SIG MCX Giveaway (And Now Shipping in 5.56mm)

MCX_SBR-SASstock_Hero2

SIG is now shipping the MCX in 5.56mm for those of you that have been patiently waiting.  I do appreciate that manufacturers are efforting out platforms that allow for reconfiguration with other components that you may have, and the MCX (obviously not the 5.56) that I got to fondle at BMC Tactical was exceptionally nice.  Of course this could be to get the MCX in the hands of people that are not fanboys of 300BLK.

In today’s world, being able to reconfigure your rifle for your mission set is very important. Even while in the field, you can configure the SIG MCX as needs or conditions change. SIG SAUER’s Robby Johnson shows how the SIG MCX is redefining adaptability with features like backwards compatibility with any mil-spec AR lower, multiple stock assembly options, and more, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment.

They are also doing a giveaway for one (that ends on the 30th of September).  You can enter to win at: http://www.sigsauer.com/TeamSig/Sweepstakes.aspx



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • BattleshipGrey

    I’m not really a Sig guy, but this seems pretty well thought out. IMO, there’s not much more innovation to be had in the AR saturated market without having a big shift towards bullpups or something. As long as the public is stuck on ARs (rightfully so due to affordability, modularity and more aftermarket support than you can shake a stick at), Sig seems to have found the way to modernize the AR even more, without completely ditching the platform altogether.

    • Cornelius Carroll

      I’m also surprised a manufacturer hasn’t seriously entertained the idea of using the AR’s barrel, bolt, and gas system for a bullpup. The parts and system of operation are well proven at this point and sourcing those parts would be fairly easy.

      • Sianmink

        using the AR15 operating system for a bullpup would run into a hurdle for what to do with all that gas in the face you’re going to get if you suppress it. It’s bad enough with the conventional layout.

        • Seburo

          So even a correctly placed piston like the MCX wouldn’t be a fix for the gas problem ? Then again it would just be another long line of short stroke bullpups if SIG could do it. Which have problems all their own, ie KelTec RFB.

          • Joshua

            No. Suppressed rifles get gas from the bore. Has nothing to do with operating method.

          • Blake

            The MXC not only throws a horrible amount of gas in your face while running suppressed, but also a ton of debri; it’s very unpleasant to shoot suppressed from what I’ve heard. The vast majority of that comes from having the T-Handle charging system, and Sig decided to include that with the MCX.

  • Joe

    I remember when ZM Weapons first offered an AR with a folding stock.
    Always thought the price was kinda high and too many proprietary parts.
    Given the MSRP on the MCX, it wasn’t overpriced, just ahead of its time.

  • noob

    Interesting. Can a MCX lower be used with an Faxon ARAK21 upper? If so I’d love to see a proliferation of mutually compatible folding-ar15-evolved rifles.

    • Sianmink

      MCX uppers can be used with any spec lower.
      So far as I know MCX lowers are kind of proprietary. Not saying it isn’t possible, but I’d be surprised if everything fit.

      • Cal.Bar

        According to SIG, it appears that the upper requires a “conversion kit” to use with a standard M4 lower. What is that conversion kit, and when will it be available?

        • Dracon1201

          It’s essentially the section for the stock of the MCX

    • Michael R. Zupcak

      Absolutely. The MCX lower is the same profile as a standard AR lower EXCEPT for a rubber bumper instead of the threaded hole for the buffer tube. Since the ARAK doesn’t need the buffer tube, it would fit right on it. Likewise for .22LR AR uppers.

  • NewMan

    Looks nice and all but I don’t trust SIG-USA when it comes to rifles. What happened to the SIG 556 XI again? The last time that I remember it was when it I saw a video review where 556 XI failed miserably in term of reliability when compare to the Galil ACE.. It looks like SIG is ‘quietly’ abandoning it now.

    Also, the fact that SIG quickly rushed out the “Gen 2” version with an adjustable gas regulator show just how incompetence they are. It gives me the impression that they didn’t fully tested their product BEFORE mass producing and releasing it.

    And last but not least, Larry Vickers isn’t too fond of the MCX, either.

    • Dracon1201

      I’m not exactly convinced that LV is necessarily an unbiased source for opinions.

      • NewMan

        Why you say so? Not arguing I’m just curious. As far as I know LV is a very well-known and well-respected expert within the industry. I have learned a lot from reading his posts and watched his videos.

        • Dracon1201

          I mean, there were questions raised as to what was essentially a Fireclean promo that he did. He also speaks heavily for Daniel Defense, and BCM (Essentially all traditional AR manufacturers). I’m not convinced he wouldn’t have a bias against something as non traditional as this for the sake of those companies.

          I’m don’t really want to argue over something I don’t know for sure. Where did he mention this? A little context might help to inform us. Heck, if he has good points, I will agree with him.

          • Blake

            I was mulling over the same thing recently. The Fireclean video he did was odd, but the dude is very well respected; and being respected the line of logic is “well if he really likes something and knows it works then he wants to get the info out there”. With someone less respected they would be immediately dismissed as just being on the payroll. But the kicker with Larry is that he definitely is on the payroll of a few different manufacturers, which is why I was wondering the same thing the other day. I would like to think that he’s able to separate his consulting work from his public reviews and statements, but in the end we’ll probably never know.

          • NewMan

            Is there a reason why my comment that include LV’s perspective on the MCX is in “pending”? Is it because you’re not allow post link to the another forum?

          • Dracon1201

            Probably. Darn. I actually want to read it, too.

          • NewMan

            I would like to post it again, without the link:

            “As I see the other thread on M4C about the MCX got deleted because of some comments made about Govt programs and such and thus my comments were deleted as well I want to post them here for anyone who is considering buying an MCX;

            I shot an MCX ( select fire version in 5.56mm ) and got the run down on the whole system back in Feb of this year. Neat concept but it is not ready for prime time; there is still work to be done on this weapon

            There is no free lunch in weapons design and when you shorten the operating group you run into serious timing issues – after all there is a reason that HK discontinued the extremely compact HK416C project. My advice to everyone at SIG developing this as well as end users in military or LE circles is flush the idea of making the gun functionally reliable on full auto and make it a semi auto weapon for all users. I could be wrong, and if I am I’ll admit it, but I seriously doubt the MCX will ever be truly combat reliable on full auto. On semi auto they have a chance

            If your a civilian I would wait before I bought one – give them time to sort it out. Work still to be done here.” – Larry Vickers

          • Dracon1201

            I see. I disagree with him on the concept of pistons not being a good idea in short barrels. Adams Arms has done well with pistons on 7.5″ ARs. I suspect there were different issues with the 416 project. SIG is designing this from the ground up, not trying to fit a current system into a smaller package. I have a feeling it will turn out better than he expects.

            All the gas systems look to be the same length regardless of barrel length in this system so far. We’ll see how it goes. I’ll have my MCX in my hands in a couple of weeks, once I free it.

            We’ll see.

  • Alfred

    Sig has been having a lot of roll out problems. The MPX for example. No stocks available, magazines are few and far between. All SIG says is their coming…

    If you need to buy additional parts from SIG to reconfigure your MCX, you better have a back up plan imo.