View Single Post
Old May 1, 2009, 03:52 PM   #16
Join Date: May 1, 2009
Location: New Orleans Area
Posts: 24
The following is a range report on the Sig556 Vs the Colt 6920 that I posted last November. I have recently had an issue with the firing pin on the 6920 though this week has been a nightmare and I haven't had the chance to trouble shoot the problem. When I get the chance I'll do so and post the results here. Here is the range report as it was posted:

I have been trying to get to the range to fire my new Colt 6920 for weeks now and today I just decided to put everything else aside and just do it. I took along my SIG556 (formerly SWAT version) with the new 551 style hand guards to see how it handles. Seeing how I had them both on the range I took the opportunity to do a SIG556 versus Colt 6920 range report.

From the moment I picked up my Colt 6920 it just felt right. It is very light and the ergonomics are superb. Magazine changes are a breeze with this carbine as the mag release button is in exactly the right position. All of my magazines (I still don’t have the Pmags that I ordered so I’ll have to test those when I get them) feed reliably and release cleanly. I did have an issue with a SIG polymer mag not locking back the bolt when the mag was empty. I don’t yet know if that is a problem with that particular magazine, those magazines in general, or if it was a one-time fluke. I only fired 120 rounds through the Colt so I only used three magazines, which reminds me, I haven’t used the Colt 20 round mags that came with the carbine yet so I’ll have to test those when I test the Pmags.

As I’ve mentioned I only put 120 rounds downrange today with the Colt. It fed the Prvi Partzan M193 55gr with no problems whatsoever. I also only shot at 50 and 25 yards and only off hand. At my range it takes forever for the line to go cold and once again I forgot to take my spotting scope with me. At 50 yards I could use the ACOG on my SIG556 to check out my target so that was the maximum range I shot at today. I started out at 25 yards and then brought it out to 50 yards. At 25 yards off hand I shot 30 rounds with target acquisition being the focus and 30 double taps into about a 4 inch group with some (ten or so) out of the group by various distances. At 50 yards I shot all 60 rounds one at a time fairly slowly and deliberately. I had about a 12 inch group again with some (10-12 or so) being out of the group but all within the silhouette. Now I know that the AR platform is supposed to be more accurate than that, and I’m sure that this one is as well. I would say that even my AK-101 is more accurate than I am. I never have been nor will I ever be a target shooting champion.

Instantly upon firing the first round I had the feeling of déjà vu from my days in the military and firing the M16. I also had the thought that while it certainly didn’t have harsh recoil, it was definitely more than the SIG556. Even so, due to the ergonomics, it was quick to get back on target and it felt like an extension of me. This carbine is a definite keeper.

So, the next thing was to try out the SIG556 with its new hand guards installed. I once again shot 120 rounds and I did so the same exact way as I did the Colt 6920. The 551 style hand guards made a pretty substantial difference in how this carbine handles. The SWAT model’s quad rail was cool and all, but it was very uncomfortable and as most agree it made the weapon heavier and particularly muzzle heavy. As I’ve noted before the ergonomics of the SIG556 are a bit clunky for me. The lower receiver is so long that the controls are simply too far forward. Perhaps if I had really long fingers it wouldn’t be a problem but I don’t so it is. I have worked around that fact by developing a hold which allows me to support the gun with my left hand forward of the trigger guard while the stock is tucked between my elbow and my side. This allows me to move my index finger forward far enough to engage the mag release button and it also frees my left hand to tend to the magazine. I have done this enough that it works, but not near enough to be confident in a combat situation.

Moving on from ergonomics to actual performance. As many others have known for a while, the SIG556 is very reliable and it was no different this time. It fed the Prvi Partzan M193 55gr with no problems whatsoever. As soon as I fired the first round from the SIG556 in its new (to me) configuration I instantly knew that the 551 hand guards are keepers. First off, as I mentioned earlier, the SIG556 has noticeably less recoil and is on the same target MUCH sooner than the Colt 6920. It points really well, but the weight just makes it more difficult for me to be steady on target and it also inhibits swinging and stopping on target smoothly. My groups were significantly tighter... but then again I wasn't shooting with iron sights.

So… my bottom line? If I had to carry the carbine for an extended period of time and/or there were a real chance that I would be in a firefight I would have to choose the Colt 6920. I’m guessing that my familiarity with the AR platform (even though it was a decade and a half ago) just make me much more proficient with the Colt. Conversely, if I had to take off into the woods in some sort of SHTF scenario I would choose the SIG556 due to its reliability in dirty conditions. I have not yet put that theory to the test but one day when I feel like getting dirty I’ll go get wet cold and dirty just to see how they both do and I’ll post up a down and dirty report. So, for most situations the Colt’s weight and ergonomics make up for the recoil in getting back on target and so it wins this bout. Just think how damned awesome the SIG556 would be if the ergonomics were that good. That is my new wish… a SIG556 with a shortened lower receiver and on a diet. That carbine would be awesome. By the way, if I had more experience with my AK-101 it might very well win over both of these for CQC, but I'm not near proficient enough with an AK to take one into a firefight (that is not to say that if that is all I had access to that I wouldn't use it).

parallel is offline  
Page generated in 0.04754 seconds with 7 queries