WAT?!?!?!?!? Army goes with Tango 6 for SDMR?

[navyman8903]

http://www.guns.com/2018/05/14/sig-w...arksman-rifle/


I'm not sure about how you guys feel about this, but I think this is a very underwhelming scope from what I was able to touch in Cabelas a while back. Doesn't feel like it's ready for field work. Maybe someone in charge of requisitions has a hard on for Sig? They're putting them on the new HK 417's they're getting too.....Not sure that will be a good pairing.

Thoughts?

[schüler]

The mil contract scope is reportedly designed by and to be built in Oregon with some specifics that are mil model only. I have not yet read of their component sourcing. I wonder if pricing was a major factor. We all hope for the best tools for our guys in the field.

It's easy to be confused by what SIG has going on in optics the past few/several years. Especially so when they started their optics foray with the SIG Tac junk. However I've been keeping an eye on the information coming out the past few years, especially since a few people I listen to said to watch them after SHOT 2016.

SIG has assembled a real optics team in Oregon and have marketed scopes, RDS, rangefinders. They say the designs are their own and manufacture has been Philippines, Japan, China OEMs, same as most of the midrange-priced decent or good stuff. SIG seems to be matching other manufacturer features plus adding things like electronic viewfinder level sensors in some models. Or a "special" scope body surface finish touted for "stealth" low reflection.

The SIG Kilo 2000 rangefinder was one of the most visible SIG E-O successes (or not, according to some). Their newer RFs offer Applied Ballistics integration but the jury is still out.

Personally I have not seen a reason to choose a SIG optic over other US/Japanese OEM offerings from Bushnell or Nightforce. The mil contract should give a good boost to SIG commercial sales and maybe we'll see a larger sample size to judge from.

[VT1032]

I really would like to see Sig succeed and get their reputation back where it used to be but I'm not holding my breath. They seem to be one of the few large gun companies that are really innovating and trying new things (recently) instead of rehashing their same old shit. They seem to have a lot of cool designs on everything from optics to carbines to pistols, but I just don't trust them to work.

On paper, guns like the P320 and P365 really do bring a lot of new ideas to the table, but they just don't seem to have the quality control or in particular, the integrity, to make them right. I can accept a bolo or two if the company immediately went full stop and fixed it accross the board but to leave potentially lethal defects floating out there is unconscionable in my opinion. My unit is supposed to get issued our M17's in October and I find myself really wishing they said glock on the side instead of sig.

[farscott]

I wonder if the SIG warranty policy on consumer sales matches this Oregon company's policy. SIG wants me to register just to see the warranty policy.

If your Leupold riflescope, binocular, or spotting scope doesn’t perform, we will repair or replace it for free - whether you're the original owner or not. You don’t need proof of ownership or a warranty card, and there’s no time limit. We do this because we believe in superior quality and craftsmanship, and we’re confident your Leupold won’t let you down.

I have used that warranty on a M8 4X I bought for $100. I called Leupold once because I damaged a turret cover on a different scope; I told the customer service person I damaged it and would pay for the replacement part. I was told I could not pay as Leupold would send them for free. The rep asked me to return the old cover as he wanted to see how I managed to damage it.

[schüler]

I wonder if the SIG warranty policy on consumer sales matches this Oregon company's policy. SIG wants me to register just to see the warranty policy.

I have used that warranty on a M8 4X I bought for $100. I called Leupold once because I damaged a turret cover on a different scope; I told the customer service person I damaged it and would pay for the replacement part. I was told I could not pay as Leupold would send them for free. The rep asked me to return the old cover as he wanted to see how I managed to damage it.

If you've already clicked on the Electro Optics tab here, then yeah that's all I can find as well:
https://www.sigsauer.com/support/warranty/

They kind of have to match Burris, Steiner, Bushnell, Vortex, Nightforce, etc. All of which offer some form of lifetime warranty on mechanicals and limited warranty on electronics. Some have crazy provisions like Vortex's no restriction replacement and Steiner's generational provision.

[CS Tactical]

I've been underwhelmed with most of the Sig scopes I've seen customer's bring in (though I have not tried this particular optic on memory), I have a difficult time understanding why they didn't go with the Vortex Razor Gen II 1-6. I can see them skipping Nightforce over the price, but this seems like a direct competitor to the Vortex.

[Sigfan26]

I've been underwhelmed with most of the Sig scopes I've seen customer's bring in (though I have not tried this particular optic on memory), I have a difficult time understanding why they didn't go with the Vortex Razor Gen II 1-6. I can see them skipping Nightforce over the price, but this seems like a direct competitor to the Vortex.

It’s most likely made by the same people who manufacture for Vortex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

The majority of the Sig Optics team was snagged from Leupold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

The mil contract scope is reportedly designed by and to be built in Oregon with some specifics that are mil model only. I have not yet read of their component sourcing. I wonder if pricing was a major factor. We all hope for the best tools for our guys in the field.

It's easy to be confused by what SIG has going on in optics the past few/several years. Especially so when they started their optics foray with the SIG Tac junk. However I've been keeping an eye on the information coming out the past few years, especially since a few people I listen to said to watch them after SHOT 2016.

SIG has assembled a real optics team in Oregon and have marketed scopes, RDS, rangefinders. They say the designs are their own and manufacture has been Philippines, Japan, China OEMs, same as most of the midrange-priced decent or good stuff. SIG seems to be matching other manufacturer features plus adding things like electronic viewfinder level sensors in some models. Or a "special" scope body surface finish touted for "stealth" low reflection.

The SIG Kilo 2000 rangefinder was one of the most visible SIG E-O successes (or not, according to some). Their newer RFs offer Applied Ballistics integration but the jury is still out.

Personally I have not seen a reason to choose a SIG optic over other US/Japanese OEM offerings from Bushnell or Nightforce. The mil contract should give a good boost to SIG commercial sales and maybe we'll see a larger sample size to judge from.

As noted SIG’s Electro Optics division is based in Oregon because the majority of them were recruited from Leupold.

SIG’s optics are mostly made overseas. They are likely doing the same thing with the Army optic they did with the Romeo 4M RDS they sold to the FBI. The Romeo 4M very closely resembles the Holosun Military model. Unlike the other Romeo red dot optics which are made in China, allegedly in the same factory as Holosun and Primary Arms, the 4M is marked “Designed in Oregon, Assembled in USA.”

My understanding is SIG had parts kits made to their spec overseas and had them assembled in the U.S. so they could say it was “made in the USA.” SIG may well have tweaked the specs, coatings and QC level etc, and I really like the optic, but it is still a Holosun made to SIG’s specification.

It is likely the SIG Tango 6 will be made in the Philippines of Japan as a parts kit and “assembled in Oregon.”

On another note, if you are going to haul around a HK 417 variant why not a 1-8x or a 2.5-10x ? Doesn’t seem like enough scope for a 7.62 Rifle in this role.

[navyman8903]

As noted SIG’s Electro Optics division is based in Oregon because the majority of them were recruited from Leupold.

SIG’s optics are mostly made overseas. They are likely doing the same thing with the Army optic they did with the Romeo 4M RDS they sold to the FBI. The Romeo 4M very closely resembles the Holosun Military model. Unlike the other Romeo red dot optics which are made in China, allegedly in the same factory as Holosun and Primary Arms, the 4M is marked “Designed in Oregon, Assembled in USA.”

My understanding is SIG had parts kits made to their spec overseas and had them assembled in the U.S. so they could say it was “made in the USA.” SIG may well have tweaked the specs, coatings and QC level etc, and I really like the optic, but it is still a Holosun made to SIG’s specification.

It is likely the SIG Tango 6 will be made in the Philippines of Japan as a parts kit and “assembled in Oregon.”

On another note, if you are going to haul around a HK 417 variant why not a 1-8x or a 2.5-10x ? Doesn’t seem like enough scope for a 7.62 Rifle in this role.

I completely agree. With as much ass as that rifle has a 1-6 isn't doing it justice. I'm surprised they're not running the NF ATACR 1-8 or the 2.5-10x or even the Trijicon 1-8 accupower on it. Even if it's a CQB setup, it still has the squad DM support role built into the mission. 1-6 isn't terrible by any stretch, but for that particular rifle which is very accurate for it's 16" barrel length, I'd want the extra power. I think 8x-10x isn't outside the realm of reasonable requirements.

Especially a better scope than the Romeo 6. I don't think it's a horrible optic that should be shamed at any given opportunity. But I don't think it has enough testing, nor do I think it'll hold up to the punishment it's about to go through. I also think SIG is going to have to go through multiple iterations to fix the problems it'll run into. The HK is pretty well regulated and doesn't hammer optics like the SCAR17 would. But it's still a piston gun. If they don't have those electronics squared away internally, it's going to fail.

I also didn't feel the love from the Tango 6 I handled in cabelas a year or so ago. It felt cheap, gritty and underwhelming. The glass was alright, but that was in a well lit indoor store, not on the range. If you gave me one and told me to make do, I probably could. But I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't feel confident in it. The Leupolds the Marines have though I'm not a fan of that particular scope, still feels like a better match than the Tango 6 IMO.