Sig Cqb

The broken guide rod and broken bolt carrier are from different weapons. I wasn't present when the bolt carrier broke, but people who were said there was nothing wrong with the guide rod.

How these rifles made their way to us is unclear to me, though I do know that we didn't purchase direct from Swiss Arms. That may be interfering with the Warrantyprocess. Also I don't know how much of a priority company hq is putting on it, since they now have a new pet rifle that they prefer to purchase when we need new rifles.

Durnit Big Red beat me to it
 
Last edited:
If Swiss Arms cannot find out why and how it happens, how could they prevent it?

If there is problems with the batch of 552 your companys got, they should contact Swiss Arms ASAP, warranty or not.

Unless your guns does not come from legitimate source.

.
 
McCoy said:
If Swiss Arms cannot find out why and how it happens, how could they prevent it?

If there is problems with the batch of 552 your companys got, they should contact Swiss Arms ASAP, warranty or not.

Unless your guns does not come from legitimate source.

.

Well that's out of my hands, as Big Red and I are only worker bee's. We're only reporting what we've seen with new rifles that have low round counts through them.
 
Big_Red said:
The guide rod failure was unrelated to the broken bolt carrier. To clarify, the broken guide rods & springs were on different weapons. I've seen worse than the pics above on other MNFI unit's 552s but haven't bothered to take pics. Guide rod ends completely smashed and the spring folded in half.

I witnessed the bolt carrier break on the Sig and it took some time to remove it from the weapon afterwards as it was siezed inside. The failure happened on a grouping shoot (not rapid fire). The weapon had an extremely low round count.

The Sig warranty is almost irrelevant here. Maybe *we* could get something done, but it would be pretty much impossible for the local units using the Sig series like SWAT. They'll just have to cannibalize their broken ones.

Just trying to help. If there are failures then there is a reason. My experience with dozens of high round count guns is certainly very different. If the guns are new, Swiss Arms will warranty them. They have a pretty good agent in the middle east. I don't see how that would be irrelevant, unless someone has already decided to buy something else.
In any event, let us know if you need more help.
 
Didn't intend on coming off too negative.

By irrelevant I meant that us (security guys) may be able to contact Sig about warantee issues but the hassle of import/export permits may preclude any action on replacing them.

The Iraqi forces that are using the Sigs will be SOL. They (SWAT) don't even have the logisitical setup to buy new mags or do simple repairs, let alone get weapons serviced by Sig. Just too bad they are stuck with lemons as their primary weapons. On the bright side they've got more 551s then 552s.

I guess Teddy can send the pics of failures to SigArms and see what they say.
 
All shorty 5.56mm rifles are high pressure units and take much more of a beating than longer weapons. Many brands don't run reliably at all. The 552's I've had experience with (select fire and civillian semi auto only) have ran perfectly. I'm curious as to how other brands of shorty 5.56mm guns are holding up. Are they any better? or are they breaking down even worse than the Swiss Arms units?

I have been advised that the British SAS CRW have adopted the Swiss Arms 552 as their new CQB weapon to agument HK MP5's and maybe eventually replace the MP5. I was told that their testing was extensive and that the 552 was the most durable and accurate of the shorty (8 to 10 inch barrel) guns they tested. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Before everyone jumps in I am well aware that the general issue weapon of the SAS is the Deimaco SFW and that it won their assault weapon trials. I am addressing the issue that the SAS did not go with the Diemaco CQB (or any other weapon) as they thought the 552 was better for CQB with their anti terrorist squadron.

Maybe the Swiss Arms 552 breaks but not as much, as often or as catistrophic as other shorty guns.
 
The major reason CRW adoped the 552 was the OAL. The complete folding stock gives a great advantage to fixed stock designs (ie the C8 buffer tube).
 
A folding stock doesn't strike me as a great advantage if the rest of the rifle folds as well...
Looks like some of these rifles slipped under Sig's QA radar.
 
Greentips, I agree. I don't care who makes the weapon if it breaks it should be fixed or looked after by the Company if an issue is identified. I am curious if the SAS found any similar faults with the 552. I am trying to wrap my head around why they would dare to adopt it if they did find major issues.

Kevin, how do the other shorty 5.56's hold up overthere?
 
This is disappointing to read. I always thought these rifles were the cats 'meow' when it came to accuracy/reliability.
I suppose that goes a long way to explaining why the AK retains its popularity, albeit sans the accuracy feature
 
- No idea -- I'm on a US DOS contract so no Sig's.
The bit about the Sig's primariy selection was bumping into some Brits overhere when I was here with the military - some had C8SFW/L119A1's and others had the 552 one of the Sgt's said the Sig won due to concealability (backpackability)

BigRed and Teddy would be in the best position to comment since they are issued Sig's and deal with Iraqi SWAT who are also issue them.

Guys in my neighbourhood are all M4/M4A1 (and happy ;) ) -- regardless I still plan on getting a CQB from TSE when back on leave.
 
i might be the only one but the Sig don't do it for me....its nice and all I have shot them lots but the AR is still the one for me...


AR,G36,SIG


1,2,3


Jamie Barkwell
 
Jamie said:
i might be the only one but the Sig don't do it for me....its nice and all I have shot them lots but the AR is still the one for me...


AR,G36,SIG


1,2,3


Jamie Barkwell

I can understand rating the AR over the SIG, if you're so inclined, but putting the SIG below the G36, is I think, incorrect.

Despite my posts in this thread, I have a Black Special and a Classic Green Carbine. I love them both dearly, and like I've said previously, my Black Special has more rounds through it than any 2 of our 552s here in Iraq and I have had no trouble with it whatsoever. They are ungodly accurate, recoil like a 10/22, and if you're a southpaw, like me, ergonomic masterpieces. I don't think that the G36 can measure up.
 
greentips said:
The fact is obvious: those 552 broke and broke catastrophically. come on...the bolt carrier is busted!!

Everyone is jumping to denial/brand worshipping because it costs 3000 bucks a pop. I owe two of these and if it is a quality control issue( ie, head treating), it needs to be addressed and the factory better gets off their asses, track down the batch, carry out metallurgical analysis, make a recall and have the parts replaced. Dont care it is HK, SIG, colt, porsche, Boeing F22 Raptor or FORD! Things break, and it needs to be fixed and investigated.

Sorry I missed the catastrophic part. The carrier broke. The battering at the end was obviously caused by something in the receiver that should not have been there, as there is nothing behind other than the recoild spring guide.
Just to get the terminology right, a catastophic failure is one that renders the gun permanently out of action. The gun in question requires a new part, and inspection.
I am also sure based on the comments made here, that the factory has not been informed, or offered the chance to investigate the problems.
 
PIECE Keeper said:
Informative post....

For those CQB owners out there, has anybody had any issues with their CQB's at all?

How many rounds have you guys fired through yours?

Any other feedback on these?

Thanks


Zero issues with the CQB rifle, and about 6000rds plus through the CQB, no missfire or failure to feed or extract, have shot frangible ammunition from SNC/Winchester/Federal & others and assorted mixes of FMJ/JHP/JSP/Match, accurate and consistant without any issues, I have always liked the AR family of rifles - but I have adjusted just fine with the Swiss Arms;)

gadget
 
Rich LPS said:
I have been advised that the British SAS CRW have adopted the Swiss Arms 552 as their new CQB weapon to agument HK MP5's and maybe eventually replace the MP5. I was told that their testing was extensive and that the 552 was the most durable and accurate of the shorty (8 to 10 inch barrel) guns they tested. Can anyone shed some light on this?

The CRW use the SG552 Commando, the other weapons in contention were the G36K and a shortened version of the C8, IIRC. The SG552 got the contract. My understanding it was the most durable tested but I got the impression that it had a lot to do with the manual of arms being very similar to the MP5, as the SG552 has very similar sights, mag changes are the same, selector is in the same place, only cocking it is different.
 
teddy49 said:
To be fair other entities in country are using different versions, like the 551 and they don't seem to be having the difficulties that we are. As far as I can tell these problems seem to be confined to the 552 series. But my scope is limited to what I see. I've got a Black Special and what ever Swiss Arms calls the 551 at home, and they both work flawlessly, no complaints at all. But after seeing this I'm wondering if the almost 7k I've got invested in these things might have been better spent elsewhere.

Any short-barrelled 5.56mm on full-auto isn't going to last a fantastic amount of time IMO. I keep making this point to all the police units I see who buy the things. It's handier to have something with a 10-inch barrel, but these things aren't MP5s using pistol rounds, 5.56mm is MUCH higher pressure and the smaller the gun the faster the wear and tear.

I see people mentioning quantities of ammo like 5,000 rounds, which is nothing really for something used as an SMG. Go to a rental range in the US that has an MP5 and they typically put through 150,000 rounds through their guns before any major parts replacement.

The shorter the gas piston, the bigger the gas port, you've got more energy being transferred to a smaller mass to produce the same effect in cycling the gun. So it's going to break more easily, and forget about the barrel, no 5.56mm barrel will last anywhere near as long as something in 9mm. Just simple physics. Look at all the problems SOCOM have been having with their M4s, putting silly amounts of ammo through them. They're flipping carbines, i.e. guns for support personnel, not LMGs!

I do think the 551 is probably a wiser choice unless you absolutely MUST have something smaller. Ditto for an AR-15, the shorter the gap between the muzzle and the gas port, the less pressure build up there is at the gas port, so the gas port has to be made larger. This can lead to erratic cyclic rates and other nastiness. So then you have to use more sophisticated buffers, etc. to compensate.

Just use barrels that are a few inches longer. This is the best option, IMO. I know it's not always possible but I think it's more possible than a lot of people make out for CQB. It's like people who buy Glock 26s instead of 19s because the 26 is "more concealable". It may be easier to hide, but it's harder to shoot. In reality with minor effort the Glock 19 is easily concealed.

Moreover, if the barrel is longer, this means higher MV, and that will translate into more effective terminal ballistics also.
 
Back
Top Bottom