More on the SIG ACP “Adaptive Carbine Platform”
I have good news. SIG will be selling the law enforcement /folding stock version of the SIG ACP to consumers through commercial dealers. Any pistol used with it will still need to be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle with the BATFE.
There are five models (although only three were listed in the press release) ...
The ACP - Standard which comes with the universal pistol adapter unit with QD sling mount and mounting hardware for the end user's pistol.
The ACP - Enhanced which comes with the Standard unit, a single point bungee sling and a Mil Grade Mini Red Dot Sight.
The ACP - Law Enforcement which comes as the Standard unit with a folding stock. This will be available commercially through dealers. All NFA Rules apply.
The ACP - CPL which comes as the Standard unit with a single point bungee sling and a compact laser aiming unit.
The ACP - ZK which comes as the Standard unit outfitted with the compact laser aiming unit, single point bungee sling and a molded zipper case.
When are the ‘non-stock’ versions going to be available?
Hey, thanks for the blog article.Thanks Again. Great.
How can I get the version without the stock in Massachusetts?
Sig is getting desperate. This looks alot like one of those CAA Roni kits.
Could I get some cheese with this whine?
Here is a question. If you were to own the stocked version, and registered one of your railed pistols as an SBR, would the BATFE hold you liable for possessing and unregistered SBR if you own other railed pistols that you had not registered for use in the stock? Just asking.
For the buttstock version, you’d have to register the handgun as an SBR, no the ACP chassis. So you’d be limited to using one handgun in it (unless you paid $200 stamps for each) So much for universal
Pricing?
$500 or so.
Not even close to worth it. The only practical application this thing comes close to is a practical joke. IMO.
Looks fun how much is one and what pistols are they for again??
You know damn well it’s UNIVERSAL. You commented on yesterday’s article that discusses that in detail. You wrote how it would be cool for a 92FS. For some reason. It’s expalined in the video, etc etc.
So that’s it, you troll the firearmblog not reading the articles and just posting questions that make no sense?
We have to accept the possibility that the internet is full of people who aren’t very sharp, and have thin reading comprehension skills.
To do otherwise is to be trolled by everyone.
Is Sig providing a thigh, shoulder, or chest holster for this system? It would be nice if the pistol could be locked into the system one handed (quick mount) while the system is holstered separate from the pistol.
ALSO… I just noticed the abondance of top rail space… WTF. Is anyone going to run BUIS or night vision on this thing?
I’ve changed my opinion from ODD to FAIL.
I used my TP9 and MP5 as pistols while waiting for the SBR stamps to come…. Most pointless, heavy, cumbersome, inaccurate “pistols” I’ve ever used. I have zero interest in a TP9 pistol, but as an sbr it kicks ass.
Unless you SBR the gun and get the stock and foregrip this is absolute idiocy.
The idea that adding a big aluminum chassis and a red dot will make your pistol better somehow is really reaching.
I can’t believe SIG’s marketing agreed to this.
I’m curious as to why the one in the pictures needs to be an SBR. There’s no stock, just a sling. Just like a B&T TP9 or a HK SP89.
I don’t believe the one in the pictures will need to be considered an SBR. Only putting the stock on there will make a tax stamp necessary.
“The ACP – Law Enforcement which comes as the Standard unit with a folding stock. This will be available commercially through dealers. All NFA Rules apply.”
This version, without fore-grip and stock, is even more pointless.
Who would want to pay several hundred bucks to add weight, decrease accuracy and deal with a mountain of paperwork just to carry their Glock on a sling?
I think ill just tie a string through the trigger guard and wear it around my neck. Tactical and practical.
Be careful, West. A shoelace is considered a machine gun…
Ken, in the above pics it looks just like the blasters carried by the Imperial Stormtroopers in Star Wars.
@West
Those were Sterling submachine guns with some fancy spacey looking stuff added. Han Solo’s DL-44 blaster was a C96. E-Webs were MG-34s. The light repeating blasters carried by desert troopers were Lewis guns. Clone blasters in the prequel trilogy were two Sterlings stuck together. Leia’s sporting blaster that she uses on the Tantive IV in episode IV was some target pistol.
Lucas actually used a lot of real (and functional) firearms in Star Wars.
komrad, you intrigued me to do some research into that matter and needless to say im shocked. I never watched the Star Wars Trilogy, though you inspired me to watch the first one and i laughed my ass off because it reminded me of your post. LOL
Not quite. The clone blasters were new designs incorporating elements of the MG34 and Sterling.
Leia’s blaster was a Vostok Margolin – I had to check IMFDB for that one.
Actually, Glocks already have a hole for a lanyard loop. No need to compromise your trigger guard area.
First, there’s no ‘mountain of paperwork’ unless you’re using a stock or foregrip which requires SBR/AOW registration. Second, SBR paperwork is about 4 pages, so not exactly a ‘mountain’.
What exactly is the purpose of this? It looks pretty sweet, but you can mount a red dot directly to the slide of a pistol and have a smaller package that does the same thing.
In case you need your handgun to be heavier and harder to hold, maybe you want it to be less concealable? Perhaps you have too much money on your hands?
Really not sure how this is could be better than a quality gun with a red dot.
Fail! I don’t know what Sig was thinking with this one. I can understand some of the other “carbine type” pistol conversions on the market and actually liked the CAA Glock “carbine” I shot at the demo last year. Sig fails here by suggesting that without a stock this is an improvement to the pistol. There is nothing this can do that the pistol without this could do. More importantly the pistol without the ACP can do it BETTER. Less bulk, more reliable, standard malfunction drills, and less likely to jam.
I’d much rather see a proper carbine made for the 22X platforms. Not a big fan of Kel-tec myself. I think most people will agree with me. It would be easier and simply less trouble that have to deal with the ATF.