To me one of the greatest disappointments with the Sig 556 has been the sights. The early rifles had none, and even the final generation factory supplied sights were IMO too tall and looked like something out of a Tapco catalog. I always thought that the lack of good factory sights held back the adoption of the platform (especially early on). I have been reading about MFI sights for some time now, but never jumped on them due to concerns with removing the factory Sig rail, and issues I have heard on forums about replacing the front Sig sight. Also, being a cheap bastard, I didn't want to layout the cash, given my factory sights were "good enough".... barely.

After living with my factory sights for 5+ years, I decided I had enough. Lucky for me, the price on the MFI sights has come way down. I picked up front and rear sights for both my 556 rifles for $350 delivered. Turns out the install was a breeze too. I heated my rail screws for about 30 seconds with a soldering iron. Then using a Torx 20 bit, they came out easily. The front site install is a not hard either. Just make sure you have a 1/16 inch punch.

The MFI rail and front sight is a precision piece, and fit with zero hassles. All in all, I was able to swap out the sights in less than 15 minutes (per rifle). I plan to take my rifles out this weekend to zero them. I can say this, MFI makes a nice product, and the install could not be more simple. If you are living with the factory sights, or have some "AR15" height sights, you might want to look into MFI, given today's price point. If your interested -> Shows 3 in stock...







If Sig had released the initial rifle with decent sights, furniture, and quality control, I suspect things could have turned out differently.

Really like the sights and they look 'correct' on that rifle but unfortunately for me they are priced a bit out of my budget.

I’m most interested in hearing your range report. I too have delayed putting them on my WCA SG551. Perhaps it’s just internet rumor but I’ve heard they’re not very functional (with an impractical POI) even with extreme settings. Would appreciate confirmation if this is fact or fiction. Hoping it’s the latter!

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
I’m most interested in hearing your range report. I too have delayed putting them on my WCA SG551. Perhaps it’s just internet rumor but I’ve heard they’re not very functional (with an impractical POI) even with extreme settings. Would appreciate confirmation if this is fact or fiction. Hoping it’s the latter!

This disclaimer from their website held me back from making the purchase:

quote:

As I am not a huge believer in the accuracy of the .223 / 5.56mm cartridge so I only fully tested the number 1 position at 100m. The #2, 3 and 4 designations may or may not be applicable. I did position the holes in the correct location, but I did not waste time or funds to test something I do not really believe in. While the #2 and #3 holes are the right size and position the #3/4 position hole is much smaller than the original and is NOT threaded for the insert of a target peep sight, nor is it likely to be at the correct angle as I do not have one to check against. The Diopter walls have not been counter bored on the inside either, so the walls are thick in that area to accept a thread. As I said... The hole is much smaller so that the customer could MILL a new hole at whatever angle they need and make it work. Sorry you are on your own on this one... just not cost effective to test / check 100% when 99% of the customers will never have the money to buy a SIG SANs target peep sight much less have the need to use it.

quote:

Originally posted by stormwalker:

This disclaimer from their website held me back from making the purchase:

[QUOTE]As I am not a huge believer in the accuracy of the .223 / 5.56mm cartridge so I only fully tested the number 1 position at 100m. The #2, 3 and 4 designations may or may not be applicable. I did position the holes in the correct location, but I did not waste time or funds to test something I do not really believe in. While the #2 and #3 holes are the right size and position the #3/4 position hole is much smaller than the original and is NOT threaded for the insert of a target peep sight, nor is it likely to be at the correct angle as I do not have one to check against. The Diopter walls have not been counter bored on the inside either, so the walls are thick in that area to accept a thread. As I said... The hole is much smaller so that the customer could MILL a new hole at whatever angle they need and make it work. Sorry you are on your own on this one... just not cost effective to test / check 100% when 99% of the customers will never have the money to buy a SIG SANs target peep sight much less have the need to use it.

What the F? That is an absolutely absurd disclaimer. Why even bother making the sights?

I remember the disclaimer now and I have no desire to purchase window dressing.

The target peeps sight the guy is talking about its an adjustable iris. I have one istalled in my diopter drum. It is for copetetive Swiss military target shooting only. When it´s installed, then the diopter drum is loosing it´s function but remains hight and side adjustability. Field setting „2“ is not possible anymore when the iris is installed. The iris is not approved in the military for that reason? Said iris is pretty pretty delicate to aim with as well if one is not instructed properly in the use of the diopter and front sight post and the purpose of the front sight hood. For a down to the earth shooter who wants to use its 556 out in the field, there is no purpose for this iris. So why bother about a disclaimer of a guy who does not belive in the accuracy of the .223, as if it matters for a diopter and having tested only one setting out of four? It´s a poor review IMO.