Talk:SIG SG 550

Reliability

(note: a lot is my personal opinion, but perhaps somebody can add something that makes this text more suitable for wiki. Thanks) The SIG 550 is an extremely precise assault rifle that is capable of delivering excellent results at 300 meters (part of the standard marksman training in Switzerland). Although the SIG 550 is generally considered reliable, the rifle needs to be kept clean in order to maintain reliability at all times. Unlike so many of its more famous peers (for example the AK 47 or M16), the SIG 550 has not been 'battle proven' and was never used extensively in any conflict. Some reports of SIG 550's used in a real battle field conditions come from reports on conflicts, where (most likely stolen Swiss Army StGw 90) SIG 550's, were used by certain rogue elements of the warring parties. No reports on the SIGs reliability in these conditions are commonly available. PS. (personal comment: In the 1990is I remember reading reports of stolen SIGs used by rogue groups. Anybody has any references on this? Thanks) --Nvasi 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is not an opinion piece or discussion forum but a technical encyclopedia-quality description of the firearm. There are forums where you can dispute a weapon's track record or similar couch commando-type discussions. No offense. Just as an FYI I own the rifle and carbine versions. These are very reliable weapons that will continue to function with the gas system absolutely fouled, not that you'd want to do that to a $3000 firearm. Koalorka 03:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't think the two articles should merged. The 552 has enough unique features to be listed in a stub and both articles share the main technical differences between the two types. Koalorka 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• For: The 552 is nothing more than a compact variant. The article for it is as short on detail as the sections under this article. The SG 552 got its own article, no doubt, because it was prominently featured in the early FPS game Counterstrike. I realize this might be a dear weapon to you, but it's importance does not warrant a separate article. The difference is, in essence, barrel length.--Asams10 11:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It has different internals, did you read the article? Different bolt carrier, placement of the return spring is in the receiver instead of around the piston etc. I think it deserves it's own stub, and not because I own it. BTW do you ever contribute any content to firearms-related articles or do you simply just edit and reformat existing content to what you see fit? Koalorka 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say the 552 should warrant it's own article. It is in fact a unique design, that is not just a variant. 184.54.248.55 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What's with all the hostility. I didn't need to read the article, I've examined them side by side. The bolt carrier is different, yes, but not enough to change the gun. For instance, the FN FAL and the PARA model have different internals to a much greater degree than the 552 yet the FAL has one article dispite the fact that VASTLY more PARA model FAL's have been made than 552's.--Asams10 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• ForThe hostility derives from what seems like your shadowing of my contributions to have them edited to what you see as "correcter"-ish. It's insulting since you don't really add any informative content. That aside, I've looked around other major weapon articles and do agree with the merge. it seems like a Counter Strike gamer hopped on and spontaneously decided to write about his "1337 pwnzer" gun. I can do the merge since I wrote in detail on both firearms. Koalorka 17:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing this article since January of this year and, true, I did go through your contribution list and added them to my running list of things to do. It seems that you've got a different taste in gun articles and had several I ended up adding to my list. While I disagree that my edits added no information. I don't speak Metric. I'm going to change your tag to 'For' without any objections.--Asams10 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

- I have nothing against you using imperial units, but you seem to have targeted my contributions specifically with malice after our SG 552 dispute. Metric is very simple actually, I still don't understand why Americans resist SI units so much. You resisted the British fiercely and rejected any signs of loyalism during the Revolution, why now defend their obsolete measurement system? I digress. BTW I'm new to Wikipedia and its technical aspects, you can proceed with the actual merge, I might touch up some technical details when that is complete. Koalorka 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Malice isn't the word I'd use... earnest, maybe. Malice would imply that I hated you and I surely don't. Why do we resist Metric so much? It's a freedom thing. Yanks value their freedom and it's quite difficult to convince free people to change their ways without some incentive or disincentive. Luckilly for Europe, their oppressive governments had no trouble forcing their will on the weak-minded sheeple they oppress. If you're a carpenter or a craftsman, a Base-12 or duodecimal system simplifies calculations and we're able to build stuff easier with less skilled labor. It's a shame that mathemeticians had 10 fingers instead of 12 or they'd have realized the advantages. The simpleton farmer in America or the illegal-immigrant Mexican building houses in Tucson have no trouble figuring out pitch on a roof thanks to our imperial units. BTW, my Prussian and Dutch ancestors immigrated in the late 19th century to avoid growing socialist extreemism. I'll go ahead with the merger. All you have to do is copy the text, integrate the figures, and redirect the page here.--Asams10 03:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ForI'm for the merge just based on what asams10 said about the FN FAL(ForeverDEAD 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Revision

Redid the article extensively with details from manuals, pamphlets and personal experience with the gun. Included a more accurate development history, construction overview and variant run-down.Koalorka 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're not a native English speaker? I revised some of your wording. --Asams10 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Looks like all you changed was the heading "construction details" to "design details".

Koalorka 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed a user adding Portugal to the user countries of the SG 550 series. That is not true, you are confusing the SG 550 series with the earlier SG 540 series, the two are completely different designs and should not be confused. Please refrain from such edits before checking your facts. I am currently working on an SG 540 article which you can help enhance. Koalorka 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement on accuracy

It is considered to be one of the most accurate service rifles available.

Does anyone have any sources to back this up? Articles on guns, quotes from generals, shooting stats, anything would be nice. Other than that, good job people. PBGuardsman 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the company litarature state? PBGuardsman 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your question.--Asams10 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. I do agree with the statment, based on the quality of all other guns manufactured by SIG. The website doesn't have any out-of-box accuracy statments. PBGuardsman 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All Swiss Arms rifles are test fired for accuracy at the factory after sighting in. They have to group within a very small standard target before they are released. I can try to find the target type and size. Koalorka 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a very accurate, proven service rifle this statement is irrelevant. It's gotta go. Koalorka 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

SIG 556

SIG 556 redirects to this article, however there is not a single mention of the model 556, a civilian model targeted at the US market.--Asams10 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work on that. PBGuardsman 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres the info on the 556 that I worked off of. https://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114 Feel free to change anything I added. PBGuardsman 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys the 556 is not a variant of the 551, it's a completely new rifle built from the ground up by SIG Arms in the USA for the American civilian shooting market. It has very little in common with the 55x series and shares only the gas system and action. However, the upper and lower receivers are interchangeable. I believe some of the components of the 556 are Swiss made such as the bolt/bolt carrier and upper receiver housing and are assembles in the USA. Some corrections are necessary in that 556 paragraph, I'll let you correct that. Cheers. Koalorka 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. The entire upper assembly sans handguard is interchangeable as are all of the fire control parts with semi-automatic versions of the 55X series. It's true, the lower is aluminum but the upper is identical. It might be more correct to say that it's an 'evolution' of the 551. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asams10 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 14 August 2007.

I don't think it would be accurate to say that. The 556 is a mix of several Swiss 55x series components and American-specific parts that make it compliant with US laws. It's more like a new rifle using the 55x gas system emulating the 551. Koalorka 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably better for you guys to correct it, I'm really not that famlier with either gun. I just guessed with information from the site and wikipedia. PBGuardsman 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammo Used

Would it be possible to know what is the ammunition used in the technical description

5,6 Milice Swiss (62 grain) or 5,56 Otan (55 Grain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.7.85 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fire rate

Hi all, The fire rate can be increased to about 900 «rpm» by ... turning? the gas nozzle to the other position (what should be done only when the temperature is below –10 °C or when the rifle is dirty). Maybe that could be supplemented? Simon 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the gas regulator setting is not to increase the rate of fire but increase reliability when the operating system has been very dirty, this is mentioned. Koalorka 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Users

Can someone confirm (with references or photos) that this weapon is in service with the Swiss Guard at the Vatican? Casimiro M (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Google for Schweizergarde and SIG 550 or Stgw 90.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In his recent history of the Swiss Guard (La Guardia Svizzera Pontificia. Leonardo International, 2005) Christian-Roland Marcel Richard (himself a sergeant in the Guard) says (page 227) that today the Swiss Guard is equipped with the same rifles as the Swiss Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimiro M (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stock colour options

I believe the SG 550 and variants have been produced in at least two colour variations; black and green (besides the civilian models). Are both of these still manufactured? Perhaps a note could be included in the article. Hayden120 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they're still made. The black furniture is sold commercially and to law enforcement, rifles supplied to the Swiss Army are all OD green. There are also receiver colour options, I've seen black, blue and red factory guns (obviously for sport shooting). Koalorka (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Soon after posting this question, I found this brochure, which covers the different PE 90 receiver colour options. This 2009 brochure directly from Swiss Arms also includes options of integral receiver rails and the green/black colour stocks, etc.. Hayden120 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

This is getting bizarre. That single underwater image is drawing undue negative attention to the page. Desist reverting and discuss here. I have no objection to having the image moved down to the gallery or removed from the page altogether. I would prefer to retain it as I find it depicts the weapon in a unique operating environment, even though only a portion of the barrel is visible and the gun is barely identifiable. Koalorka (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like how it depicts the firearm as unique, but the fact that it is very hard to identify it shows off bad points. I would prefer that we keep it in the Gallery until we choose whether or not to remove it.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you discussing it now? Okay, I don't think it belongs in the article at all. The firearm is ancillary to the subject of the picture. You can swim with any firearm. The Sig 552 has not been demonstrated to be operable underwater and possesses no special characteristics that this picture depicts. I say no to article, gallery or not. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

My feeling is the information is presented backwards and is headache inducing. 772 mm (30.4 in) stock folded (SG 550) is awkward to read; SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in) is much easier to process. English is read from left to right and follows general conventions, which is why I tell you Frank is a 6 foot tall white male, and not that a 6 foot tall male white is Frank. Some guy (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a better system. I wiill try to implement it where applicable. Koalorka (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I will try to implement in other articles where I see it is needed. Some guy (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Why exactly is organizing the article a bad thing? How does it make no sense? You are free to make corrections but completely reverting my efforts is a bit extreme. I think discussion before reversion is highly appropriate here. Some guy (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox version of this page with the subsection structure I am trying to implement if anyone would like to comment or try to improve it. I don't get the impression that this page gets much attention. Some guy (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are demanding changes that affect formatting standards. We follow guidelines here that we try to apply uniformly to project articles. Breaking the article down on this page alone would require the same for all WP:Firearms pages, such drastic changes have to be discussed with the wider community (Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms). This is not the place to do that. You are welcome to contribute information to these pages, but as a novice editor, with a previous history of editing pages such as G-Unit, and then demanding significant changes to general article structure is rather arrogant and trollish. How about you actually grab some firearms literature and help cite some information, or better yet, actually introduce some new technical information to help improve a page... Koalorka (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, your behavior towards me is absolutely unacceptable. I have been editing for almost four years; I am no novice. Editing the G-Unit page is in no way a reflection of my editing abilities or intellect. You are borderline wikistalking me which is extremely inappropriate and immature. Improving the formatting of the article is not arrogant and trollish; I have the sneaking suspicion that nobody else agrees with you. I posted on the Wikiproject firearms talk page and only one person responded and he agreed with me that the MP5 article suffers from what he called "expertitis". There is no need to apply a structure uniformly to all articles at this time; Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia and it doesn't have to be perfectly consistent; besides which, applying a certain formatting style without regard to the article's content does not necessarily improve the quality of the article. You might want to read WP:DETAIL and Make technical articles accessible, which point out that: extremely detailed and difficult to understand text should be placed further down in the article to make the article more accessible to the average reader; extremely technical concepts may be more appropriately covered in a separate article, among other important strategies. I do not believe you understand how impossible to read some of these articles are for people who are not intimately familiar with firearms and the complex mechanical workings involved. Also, in comparison, I have never seen an article about an individual automobile that explained all the mechanics of the engine running. My changes to this and the MP5 article are not significant, they are minor restructuring which makes the article more accessible to the average reader; the average reader is what we are supposed to focus on first. Some guy (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have logged on to the wrong Wiki. Isn't there an encyclopedia that is dedicated to converting normal articles to 5th grade elementary school language? I'm serious. Perhaps you would be of better use there instead of stirring the pot. Everything described here and on the MP5 page is written in plain English, with links directing to pages were some background knowledge may be required. I cannot make it any more clear than that outside of blanking sections and pretending they don't exist because the average Wikipedian is not familiar with the concept of inertia. I will not pander to ignorance; basic knowledge is easily within reach for virtually anyone these days. It's summer, give our members some type to respond. In the meantime, I will revert your edit on the grounds that it simply makes no sense. The operating mechanism according to you is a "feature" but the barrel falls under "accessories". I think you have no knowledge of the subject. Right now you're just being unproductive. Koalorka (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding section headers is not dumbing down the article. This is part of Wikipedia style in keeping with, among other things, WP:MTAA and Wikipedia:Section#Section size policies. You are not citing any policies in your edits. I have not removed ANY content at this time, I have restructured it. You do not appear to understand the concept of plain English; describing the nuances of how the mechanical parts interact with names that most people won't be familiar with (roller-delayed blowback, closed bolt, inclined flanks, etc etc) is confusing and alienating to readers with no firearm knowledge. Without section subheaders the average reader will quickly become lost and disinterested. Extremely extensive background knowledge of each piece is required to understand the mechanical process, and the article was not structured in a manner that assisted the reader in understanding. Again, please familiarize yourself with the policy and guideline pages I have indicated. Rifle grenades and bayonets would be considered accessories; I have previously stated that my edits are not perfect but I'm doing the best I can; the correct response from you is to improve my edits, not revert them (EDIT NOTE: I have rearranged the relevant barrel information and I think it is a good improvement). All of the items I have placed under the features subsection in this article are elements with which the user directly interacts; sights, fire selector, grip, buttstock, etc. Discouraging me from editing and trying to get me to leave Wikipedia is another unacceptable behavior. You do not seem to have the average reader's best interest in mind here; furthermore two people have expressed agreement with my feelings about the general un-approachable state of the MP5 article and that my attempts to structure it were an improvement. Some guy (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, my structural edits are largely in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Firearm, a policy page which indicates it falls under Manual of Style. Some guy (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view as some one who has some experience with firearms but nowhere near enough to be considered an expert I believe that the addition of subheadings does make the information more reader friendly. Also it makes it easier for readers to find specific points that they may be looking for rather than reading the whole article. That is just my opinion, however. I don't believe that a structural change in one article requires changes in all other articles, however, I don't usually do writing for the Firearms project so I don't know if there is a requirement within that project. Certainly in the Military History project there are many different styles for articles that deal with similar topics, for example unit histories have different formats, or slight variations in order to best present the information in a manner that is easily accessible by the average reader who does not necessarily possess specific knowledge of a topic.

This leads to a further point. I believe that there is a need to consider the audience. For example while we as writers might have specific experience in an area, be it serving in a particular unit or firing a particular weapon, when we write about it we cannot simply assume that others who read the information have the same experience. Thus the information needs to be presented in a manner that the lay man can understand, otherwise we are basically just writing for ourselves. Having said that, I am not a fan of totally 'dumbing' something down, sometimes a term that might be considered 'jargon' is the only term that can be used and thus where that is the case we need to try to explain it. Anyway, that is my take on this.

Perhaps the best thing for all concerned is to take a break for a bit as ultimately I believe everyone involved has noble intentions (improvement of Wikipedia), but just has differing views on how best to achieve that outcome. As such, if all parties take a break, perhaps others might give their opinion on the topic, which would provide concensus. Once consensus has been established then at least there would be an understanding of where everyone stands. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Some guy (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity

Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article definitely benefits from the addition of section subheadings, the previous large section block was pretty unreadable especially to a reader like me with some but not much knowledge of firearm operation. --Leivick (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Guy, you are not asking the question properly. The question should be, should each firearm article have a unique and confusing series of section headings and subheadings. Should there be NO logic or uniformity to allow readers to compare one firearm to another. This is your basic question, should the consensus on article organizations for WP:GUNS be whatever the heck you think it should be on a case by case basis. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The subsections are not confusing. Nobody has said they are confusing besides you. Six different people have said they make the articles less confusing. No, there is no need for uniformity. Yes, article structure should be on a case by case basis as this allows us to tailor article quality individually. I have numerous times cited policy that these articles are clearly not in line with. If you take a look at the different featured firearms articles they don't share a common exact structure. You are placing uniformity above accessibity, readability, and approachability. You are in no position to accuse me of edit warring, by the way. Finally I believe you should read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

One again, you are placing uniformity over article quality and readability. Did you read Leivick's response? Did you read the other responses which have been very similar on various pages? Some guy (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You speak of the addition of the two sub-headings as if they had performed some miraculous feats. They haven't. Their effectiveness in increasing "accessibility" (whatever that means) is negligible. There is no provision in the WP:Firearms guide for instituting such changes. You have been contested by more than one editor. I am reverting the changes until we reach a project-wide agreement. Koalorka (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been supported by something in the area of five editors who have all stated that the subsections improve the article. You should have noticed I did create a discussion at Wikiproject Firearms (stop linking it as WP:Firearms, that's not correct). Only one person responded and they agreed with me. You aren't listening to anyone but yourself. Your behavior is unacceptable. Some guy (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your combatitive tone and "Thor's Hammer" method of 'editing' isn't winning you any converts, nor is your desire to distort the facts. While you pretended to collaborate and build consensus, you continued to edit war on the articles you desired to improve. You also lash out at those who disagree rather than taking our advice. On one hand you edit war and then you ask for outside opinions without getting a consensus on anything. "WP:Firearms" is the name of the project, he Koalorka might just prefer to be precise and not abbreviate it. You, on the other hand, jump into editing Wikipedia by editing Game and popular culture articles then slapping such trivia on gun articles. There is a Wikiproject that covers firearms aritcles, I'm an active member and have followed the long and arduous process of building consensus on article structure. Now, you propose that there be no structure and basically each article gets made up as you go? Yeah... your fake surprise and attacks against other editors are unsurprising considering your anarchistic goals. Good luck, I disagree with you. I prefer to be able to navigate more than one article without learning subsection structure. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinions do not override the overall objective of making Wikipedia accessible to as many readers as possible. Subsections are not confusing, you do not need to "learn" anything because you can read the name of the subsection and understand its contents immediately. You have completely ignored those who support my edits; you have not participated in discussion with any of them. I have not "slapped" a single piece of "trivia" on anything. I am free to edit articles which fall into whatever category I wish and if I wanted I could spend all day writing about porn stars and pizza and you still would not be able to submit this as evidence that I am not allowed to write about firearms because that's not how Wikipedia works. There are no guidelines for structure or specific sections and subsections on the Wikiproject Firearms. The structure suggestions are at Wikiproject MilHist and I don't believe you are familiar with them. Abbreviating to WP:Firearms is incorrect as the correct link is WP:GUNS and WP normally stands for WikiPedia, not WikiProject. Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Some guy (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're getting awful preachy, Guy. Where did Koalorka link WP:Firearms? Huh? You're going to nit pick, I get that because you're TEDIOUS, but if you're going to 'call somebody out' like you're playing D&D with them in your daddy's basement, you might as well get your facts right. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't understand any of that. He linked it at some point in the past, I don't remember on which page. I guess it's good that you created the redirect, so, thanks? I did not intend the comment to be baseless hate speech but I kept mistakenly typing it the way he wrote it (or clicking on the link before you created the redirect). I am quite certain you are in no position to criticize me for mentioning that when you "accuse" me of working on game and pop culture articles and "slapping" trivia into firearms articles (WHERE?). Anyway, this talk page and this section are for dicussing how to improve the article and I would like to return to that. You keep sidestepping the important issues like people agreeing with me and saying the article is better and less confusing with subsections. Some guy (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the idea of subsections, just your methods of trying to implement your own interpretation of the MOS. Devise a universal guide on how to use the new subsections, work out the nomenclature, bring it up on the project page and we'll discuss the merits of the idea. You like to hide behind Wiki-policies and refer to them selectively, when they work in your favour. We're going to make you abide by these same procedures. Consensus-building, it can take some time. Hopefully, you'll lose interest and move on to troll 50 Cent by that time. Koalorka (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't cited any policy, so I dunno, I'm not sure how that works. I guess you're not understanding this last bit but I don't like personal attacks and what articles I work on does not reflect my abilities as an editor. Some guy (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does reflect your abilities to make relevant edits to pages if you have no clue about the subject matter. Didn't you offer to place a rifle's barrel in the accessories subsection under your proposed new scheme? Koalorka (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that's an assumption. For all you know I'm a goddamn expert on everything in the world and I know as much about Keanu Reeve's intestines as I know about what circumstances cause a Sig P228 to misfire. Secondly it's incorrect as I actually am kind of a gunnut and do a lot of reading about firearms (though I admit the details of the mechanical process escape me, I do remember general details and I used to be able to rattle off the effective range, rate of fire, muzzle velocity, magazine capacity, and caliber of almost any major firearm) and last and most important, it is critical to make articles accessible to the average reader and even if I didn't know jack shit about guns my attempts to improve the articles would reflect the neccessity of opening up these articles to be more understandable by the average reader who does not obsess over firearm mechanics. I have repeatedly stated my edits are not perfect; there is far too much text in these sections for me to remember and process it all at once, which is why I am trying to insert subsections. This is a wiki, which is why people can make mistakes and other people can correct them, because we're all human. And once again you have completely ignored everyone else who has commented on this subject. Some guy (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you expect the encyclopedia to cater to your learning and comprehension disabilities? You're mad. When I fail to grasp an article immediately, say, the theory behind differential calculus, I research additional sources provided by the list of literature and links. But you rather remove the frustrating information and dispute "accessibility". That's unreasonable and totally unacceptable. There is a level of mental prowess that one must posess to process simple information. The disputed articles are written in plain English and do not require knowledge of any advanced physical concepts. Unles you consider simple motion and inertia "advanced". Koalorka (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This senseless debate is consuming too much bandwidth for what it's worth. Let's resolve this. Point out which part you have a hard time understanding, I'll try to break it down for you. Koalorka (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE NOT REMOVED ANY INFORMATION. I will not tolerate your behavior any longer; accusing me of having a learning disability is absolutely at the maximum height of unacceptable and I am through discussing anything with you. Some guy (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is an open declaration of your intention to edit war? Good luck. Koalorka (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Simple English Wikipedia could use a SIG SG 550 article? I don't think throwing accusations around is helping your case. You've already got the answer. Go to WP:GUNS and plead your case to establish a consensus regarding article organization. Once a consensus is reached, go around and change all the articles you'd like to meet the consensus. If you're editing in good faith, I really fail to see how this method of getting your way is going to be less satisfying than edit warring and attacking users whom you disagree with. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You know just as well as I that the WP:Guns page will not ever receive enough attention to get any kind of consensus, beyond that one guy who agreed with me already. I guess you could say 100% of the people who responded agreed with me, but beyond that, as I have already stated, the discussion is more appropriate at WP:MILHIST because that is where the firearms article structure is. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT HOW TO STRUCTURE FIREARMS ARTICLES AT WP:GUNS. I have tried very hard to remain civil while you two endlessly attack me in extremely inappropriate manners, trying to belittle me as an editor and devalue me as a person rather than addressing the content or value of my edits. You have numerous times accused me of things that are blatantly false such as removing and dumbing down content, adding trivia from video games or some such nonsense, and so on. Many of these attacks have been in clear violation of WP:PA which I don't think either of you have taken the time to read. You have never once acknowledged the people who agree with me, or the substance of any of my reasoning for including the subsections, which include manual of style guidelines. You are purposely reverting all of my edits to try to discourage me from editing, which is very bad practice. Some guy (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please heed Kirill's advice and carry the discussion to the correct place. It seems that there is support for having some liberty with section names as can be seen here. This is best for all parties to stop reverting one another, have some patience for process and offer discussion at WT:MILHIST#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure. I would like to see an objective discussion about the article(s) structure without commentary about other editors. Everyone here has been on WP long enough to know that this is best to avoid conflicts. ☮
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I know absolutely zilch about firearms and after reading through the article, the aspect I thought could be improved the most is the jargon. Some examples include but are definitely not limited to modularity, round burst, rotating diopter drum and a hooded front post, flip-up post, leaf sight, etc. Wikilinking would help greatly. In terms of article organization, it's decent (better than acceptable but not outstanding). Adding sub-sections for each of the variants might help, and maybe also for the different aspects of design like "sights." I am a little hesitant to give more suggestions due to my lack of knowledge of the subject. Sifaka ^talk 08:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. If you'd like to look, I posted a version with subsections under design details a few days ago which was reverted; you could comment on the structure if you'd like: [1] . We are currently having a discussion about changing firearm article structure due to demands of "consensus"; if you would like to participate in this discussionit would be appreciated. Your opinion as someone who is not an expert on firearms is very important because it reflects the "average" reader. Some guy (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sandstein

I know little about firearms in general, but I have what could probably be called extensive user-level knowledge of the SG 550 from my Swiss army service. (At one point, I believe, I could disassemble and reassemble the weapon, blindfolded, in something like 3 minutes.) So I don't know whether I am the intended average reader.

It seems that the discussion is about which and how many subsections the article should have. This does not strike me as a terribly important subject, but in general I suggest that sections longer than four or five paragraphs (currently "Design details") should be divided into subsections if the content is amenable to it. I would therefore prefer the approach proposed by Some guy at [2].

Speaking as an administrator, I will watchlist the page and sanction any editors that continue the lame edit war about page structure.  Sandstein  09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated. We are having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Proposed_modification_of_Firearm_article_structure if you would like to participate. There have been identical problems at MP5 and Steyr AUG though I am currently waiting for the structure discussion to finish before making further sectional changes. Some guy (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cost of Swiss Army and civilian versions?

Would it be possible to include the government costs of the Swiss Army version as well as the retail price(s) of the civilian version. I think it would improve the article to include those values. On this talk page, a previous editor mentioned USD 3,000. That seems rather high, but I have no way of knowing.--TGC55 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New versions shown at IDEX 2011

This article - Swiss precision from new rifles - details new versions of this rifle family as shown at the IDEX 2011 show. Particularly interesting is the 7.62 x 39 version. Unfortunately I don't have time now to add this new information so I'm placing the source here for others to use. The source is the well known and high quality Jane's Information Group so there's no problem with credibility. Roger (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a version based on the American SIG556. 173.34.97.54 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Sighting

From my experience with and information on the SIG, the information on the rear sights isn't complete. Besides the white 'distance marks' there is also a "3" setting (written in red) above the "4" that is actually for use in 300 meter target shooting.

From the user guide: "The red '3' position corresponds to aiming point 'black 6' at 300 m"

This means that the sight is calibrated in such a way that the red 3 setting will strike the bull of the standard Swiss target at 300 meters with a six-oclock sight picture.

Dhagarty (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

British or American English?

This early spelling of Aluminum (US) suggests American English diff 13 February 2008. Jim1138 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reasons not to use US spellings:
  • Non-US subject.
  • The earliest incarnation did not use US-spelling, see 'calibre' & 'metre' at [3]
  • Also, aluminIum is the accepted spelling on Wikipedia, see [4] and [5]
  • Also, it is not a choice between "British" or "American" English, rather spelling used in the US v spelling used elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Got me there. Remember to cite talk when changing it. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose another style change. Whether it is a non-US subject or not, is irrelevant. It's also a non-UK and non-Australia, Canada, NZ, India, Ireland, etc subject. The Wikipedia article on aluminium uses the extra I in the word because that's how it is spelled by IUPAC spells it.

The discussion on the talk page you cite is explicitly speaking of whether the title of said article should be "Aluminium", or "Aluminum", and holds no weight here.

I concede that you are correct in regards to the earliest (as far as I can see) version using Commonwealth spelling, but the the current version seems to be stable as is, and I don't think that's really justification for changing the spelling style around again.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I may decide to unilaterally revert it again back to the US spellings because it was perfectly stable as it was. Further opinion should have been awaited before making such a move.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The earliest incarnation did not use US-spelling, see 'calibre' & 'metre' at [6] Therefore, this establishes non-US-spelling for the article. That someone at some point changed to US spelling and it was not immediately reverted does not alter that precedence was made.

It still is not basis for changing it back - this is not the article on Westminster Palace or Henry VIII - the subject matter still is no more of a national connection to the UK/Commonwealth than there is to the US. The version with the American spellings was apparently stable for a long while (this is why I tag most of the articles I create as having either US or UK spelling depending on the subject - to avoid matters like this...)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, according to WP:ENGVAR there is no valid reason for changing the existing spelling forms. Since the spelling was consistent (eg, all American spellings and not a mixture of the two), it can be considered that the US spelling has been established for this article.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is long established Wikipedia practice that the spelling variant is set by that of the first version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously did not read what I put above. In any case, as per it, I am reserving the right to unilaterally revert to the previous stable (and arguably established) version unless we can come to some kind of agreement here.

also, please sign your posts--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours and no response? I'll give it another day and then I'm just going to revert per this.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it an extra 24 hours. I am reverting per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Retaining_the_existing_variety.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on SIG SG 550. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203065917/http://www.lba.admin.ch:80/internet/lba/de/home/themen/ausrue/pers0/bewaffnung/stgw90.html to http://www.lba.admin.ch/internet/lba/de/home/themen/ausrue/pers0/bewaffnung/stgw90.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140201194128/http://www.yorkshirearmycadets.co.uk/cadets/ecoy/ereport3.htm to http://www.yorkshirearmycadets.co.uk/cadets/ecoy/ereport3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"wars" slot in infobox

The terror attacks in Paris were not "a war". Also, if you are claiming "it was used in the 2015 terror attacks", the implication is that the terrorists used this weapon, while I assume the idea is that the French special forces did. It is rather ominous to reduce terrorists attacking civilians and responding anti-terrorist units of the police to two factions in "a war" in this off-handed way.

And above all, even if all of this is made explicit, you need to cite some kind of source in any case. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Entire sections of this article have no citations whatsoever. Felsic2 (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; uncited; unneeded self-citations; OR". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

When was SIG SG 551 introduced.

Yo, I know the full-size SG 550 was introduced in 1986 and adopted by Swiss 1990 and then that compact SG 552 was released around 1998... But when did the carbine SG 551 variant first appear/was introduced? I can't find this info anywhere. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ancestor

i'm missing the kalashnikov link here... why not even mention it? 178.197.197.108 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)