View Full Version : Why can't someone just make the original 550 stock?

April 17, 2010, 23:38
Why oh why cannot someone just make a folding stock for the 556 that is as close as possible to the original 550 folding stock?? I love my 556, but I don't need a stock that partially collapses AND folds. The collapsible feature only makes the whole stock feel flimsy. I love the profile of the original 550 stock, and I want one....now. I still think the core design of the 556/550 is the finest of any rifle. Disassembling a 556 is almost like a dream that is too good to be true as you pull the bolt and carrier out and observe that it is such a pure Kalashnikov design, yet it is still so accurate. How can this be? It retains the beautiful primitive nature of the AK, yet is engineered with just the right improvements and refinements to make it one of the most accurate rifles in its class. But Sig really needs to pull their heads out and just get this thing back to its roots and stop trying to market it as competition to everything AR. Why degrade yourself to that?? Give me an original folding stock!

P.S. If I see one more M4 style stock on another rifle that does not have a buffer spring designed to be in the buttstock I am going to puke. The semi-collapsible M4 stock was a great idea to be able to reduce the length of a rifle that by design had its buffer in the stock. But when I see rifles that do not have that limitation being fitted with M4 style stocks is confounds me. I thought we were smarter than this.

Outlaw Patriot
April 18, 2010, 01:11
I agree with most of your rant, but I love my magpul prs stock on my 556. Sure, you dont need the buffer tube, but its actually a pretty good way just to attach fixed stocks to a rifle, and both the prs and classic fixed a2 ar style stocks are great stocks.

April 18, 2010, 10:50
i put the ace stock on mine, loved it. the sig 556 is ok, as the acr, scar, the robinson expedition rifle. but they arent the ar, and really thats what they all want to be, to have that kind of role interchangiblity, despite that 223 is kinda sucky as is the 6.8,

April 18, 2010, 22:07
Sig needs to correct the other problems with the rifle before they even think about a 550 butt stock. Of course they now heve the 550 clone that I think they call it the Sig Classic.

April 23, 2010, 19:05
they shouldve did an original stamped reciever instead of that thing thy made.

April 24, 2010, 16:23
Mine is the Classic and overall I am very pleased with it. The buttstock is my biggest gripe followed by the lack of the sling attachment point that is missing from the rear sight that is present on the original 550s.

I don't mind the other modifications they made to the rifle, shorter barrel than 550, no bipod, accepts NATO magazines. Now the first 556s with their tacticool rails and M4 looking stock just look like crap to me.

April 30, 2010, 22:48
The Swiss lowers weren't just stamped, they were assembled from brazed stampings. This is a manufacturing process that actually takes some skill. The fact is, the Swiss were completely upside down financially building their guns and if the industrial group didn't essentially finance their production, they would never have been made. Bear in mind that the total cost on a Colt M4 is about $243 and the Sig 556 isn't much more. The 550 series guns was over $1000. My memory says 'Way Over' but I can't call up the exact figure. Setting a spring tension with a feeler gauge is a degree of anal retentiveness that companies simply can't afford for anything but an exclusive market or a cost-plus government contract. The tiny crowd of people that would actually spend the money to buy the quality you seek, would never support a business. You would be scrounging the world for a Swiss parts kit the instant you saw the prices it would take to replicate those products here.

Just an opinion, but based on real data. I'd love to see this as well, but it's not likely to ever happen.


May 02, 2010, 16:57
Would love to see the actual data.