This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SIG SG 550 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
(note: a lot is my personal opinion, but perhaps somebody can add something that makes this text more suitable for wiki. Thanks) The SIG 550 is an extremely precise assault rifle that is capable of delivering excellent results at 300 meters (part of the standard marksman training in Switzerland). Although the SIG 550 is generally considered reliable, the rifle needs to be kept clean in order to maintain reliability at all times. Unlike so many of its more famous peers (for example the AK 47 or M16), the SIG 550 has not been 'battle proven' and was never used extensively in any conflict. Some reports of SIG 550's used in a real battle field conditions come from reports on conflicts, where (most likely stolen Swiss Army StGw 90) SIG 550's, were used by certain rogue elements of the warring parties. No reports on the SIGs reliability in these conditions are commonly available. PS. (personal comment: In the 1990is I remember reading reports of stolen SIGs used by rogue groups. Anybody has any references on this? Thanks) -- Nvasi 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the two articles should merged. The 552 has enough unique features to be listed in a stub and both articles share the main technical differences between the two types. Koalorka 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What's with all the hostility. I didn't need to read the article, I've examined them side by side. The bolt carrier is different, yes, but not enough to change the gun. For instance, the FN FAL and the PARA model have different internals to a much greater degree than the 552 yet the FAL has one article dispite the fact that VASTLY more PARA model FAL's have been made than 552's.-- Asams10 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been editing this article since January of this year and, true, I did go through your contribution list and added them to my running list of things to do. It seems that you've got a different taste in gun articles and had several I ended up adding to my list. While I disagree that my edits added no information. I don't speak Metric. I'm going to change your tag to 'For' without any objections.-- Asams10 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have nothing against you using imperial units, but you seem to have targeted my contributions specifically with malice after our SG 552 dispute. Metric is very simple actually, I still don't understand why Americans resist SI units so much. You resisted the British fiercely and rejected any signs of loyalism during the Revolution, why now defend their obsolete measurement system? I digress. BTW I'm new to Wikipedia and its technical aspects, you can proceed with the actual merge, I might touch up some technical details when that is complete. Koalorka 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
ForI'm for the merge just based on what asams10 said about the FN FAL( ForeverDEAD 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
Redid the article extensively with details from manuals, pamphlets and personal experience with the gun. Included a more accurate development history, construction overview and variant run-down. Koalorka 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would you say that? Looks like all you changed was the heading "construction details" to "design details".
Koalorka 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed a user adding Portugal to the user countries of the SG 550 series. That is not true, you are confusing the SG 550 series with the earlier SG 540 series, the two are completely different designs and should not be confused. Please refrain from such edits before checking your facts. I am currently working on an SG 540 article which you can help enhance. Koalorka 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It is considered to be one of the most accurate service rifles available.
Does anyone have any sources to back this up? Articles on guns, quotes from generals, shooting stats, anything would be nice. Other than that, good job people. PBGuardsman 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the company litarature state? PBGuardsman 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine. I do agree with the statment, based on the quality of all other guns manufactured by SIG. The website doesn't have any out-of-box accuracy statments. PBGuardsman 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
All Swiss Arms rifles are test fired for accuracy at the factory after sighting in. They have to group within a very small standard target before they are released. I can try to find the target type and size. Koalorka 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Although it is a very accurate, proven service rifle this statement is irrelevant. It's gotta go. Koalorka 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
SIG 556 redirects to this article, however there is not a single mention of the model 556, a civilian model targeted at the US market.-- Asams10 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on that. PBGuardsman 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Heres the info on the 556 that I worked off of. https://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114 Feel free to change anything I added. PBGuardsman 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys the 556 is not a variant of the 551, it's a completely new rifle built from the ground up by SIG Arms in the USA for the American civilian shooting market. It has very little in common with the 55x series and shares only the gas system and action. However, the upper and lower receivers are interchangeable. I believe some of the components of the 556 are Swiss made such as the bolt/bolt carrier and upper receiver housing and are assembles in the USA. Some corrections are necessary in that 556 paragraph, I'll let you correct that. Cheers. Koalorka 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be accurate to say that. The 556 is a mix of several Swiss 55x series components and American-specific parts that make it compliant with US laws. It's more like a new rifle using the 55x gas system emulating the 551. Koalorka 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably better for you guys to correct it, I'm really not that famlier with either gun. I just guessed with information from the site and wikipedia. PBGuardsman 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to know what is the ammunition used in the technical description
5,6 Milice Swiss (62 grain) or 5,56 Otan (55 Grain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.7.85 ( talk) 20:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, The fire rate can be increased to about 900 «rpm» by ... turning? the gas nozzle to the other position (what should be done only when the temperature is below –10 °C or when the rifle is dirty). Maybe that could be supplemented? Simon 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the gas regulator setting is not to increase the rate of fire but increase reliability when the operating system has been very dirty, this is mentioned. Koalorka 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm (with references or photos) that this weapon is in service with the Swiss Guard at the Vatican? Casimiro M ( talk) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In his recent history of the Swiss Guard (La Guardia Svizzera Pontificia. Leonardo International, 2005) Christian-Roland Marcel Richard (himself a sergeant in the Guard) says (page 227) that today the Swiss Guard is equipped with the same rifles as the Swiss Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimiro M ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the SG 550 and variants have been produced in at least two colour variations; black and green (besides the civilian models). Are both of these still manufactured? Perhaps a note could be included in the article. Hayden120 ( talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting bizarre. That single underwater image is drawing undue negative attention to the page. Desist reverting and discuss here. I have no objection to having the image moved down to the gallery or removed from the page altogether. I would prefer to retain it as I find it depicts the weapon in a unique operating environment, even though only a portion of the barrel is visible and the gun is barely identifiable. Koalorka ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is the information is presented backwards and is headache inducing. 772 mm (30.4 in) stock folded (SG 550) is awkward to read; SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in) is much easier to process. English is read from left to right and follows general conventions, which is why I tell you Frank is a 6 foot tall white male, and not that a 6 foot tall male white is Frank. Some guy ( talk) 09:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly is organizing the article a bad thing? How does it make no sense? You are free to make corrections but completely reverting my efforts is a bit extreme. I think discussion before reversion is highly appropriate here. Some guy ( talk) 08:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know little about firearms in general, but I have what could probably be called extensive user-level knowledge of the SG 550 from my Swiss army service. (At one point, I believe, I could disassemble and reassemble the weapon, blindfolded, in something like 3 minutes.) So I don't know whether I am the intended average reader.
It seems that the discussion is about which and how many subsections the article should have. This does not strike me as a terribly important subject, but in general I suggest that sections longer than four or five paragraphs (currently "Design details") should be divided into subsections if the content is amenable to it. I would therefore prefer the approach proposed by Some guy at [2].
Speaking as an administrator, I will watchlist the page and sanction any editors that continue the lame edit war about page structure. Sandstein 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include the government costs of the Swiss Army version as well as the retail price(s) of the civilian version. I think it would improve the article to include those values. On this talk page, a previous editor mentioned USD 3,000. That seems rather high, but I have no way of knowing.-- TGC55 ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article - Swiss precision from new rifles - details new versions of this rifle family as shown at the IDEX 2011 show. Particularly interesting is the 7.62 x 39 version. Unfortunately I don't have time now to add this new information so I'm placing the source here for others to use. The source is the well known and high quality Jane's Information Group so there's no problem with credibility. Roger ( talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
From my experience with and information on the SIG, the information on the rear sights isn't complete. Besides the white 'distance marks' there is also a "3" setting (written in red) above the "4" that is actually for use in 300 meter target shooting.
From the user guide: "The red '3' position corresponds to aiming point 'black 6' at 300 m"
This means that the sight is calibrated in such a way that the red 3 setting will strike the bull of the standard Swiss target at 300 meters with a six-oclock sight picture.
Dhagarty ( talk) 14:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This early spelling of Aluminum (US) suggests American English diff 13 February 2008. Jim1138 ( talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
SIG SG 550. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The terror attacks in Paris were not "a war". Also, if you are claiming "it was used in the 2015 terror attacks", the implication is that the terrorists used this weapon, while I assume the idea is that the French special forces did. It is rather ominous to reduce terrorists attacking civilians and responding anti-terrorist units of the police to two factions in "a war" in this off-handed way.
And above all, even if all of this is made explicit, you need to cite some kind of source in any case. -- dab (𒁳) 08:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Entire sections of this article have no citations whatsoever. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yo, I know the full-size SG 550 was introduced in 1986 and adopted by Swiss 1990 and then that compact SG 552 was released around 1998... But when did the carbine SG 551 variant first appear/was introduced? I can't find this info anywhere. -- TrickShotFinn ( talk) 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
i'm missing the kalashnikov link here... why not even mention it? 178.197.197.108 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SIG SG 550 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
(note: a lot is my personal opinion, but perhaps somebody can add something that makes this text more suitable for wiki. Thanks) The SIG 550 is an extremely precise assault rifle that is capable of delivering excellent results at 300 meters (part of the standard marksman training in Switzerland). Although the SIG 550 is generally considered reliable, the rifle needs to be kept clean in order to maintain reliability at all times. Unlike so many of its more famous peers (for example the AK 47 or M16), the SIG 550 has not been 'battle proven' and was never used extensively in any conflict. Some reports of SIG 550's used in a real battle field conditions come from reports on conflicts, where (most likely stolen Swiss Army StGw 90) SIG 550's, were used by certain rogue elements of the warring parties. No reports on the SIGs reliability in these conditions are commonly available. PS. (personal comment: In the 1990is I remember reading reports of stolen SIGs used by rogue groups. Anybody has any references on this? Thanks) -- Nvasi 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the two articles should merged. The 552 has enough unique features to be listed in a stub and both articles share the main technical differences between the two types. Koalorka 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What's with all the hostility. I didn't need to read the article, I've examined them side by side. The bolt carrier is different, yes, but not enough to change the gun. For instance, the FN FAL and the PARA model have different internals to a much greater degree than the 552 yet the FAL has one article dispite the fact that VASTLY more PARA model FAL's have been made than 552's.-- Asams10 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been editing this article since January of this year and, true, I did go through your contribution list and added them to my running list of things to do. It seems that you've got a different taste in gun articles and had several I ended up adding to my list. While I disagree that my edits added no information. I don't speak Metric. I'm going to change your tag to 'For' without any objections.-- Asams10 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have nothing against you using imperial units, but you seem to have targeted my contributions specifically with malice after our SG 552 dispute. Metric is very simple actually, I still don't understand why Americans resist SI units so much. You resisted the British fiercely and rejected any signs of loyalism during the Revolution, why now defend their obsolete measurement system? I digress. BTW I'm new to Wikipedia and its technical aspects, you can proceed with the actual merge, I might touch up some technical details when that is complete. Koalorka 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
ForI'm for the merge just based on what asams10 said about the FN FAL( ForeverDEAD 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
Redid the article extensively with details from manuals, pamphlets and personal experience with the gun. Included a more accurate development history, construction overview and variant run-down. Koalorka 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would you say that? Looks like all you changed was the heading "construction details" to "design details".
Koalorka 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed a user adding Portugal to the user countries of the SG 550 series. That is not true, you are confusing the SG 550 series with the earlier SG 540 series, the two are completely different designs and should not be confused. Please refrain from such edits before checking your facts. I am currently working on an SG 540 article which you can help enhance. Koalorka 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It is considered to be one of the most accurate service rifles available.
Does anyone have any sources to back this up? Articles on guns, quotes from generals, shooting stats, anything would be nice. Other than that, good job people. PBGuardsman 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the company litarature state? PBGuardsman 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine. I do agree with the statment, based on the quality of all other guns manufactured by SIG. The website doesn't have any out-of-box accuracy statments. PBGuardsman 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
All Swiss Arms rifles are test fired for accuracy at the factory after sighting in. They have to group within a very small standard target before they are released. I can try to find the target type and size. Koalorka 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Although it is a very accurate, proven service rifle this statement is irrelevant. It's gotta go. Koalorka 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
SIG 556 redirects to this article, however there is not a single mention of the model 556, a civilian model targeted at the US market.-- Asams10 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on that. PBGuardsman 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Heres the info on the 556 that I worked off of. https://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114 Feel free to change anything I added. PBGuardsman 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys the 556 is not a variant of the 551, it's a completely new rifle built from the ground up by SIG Arms in the USA for the American civilian shooting market. It has very little in common with the 55x series and shares only the gas system and action. However, the upper and lower receivers are interchangeable. I believe some of the components of the 556 are Swiss made such as the bolt/bolt carrier and upper receiver housing and are assembles in the USA. Some corrections are necessary in that 556 paragraph, I'll let you correct that. Cheers. Koalorka 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be accurate to say that. The 556 is a mix of several Swiss 55x series components and American-specific parts that make it compliant with US laws. It's more like a new rifle using the 55x gas system emulating the 551. Koalorka 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably better for you guys to correct it, I'm really not that famlier with either gun. I just guessed with information from the site and wikipedia. PBGuardsman 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to know what is the ammunition used in the technical description
5,6 Milice Swiss (62 grain) or 5,56 Otan (55 Grain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.7.85 ( talk) 20:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, The fire rate can be increased to about 900 «rpm» by ... turning? the gas nozzle to the other position (what should be done only when the temperature is below –10 °C or when the rifle is dirty). Maybe that could be supplemented? Simon 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the gas regulator setting is not to increase the rate of fire but increase reliability when the operating system has been very dirty, this is mentioned. Koalorka 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm (with references or photos) that this weapon is in service with the Swiss Guard at the Vatican? Casimiro M ( talk) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In his recent history of the Swiss Guard (La Guardia Svizzera Pontificia. Leonardo International, 2005) Christian-Roland Marcel Richard (himself a sergeant in the Guard) says (page 227) that today the Swiss Guard is equipped with the same rifles as the Swiss Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimiro M ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the SG 550 and variants have been produced in at least two colour variations; black and green (besides the civilian models). Are both of these still manufactured? Perhaps a note could be included in the article. Hayden120 ( talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting bizarre. That single underwater image is drawing undue negative attention to the page. Desist reverting and discuss here. I have no objection to having the image moved down to the gallery or removed from the page altogether. I would prefer to retain it as I find it depicts the weapon in a unique operating environment, even though only a portion of the barrel is visible and the gun is barely identifiable. Koalorka ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is the information is presented backwards and is headache inducing. 772 mm (30.4 in) stock folded (SG 550) is awkward to read; SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in) is much easier to process. English is read from left to right and follows general conventions, which is why I tell you Frank is a 6 foot tall white male, and not that a 6 foot tall male white is Frank. Some guy ( talk) 09:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly is organizing the article a bad thing? How does it make no sense? You are free to make corrections but completely reverting my efforts is a bit extreme. I think discussion before reversion is highly appropriate here. Some guy ( talk) 08:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know little about firearms in general, but I have what could probably be called extensive user-level knowledge of the SG 550 from my Swiss army service. (At one point, I believe, I could disassemble and reassemble the weapon, blindfolded, in something like 3 minutes.) So I don't know whether I am the intended average reader.
It seems that the discussion is about which and how many subsections the article should have. This does not strike me as a terribly important subject, but in general I suggest that sections longer than four or five paragraphs (currently "Design details") should be divided into subsections if the content is amenable to it. I would therefore prefer the approach proposed by Some guy at [2].
Speaking as an administrator, I will watchlist the page and sanction any editors that continue the lame edit war about page structure. Sandstein 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include the government costs of the Swiss Army version as well as the retail price(s) of the civilian version. I think it would improve the article to include those values. On this talk page, a previous editor mentioned USD 3,000. That seems rather high, but I have no way of knowing.-- TGC55 ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article - Swiss precision from new rifles - details new versions of this rifle family as shown at the IDEX 2011 show. Particularly interesting is the 7.62 x 39 version. Unfortunately I don't have time now to add this new information so I'm placing the source here for others to use. The source is the well known and high quality Jane's Information Group so there's no problem with credibility. Roger ( talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
From my experience with and information on the SIG, the information on the rear sights isn't complete. Besides the white 'distance marks' there is also a "3" setting (written in red) above the "4" that is actually for use in 300 meter target shooting.
From the user guide: "The red '3' position corresponds to aiming point 'black 6' at 300 m"
This means that the sight is calibrated in such a way that the red 3 setting will strike the bull of the standard Swiss target at 300 meters with a six-oclock sight picture.
Dhagarty ( talk) 14:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This early spelling of Aluminum (US) suggests American English diff 13 February 2008. Jim1138 ( talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
SIG SG 550. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The terror attacks in Paris were not "a war". Also, if you are claiming "it was used in the 2015 terror attacks", the implication is that the terrorists used this weapon, while I assume the idea is that the French special forces did. It is rather ominous to reduce terrorists attacking civilians and responding anti-terrorist units of the police to two factions in "a war" in this off-handed way.
And above all, even if all of this is made explicit, you need to cite some kind of source in any case. -- dab (𒁳) 08:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Entire sections of this article have no citations whatsoever. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yo, I know the full-size SG 550 was introduced in 1986 and adopted by Swiss 1990 and then that compact SG 552 was released around 1998... But when did the carbine SG 551 variant first appear/was introduced? I can't find this info anywhere. -- TrickShotFinn ( talk) 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
i'm missing the kalashnikov link here... why not even mention it? 178.197.197.108 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)