I had not seen this posted before...
I didn't realize that Sig's optics were on this level!

https://www.militarytimes.com/...e/?utm_source=clavis

Chinese manufacture?

Please, no.
I thought we were moving past that.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Chinese manufacture?

Please, no.
I thought we were moving past that.

I don't see any mention in the article that the optics going to USSOCOM would be made in China.

SIG has a top notch optics team.

Yes, some of the lower-end optics are assembled in China, but who doesn't have their sub $200 optics assembled in China. That doesn't mean all of the glass is manufactured of assembled in China.

Furthermore, Schott Glass is Schott Glass, no matter where the glass itself is made. As long as it's made to the manufacturer's spec, the burden is on the manufacturer to insure quality, not the country of origin.

It's made by their ex-Leupold team, likely made in Japan by LOW or put together with US and Japanese parts assembled in Oregon. Same with most glass/optics in this category - price range.

Good thing is getting this into the hands of the troops will be a great test for the optic - meaning if it can be broken, they will break it.

quote:

Furthermore, Schott Glass is Schott Glass, no matter where the glass itself is made. As long as it's made to the manufacturer's spec, the burden is on the manufacturer to insure quality, not the country of origin.

Mainly because one of the most likely enemy's that we would face would be china. So no, our guys do not need to be using a key piece of kit made by an enemy.

Why is it that needs explaining?

Not because you have one of those chicom scopes I hope.

If Rhino's take is fact. That is a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's made by their ex-Leupold team, likely made in Japan by LOW or put together with US and Japanese parts assembled in Oregon. Same with most glass/optics in this category - price range.

Good thing is getting this into the hands of the troops will be a great test for the optic - meaning if it can be broken, they will break it.

That's it.

Those who really hate on SIG anytime they are mentioned like to claim that they are made in a chinese factory that makes third tier airsoft stuff, but they are actually make in the fashion that Rhino describes. The internet also likes to claim that when you turn one on, it literally blows up in your hand. I know lots of guys that a lot of rounds that have had zero issues out of SIG optics. Not to mention that the range guns at SSA never go down, and they are loaned out constantly.

I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

Likely made in the same factory as the Vortex Razor lineup and some NightForce offerings (SHV, NX8, etc).

My biggest issue with SIG's Japan scope offerings in the Tango lineup is the stupid huge exposed turrets on the early models, the gaudy markings and the obvious Leupold knockoff features.

Assuming the Tango6 does well for the Army contract, I think it will start to lend some more weight behind their Optics line. Reports from insiders were SIG got the contract over Vortex on price, but obviously it wouldn't have been awarded if it wasn't technically acceptable (in laymens terms, meet all the contract specs).

Great thing about gov contracting, often your stuff is made by the lowest bidder - just the rules of the game sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Chinese manufacture?

Please, no.
I thought we were moving past that.

Sig's high-end scopes are made in Japan by LOW. They also make scopes for Nightforce and various other companies. LOW is probably the largest scope manufacturer in the world, except they don't sell them under their own brand. Sig has nothing to do with the manufacture of their scopes, and I'm guessing had very little to do with their design and engineering as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

Tell us more about it.

Sig's biggest mistake was when they branded those absolute POS red dots about a decade back and put them on their rifles. My only experience was a SGT in my unit bought one and exitedly went to shoot it and the optic broke on the first magazine.

I know that the current Sig Optics division has nothing to do with those early POS sights and I would have no problem paying my own $ for anything in their line. It is just going to take awhile for memories of that early failure to fade. Sometimes getting your brand printed on an accessory is a bad thing!

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

Tell us more about it.

I'm probably the absolute last person who should give a scope review because my experience with optics is very limited.

That said, the glass is clear, the retical crisp, the zoom is smooth, the eye relief/eye box is easy to use and find, and as best I can tell the scope tracks reliably and consistently when adjusting the dials. I'm sorry I can't give a head to head comparison against competitor scopes - I just don't have the experience. But, it seems like this scope does what it should. I find the retical, when dialed to 1x, is serviceable for cqb (albeit there is some minor distortion as compared to an Aimpoint red dot). I wish the center illuminated portion of the retical could go a click or two brighter - that would enhance the scope's usefulness in a cqb role, but I've found it to be plenty bright when zoomed.

It seems to be about the same size and weight as comparable 1-6x scopes, the turrets are secured under sturdy caps and dial positively when used.

In a head to head comparison, there may be better scopes. I got this one for about $900 on sale if I recall correctly. So far, so good.

I have a razor but would like to use a T6 1-6. It seems to fill a void left by the pre E razors going away. It’s an 1.5 oz lighter than the old model, 3.5 oz heavier than the E model. For less than the E.

Some may say that a few oz. is no big deal but with the razors on a carbine it’s a big deal. It can make a light rifle very top heavy and it shows. Not a complaint, an observation. I chose the weight for the glass, reticle, and bulletproof design. The E model was a new thing and was $1,400. Got mine for a bit over $900.

I’m toying with the idea of selling it and getting an E model, but the T6 also intrigues me. I have heard that it is like they crossed VX-6 and a Razor. I do like the auto shut off on the reticle illumination. Vortex should really have this. My only complaint with the razor.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

Pics would be nice. Matter of fact I may start a DMR/SPR type rifle pic thread.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I put a Tango6 on my SCAR-17. It's been dandy. The markings say "made in Japan."

Pics would be nice. Matter of fact I may start a DMR/SPR type rifle pic thread.

Nothing too special:



I've got a black Magpul bipod that I'll pop on from time to time, too.

They may be fine and they are likely using Lowe glass, partly or wholly assembled in Japan, maybe some in the US. All of which can be a formula for a quality optic as we have seen with Nightforce and the Vortex Razor HD2. BUT, and this is the key - we are talking about SigSauer USA, which has a long history of poor QC/QA, design changes with obsolescence of previous models, and allowing early adopters to beta test. I truly hope they have the issues ironed out; their track record leaves me skeptical and unwilling to give Exeter my money for anything other than imported Swiss or German guns.

Works for me, ShneaSig, thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:

quote:

Furthermore, Schott Glass is Schott Glass, no matter where the glass itself is made. As long as it's made to the manufacturer's spec, the burden is on the manufacturer to insure quality, not the country of origin.

Mainly because one of the most likely enemy's that we would face would be china. So no, our guys do not need to be using a key piece of kit made by an enemy.

Why is it that needs explaining?

Not because you have one of those chicom scopes I hope.

If Rhino's take is fact. That is a good thing.

My point has nothing to do with future hot conflicts, it was addressing perceptions of "Made in China" quality. I even used the word "quality." Why is it that needs explaining?

quote:

Not because you have one of those chicom scopes I hope.

Not only did you assume, incorrectly, the substance of my argument, you're choosing to follow it up with an insult.

Do you feel that such an insult is:

1) Appropriate in light of your mistaken assumption as to what I was saying?
2) Supports your argument in any way, shape or form?
3) Strategically wise?

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

Furthermore, Schott Glass is Schott Glass, no matter where the glass itself is made. As long as it's made to the manufacturer's spec, the burden is on the manufacturer to insure quality, not the country of origin.

This is an interesting topic and one that’s been discussed on many occasions over on Snipershide. Like other optical glass manufacturers, Schott has varying levels of glass. The end user specs the grade. Just because an optics manufacturer uses Schott glass does not mean it’s the same grade of Schott glass as is used by S&B, Kahles, Hensoldt, Steiner, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

Furthermore, Schott Glass is Schott Glass, no matter where the glass itself is made. As long as it's made to the manufacturer's spec, the burden is on the manufacturer to insure quality, not the country of origin.

Just because an optics manufacturer uses Schott glass does not mean it’s the same grade of Schott glass as is used by S&B, Kahles, Hensoldt, Steiner, etc.

Correct, which is why I said it's up to the manufacturer to specify the glass they want. Barring a manufacturing defect, the key point of differentiation isn't Schott, or national origin, it's what the customer (SIG, Steiner, etc) say they want. Demanding and appropriate specifications = good glass, no matter where that glass ships from.