AR15 rifles including the rifle that I used after my Sig failed which was a DPMS lower and Stag upper. We were told the Sig rifles were brand new, they had been cleaned and test-fired only.
All Sig rifles functioned great out of the box. But midway through the first day (2-300 rounds in) two of the rifles started malfunctioning. It was determined that the adjustable gas block had not maintained it's adjustment and needed readjusting. Maybe Sig should have used some sort of retention on the adjustment like lock-tight etc? By the end of the day 2 more rifles had done it. The remaining Sig rifles didn't have any other gas adjustment issues.
The major problem however was that 2 rifles experience some sort of FCG failure. All together these rifles fired less than 500 rounds and 2 out of 10 experienced FCG failures. That is unacceptable. 1 failure (the failure on my rifle) was that one of the FCG pins walked out and got "all buggered up" to the point that it couldn't be returned to service at the range. I was told it was the sear-pin, but I'm not sure a Sig rifle has an "sear-pin", maybe hammer pin?
Putting all the failures aside, I will now touch on the use-ability of the rifle.
The Sig includes a QD sling that can be used as a single or double-point and there are several attachment points on the rifle. At first I thought the sling setup was pretty cool. But over time I developed a blister on my thumb because of it. The rear-most attach point on the lower receiver is right near the selector switch. Once you attach the swivel it actually projects down and partially obstructs the switch. This forced me to have to cram my thumb up again the swivel stud and crane it around to flip the switch the "fire". I really noticed the difference after my Sig failed and I was given a normal AR with a normal sling attach plate on the buffer tube.
I also didn't like the sights that came on the Sig. I can't say for sure if they were Sig sights or if the TE guys put them on, but either way they flipped down very easily if you let the rifle drop and the sight hit your leg etc. Sometimes they would only flip down a little bit and it wouldn't be very noticeable unless you were looking for it. This caused problem with POA during shooting drills.
Other than the aforementioned failures and sling issues the Sig seems like an OK gun. Would I buy one? No way. Would I shoot it if I were given the option between that and a handgun? Absolutely.
Sorry but I don't have pictures. We weren't allowed to handle the guns except on the range when shooting. When the Sigs failed they were quickly whisked away for repairs so the class could continue. The only photo I would be able to show would be a stock photo of a Sig rifle laying bolt open, facing up on a table with muzzle downrange.
If that eliminates me from eligibility in the real-world reviews thread then so-be-it.
ETA, I found some photos of two different sling swivel attach points on the Sig.
The first design is like that on the rifle I shot. Take note that the attach point is in the lower itself, near the selector. When a sling is attached it puts the sling swivel even closer to the selector. It doesn't look too bad in the photos but it's very uncomfortable when actually shooting the rifle.
The Second appears as if it may have been a design change due to the discomfort some experiences while disengaging the safety. Note that the attach point is now part of the retainer plate on the buffer tube, this places the attach point further back and would relieve some of the issues I experienced. I would be a little more interested in this design.
If not, that will explain a little more about why I'm posting this review.
I recently took a training class with Tactical Evolutions in Evansville. I'm not sure if Tactical Evolutions offers classes to the general public because their class is focused on DoD work. They do training for DoD personnel that are going to places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
They provided all rifles and ammunition and they took care of said equipment so this review may be lacking a little bit in details, but I did want to post up some of the issues that we had with the rifles.
Most people in the class had Sig 516 rifles but there were a few other AR15 rifles including the rifle that I used after my Sig failed which was a DPMS lower and Stag upper. We were told the Sig rifles were brand new, they had been cleaned and test-fired only.
All Sig rifles functioned great out of the box. But midway through the first day (2-300 rounds in) two of the rifles started malfunctioning. It was determined that the adjustable gas block had not maintained it's adjustment and needed readjusting. Maybe Sig should have used some sort of retention on the adjustment like lock-tight etc? By the end of the day 2 more rifles had done it. The remaining Sig rifles didn't have any other gas adjustment issues.
The major problem however was that 2 rifles experience some sort of FCG failure. All together these rifles fired less than 500 rounds and 2 out of 10 experienced FCG failures. That is unacceptable. 1 failure (the failure on my rifle) was that one of the FCG pins walked out and got "all buggered up" to the point that it couldn't be returned to service at the range. I was told it was the sear-pin, but I'm not sure a Sig rifle has an "sear-pin", maybe hammer pin?
Putting all the failures aside, I will now touch on the use-ability of the rifle.
The Sig includes a QD sling that can be used as a single or double-point and there are several attachment points on the rifle. At first I thought the sling setup was pretty cool. But over time I developed a blister on my thumb because of it. The rear-most attach point on the lower receiver is right near the selector switch. Once you attach the swivel it actually projects down and partially obstructs the switch. This forced me to have to cram my thumb up again the swivel stud and crane it around to flip the switch the "fire". I really noticed the difference after my Sig failed and I was given a normal AR with a normal sling attach plate on the buffer tube.
I also didn't like the sights that came on the Sig. I can't say for sure if they were Sig sights or if the TE guys put them on, but either way they flipped down very easily if you let the rifle drop and the sight hit your leg etc. Sometimes they would only flip down a little bit and it wouldn't be very noticeable unless you were looking for it. This caused problem with POA during shooting drills.
Other than the aforementioned failures and sling issues the Sig seems like an OK gun. Would I buy one? No way. Would I shoot it if I were given the option between that and a handgun? Absolutely.
Sorry but I don't have pictures. We weren't allowed to handle the guns except on the range when shooting. When the Sigs failed they were quickly whisked away for repairs so the class could continue. The only photo I would be able to show would be a stock photo of a Sig rifle laying bolt open, facing up on a table with muzzle downrange.
If that eliminates me from eligibility in the real-world reviews thread then so-be-it.ETA, I found some photos of two different sling swivel attach points on the Sig.
The first design is like that on the rifle I shot. Take note that the attach point is in the lower itself, near the selector. When a sling is attached it puts the sling swivel even closer to the selector. It doesn't look too bad in the photos but it's very uncomfortable when actually shooting the rifle.
The Second appears as if it may have been a design change due to the discomfort some experiences while disengaging the safety. Note that the attach point is now part of the retainer plate on the buffer tube, this places the attach point further back and would relieve some of the issues I experienced. I would be a little more interested in this design.
Last edited:
