I have read so often that the SIG55x is just a fancified AK, it's not even funny anymore.
It has become much worse when the 556 hit your shores:
"What does it do, that my M4 can't?", "It's just an swiss AK." etc.

Such talk comes mainly from people who never seen an actual SIG or AK or both.
So let's have look, shall we?



For those not "in the know": the rifle on top is an AK, the lower a SIG 550.
My AK is Romanian .223 variant, which was apparently assembled by monkeys.

Well from an outside view, they don't resemble much. Even the ergonomics are different:
Ak safety is a well known paddle on the right side, the 550 has an ambidextrous selector above the grip .
The magazine on the SIG can be released by using your middle finger: just poke the release paddle. That paddle sits on the AK much further ahead, so you need to use your left hand.

So much for the exterior, but it's the innards that decide right?



Wow, first surprise, they don't disassembly the same way
The Ak only  has a top cover, and the rest is contained in the receiver!
The 550 employs an upper/lower principle like an AR15

But all hope is not lost, the operating system is the heart of every gun.




Hey, that's looks familiar




Okay, on the 550 the gas rod has also the recoil spring on it, and it is not fixed on the bolt.
Also because it is seperated, it is removed by the front, and not pulled out by the rear like an AK.

Here's the gas "switch" which you can pull out to remove the gas rod.
(Note that the AK has no such thing)








If we compare the heads of the rods (AK top, SIG bottom) we see that on the AK the gases act directly on the head, the SIG first redirects it. (see the hole on the bottom and face) Why exactly: I don't know

We have to conclude that the gas rods don't have anything in common, except for the name






Bolt carriers: left and right side. You can see that they are entirely different milled/shaped.
The arrows point to the rail guide, which is much longer on the SIG for better accuracy.
I should't even need to mention the worksmanship of these to rifles.
The Romanian monkeys delivered: a canted front sight, a slight headspace issue, the bolt carrier would snag from time to time on a round in the magazine and one magazine didn't fit the magwell at all.
I never had a problem with my SIG.




Bolts from the top. What really is interesting that the cam lug of the SIG sits further down.
And keep in mind that both are .223, but the SIG bolt looks much sturdier




Bolts disassembled: To take out the spring loaded firing pin from the 550 you have to press the bolt on the table and poke out the retention pin with your fingernail or Swiss Army Knife .
I had to use hammer and a nail* to drive out the retention pin on the AK...

*The supplied tools from the Romanian monkeys didn't fit.




And lastly the bolt faces
Totally different shape and the extractor is also a different design.


Conclusion: those rifles are not the same, not even close.
Yes, they share an operating principle, but a lot of guns do that, and it's not limited to SIG55x/AK.

Besides Romanian monkeys and Swiss elves just don't compare

I have never thought that a Sig 55X and an AK were similar at all, but after reviewing your post, I will agree that a Sig 55X is just a Swiss AK.
J/K.....but there are many similarities.

Nice write up.

I SOOOOO want an actual SIG 550.

Quoted: J/K.....but there are many similarities.

Yes, but that's because both are guns

Compare any handgun after 1911, does something strike your eyes?

Other case: SKS and FN FAL both use a short stroke and tilting bolt, but are they the same?

The bolts and bolt carriers look only vaguely similar.  Otherwise, they're two totally different guns.  FWIW, people say the same thing about the FNC being a "fancy AK" too.  

Quoted: Quoted: J/K.....but there are many similarities. Yes, but that's because both are guns Compare any handgun after 1911, does something strike your eyes? Other case: SKS and FN FAL both use a short stroke and tilting bolt, but are they the same?

Yes....my 1911 doesn't need a full length guide rod, but apparantly all other pistols need one to function properly

Excellent photos and descriptions...........Thanks............

Quoted: I have never thought that a Sig 55X and an AK were similar at all, but after reviewing your post, I will agree that a Sig 55X is just a Swiss AK. J/K.....but there are many similarities.

You know whats funny, I never even heard anyone say the Sig was like an AK.  Now with those pictures there is no doubt in my mind the Sig is just a more advanced AK.  Its OBVIOUS that they are related.

Looking at the photos, it's easy to tell that they are clearly similar.  The Swiss definitely "borrowed" from the Kalashnikov design.
That's not a bad thing, IMO.

yup looks ak to me, with a fal piston

but it's not a bad thing. the ak was the first, or one of the first, rifles not totally designed from the ground up. even the "god awful safety" was a browning design! MK started a design revolution in not reinventing the wheel, but taking the best available concepts and combining them.

the most glorious thing about the ak is it's cheapness. i'm sure in most countries you can get a crate of ak's for the price of one fine sig.

you have very good looking rifles by the way!

2D2C

Quoted: Quoted: I have never thought that a Sig 55X and an AK were similar at all, but after reviewing your post, I will agree that a Sig 55X is just a Swiss AK. J/K.....but there are many similarities. You know whats funny, I never even heard anyone say the Sig was like an AK.  Now with those pictures there is no doubt in my mind the Sig is just a more advanced AK.  Its OBVIOUS that they are related.

Agreed. I never knew they were so much alike. Some of the parts look damned near identical. I guess the Swiss took the AK design a bit further than the Israelis did with the Galil.

LOL......This thread went the opposite direction from what the OP intended

Looks like the Swiss took a crude Russian design and refined it.

I think it is safe to say that the SIG is a different rifle in many ways, but also that the heart of the SIG's operating system was influenced by the AK design.  

One might say it is a vastly improved heart, but you can defintiely see the family relation on the carrier and bolt design.


Wherars the AK and galil are borthers, the SIG is a very distant second cousin by marriage.

Thanks for the pics.  I actually ahve become more intrigued buy the Sig 556 recently.  If it weren't for the high cost of 5.56 ammo (and my glut of ARs), I would seriously consider one.

Quoted: Looking at the photos, it's easy to tell that they are clearly similar.  The Swiss definitely "borrowed" from the Kalashnikov design. That's not a bad thing, IMO.

If you use these design paremeters: long stroke and rotating bolt with 2 locking lugs. You gonna end up with something that internally resembles an AK. No matter what.
For instance the cam lug, if it were a clone it would look exactly the same as the AK bolt But they changed it, why? Because the SIG design has other considerations implemented.

As mentioned take a look at the FNC or the Beretta AR70, both used such a design but I never heard them called an AK. Just my observation. 2 cents worth

Looks like an AK bolt and carrier with a short-stroke gas piston vs. the long stroke AK. I'd say the similarities end at the bolt and carrier though. A rifle being based on an AK is not a bad thing at all and I would still very much like a 55X.

The 550 is  long stroke, the principle is the same. BUT THE WHOLE EXECUTION IS DIFFERENT!

They didn't modify an AK, if they did, it wouldn't have an upper/lower. It wouldn't have a detacheable gas rod.

Many many differencies which are not even minor...
And people just see a bolt + carrier and think it's Kalashnikows design

The Sig 55X rifles use the same two lugged bolt with same type of extractor and ejector as an AK. Anyone with even basic understanding of firearms can see that.

All they did was flip the design over and have the bolt and bolt carrier reciprocate in the upper rather than the lower. In typical Swiss/German fashion they then increased the complexity of the gas system so they could add some more parts and make it "different".

The 55X safety is truly an improvement - but the bulk of the gun is AK all the way!

Rant Off

Quoted: The Sig 55X rifles use the same two lugged bolt with same type of extractor and ejector as an AK. Anyone with even basic understanding of firearms can see that.

Two lugged bolts are standard since Mauser put them the model 1898.
Extractors are not same, unless you mean "spring loaded thingy to grab cartridge" then you would include every extractor ever made

Quoted: Quoted: The Sig 55X rifles use the same two lugged bolt with same type of extractor and ejector as an AK. Anyone with even basic understanding of firearms can see that. Two lugged bolts are standard since Mauser put them the model 1898. Extractors are not same, unless you mean "spring loaded thingy to grab cartridge" then you would include every extractor ever made

Are you serious? All extractors are the same? Really? Really?

Are you telling me you cannot see how the bolt and bolt carrier are not just similar but clearly a development of the AK? Look at the back of the bolt carriers! Look at the way the camming track is cut into the carrier! Look at how the extractor is recessed into the larger of the two locking lugs! If the 55X camming lug was not moved further back on the bolt, the bolts would be identical!

Please tell me you are joking... I hope.

Why do you think being similar is somehow wrong? The AK is a great design - why are you worried if your 55X is based on it?

Quoted: The AK is a great design - why are you worried if your 55X is based on it?

I think he's ashamed or something. Like thinking he bought a Rolex....that's based on a Seiko action or something.

Thats one purty, fancified AK

How about we compare an AR operating system to a Sig?  They look nothing alike, which means that when you find similarities like the shape of the bolt carrier, piston operated, 2 large-lug locking system, IDENTICAL autosear trips, rock-in mags, bolt shape, etc.  That means ideas have been transplanted into the Sig design.  If you can't see the similarities then its simply rediculous to argue.  The only thing Sig did was to take the AK bolt carrier and bolt and insert it into an upper-lower receiver design with a few upgrades.  Just because it has pretty machining and tiny tweaks from "swiss elves" does not mean they are not related.

Quoted: Are you serious? All extractors are the same? Really? Really?

They are not same, therefore they are different, right?

Quoted: Are you telling me you cannot see how the bolt and bolt carrier are not just similar but clearly a development of the AK? Look at the back of the bolt carriers!

Yep that thing that prevents firing out of battery, what is with it?

Quoted: Look at the way the camming track is cut into the carrier!

let me guess looks like a 90° rotation?

Quoted: Look at how the extractor is recessed into the larger of the two locking lugs!

if it were located on another lug it wouldn't eject to the right side, would it?

Quoted: If the 55X camming lug was not moved further back on the bolt, the bolts would be identical! Please tell me you are joking... I hope.

Apparantly we have different definitions of "identical"...
Not joking, but I see too many differences to say they are one and the same.

Quoted: Why do you think being similar is somehow wrong? The AK is a great design - why are you worried if your 55X is based on it?

The problem is it isn't based on, but implemented from.
The prototypes had at first roller delayed bolts, then gas operated roller locks, and finally gas operated rotating bolts. Kalashnikow wasn't the base, it was a stepping stone...

May not make much of a difference in reality.



oh, and here's question to you: Is the FN FAL based on the SKS?

Quoted: How about we compare an AR operating system to a Sig?  They look nothing alike, which means that when you find similarities like the shape of the bolt carrier, piston operated, 2 large-lug locking system, IDENTICAL autosear trips, rock-in mags, bolt shape, etc.  That means ideas have been transplanted into the Sig design.  If you can't see the similarities then its simply rediculous to argue.  The only thing Sig did was to take the AK bolt carrier and bolt and insert it into an upper-lower receiver design with a few upgrades.  Just because it has pretty machining and tiny tweaks from "swiss elves" does not mean they are not related.

I think that's the part where were stuck. If you take an idea, but implement it differently, is it the same?

Damned I sound like an intellectual property rights lawyer

I find it entertaining that the OP does seem horrified at the thought that the heart of the gun is based off the AK- just looking at the bolt and carrier it seems so obvious to mee the Swiss eigneers copied the bassic bolt and carrier design. There is nothign wrong with that at all...they saw the robsutness and elegant solution that the AK bolt and carrier offered and went with it, no crime in that.  Hell, Mr. Kalishnikov unabashedly admitted that he took the trigger mecahnism design from the M1 Garand for use in the AK-47.  If you find something good, go with it...

I think the irony for me is that I am considering a SIG 556 *because* it has the heart of an AK with the ergonomics and controls of an AR- the best of both worlds in my book!

And no damn ar-15 multiple locking lugs and barrel extension to clean!

Quoted: I find it entertaining that the OP does seem horrified at the thought that the heart of the gun is based off the AK- just looking at the bolt and carrier it seems so obvious to mee the Swiss eigneers copied the bassic bolt and carrier design. There is nothign wrong with that at all...they saw the robsutness and elegant solution that the AK bolt and carrier offered and went with it, no crime in that.  Hell, Mr. Kalishnikov unabashedly admitted that he took the trigger mecahnism design from the M1 Garand for use in the AK-47.  If you find something good, go with it...

Well I came to show the differences between two rifles, the people saw a bolt carrier, and now I'm trying to do damage control before everbody thinks the 550 is expensive 1:1 copy.


tough crowd

I wouldn't say that the Sig 55x is a fancy AK.  I would say that Valmets and Galils are fancy AKs though.

The Sig is a modern rifle who's roots are clearly Kalishnakov on origin.  It's an evolutionary product that started with the AK.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: Quoted: The Sig 55X rifles use the same two lugged bolt with same type of extractor and ejector as an AK. Anyone with even basic understanding of firearms can see that. Why do you think being similar is somehow wrong? The AK is a great design - why are you worried if your 55X is based on it?hinking.gif

Maybe because too many similarities between AK and Sig would mean that the Swiss are not as original and/or precise as they'd like to be. Maybe they're not all that far from the Romanian or Russian monkeys.

Just kidding...

Hmmm..........I will have to take a closer look at the Sig. Being similar to the AK is a good thing in my book.

Quoted: Hmmm..........I will have to take a closer look at the Sig. Being similar to the AK is a good thing in my book.

Agreed. I am not quite sure what the OP's major malfunction is...

oh, and here's question to you: Is the FN FAL based on the SKS?

yes and no

world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl06-e.htm svt 40

federov tokerovdeveloped the tilting block system yrs before the fn49

world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl09-e.htm fn 49

the fn49 evolved into the fal, but before it did federov siminovscaled down the tilting block to the m43 round for the sks 45. so in conclusion yes and no

stealing another countries small arms design isn't anything new, ever seen a 1903 springfield?

everyone agrees that the sig isn't a clone or copy, but to deny lineage would be heracy

2D2CEDITED*!*tokerov&siminov not  federov*!* federov did have a hand in there somewhere

Quoted: Quoted: Looking at the photos, it's easy to tell that they are clearly similar.  The Swiss definitely "borrowed" from the Kalashnikov design. That's not a bad thing, IMO. If you use these design paremeters: long stroke and rotating bolt with 2 locking lugs. You gonna end up with something that internally resembles an AK. No matter what. For instance the cam lug, if it were a clone it would look exactly the same as the AK bolt But they changed it, why? Because the SIG design has other considerations implemented. As mentioned take a look at the FNC or the Beretta AR70, both used such a design but I never heard them called an AK. Just my observation. 2 cents worth

You're nit picking.  There's nothing wrong with the SIG being closely related to the AK.  Pretty much everyone here disagrees with you.  Maybe we're on to something.

no one has a problem with calling the dawoo an advanced ak design.i'm not familiar with the internals( in just skimming through the below link i see that the dawoo is less similar to the ak, still it is commonly accepted to be a derivitive.) but looks a lot like a piston driven ,rotating bolt ,2 part receiver, ar mag combatible, ak to me.

world.guns.ru/assault/as32-e.htm dawoo


to further understand the sig 556, i found these links very helpful.

world.guns.ru/assault/as47-e.htm sig 540

world.guns.ru/assault/as25-e.htm sig 550

looks like many countries had similar designs that can be traced back to the ak47, which barrows heavily from other rifle concepts.  

i don't know why but i find it necesary to bring up that gun powder was invented in the far east

The SIG is absolutely a derivative of the AK; you pictures prove it. Also, both the SIG and the AK are short-stroke piston systems, not long.

Quoted: The SIG is absolutely a derivative of the AK; you pictures prove it. Also, both the SIG and the AK are short-stroke piston systems, not long.

I'm guessing you consider the AK and the SIG to be short-stroke due to the short length of the actual gas cylinder. I can see your point; however, most people consider them long-stroke because the piston travels the entire distance the bolt carrier moves.

Karl

Quoted: Quoted: The SIG is absolutely a derivative of the AK; you pictures prove it. Also, both the SIG and the AK are short-stroke piston systems, not long. I'm guessing you consider the AK and the SIG to be short-stroke due to the short length of the actual gas cylinder. I can see your point; however, most people consider them long-stroke because the piston travels the entire distance the bolt carrier moves. Karl

No, I consider them short-stroke because they are. "Most people" are ignorant as to what the difference is between a long and short stroke piston.

Gas systems
Short stroke

A short-stroke gas system is defined as one that diverts high pressure gas from the middle or rear portion of the barrel that impinges on the piston head for a short period of time before excess gas is either cut-off (M14), vented (AK-47), or the piston head reaches a stop (M1 Carbine). The distance the piston travels under pressure is generally less than its diameter. The piston may or may not be attached to the bolt carrier. This is the most common type of gas operation.

Long stroke

A long-stroke gas system is generally defined as one which the stroke of the piston under pressure is greater than its diameter. Because of the greater dwell time, gas must be ported from the barrel very near the muzzle of the weapon as in the M1 Garand. This relatively lower pressure gas acts over a longer period of time to impart the same amount of energy to the operating system. Because the operating parts are longer, they are necessarily heavier and this system is not used in modern weapons.

Except that the M14's gas port is at the very end of the barrel.  And the SIG's piston travels the full length of the bolt (as well as being located at the end of the barrel).


I've yet to figure out just who the hell is the "authoritay" on the definition of long stroke and short stroke and the differences therein.  As far as I can tell, it seems just as valid of a distinction as arguing the difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle, because while the difference seems obvious on the surface, there's never any consent on the grey areas because there's never been a proper definition to begin with.

Quoted: As mentioned take a look at the FNC or the Beretta AR70, both used such a design but I never heard them called an AK. Just my observation. 2 cents worth

FNC:

The gas drive and rotating bolt of FNC strongly resembles the AK-47 system, but adapted for more advanced production technologies such as CNC machining and with some modifications. The long stroke gas piston is located above the barrel and is linked to the bolt carrier. Unlike the AK-47, the gas piston rod could be separated from the bolt carrier when gun is disassembled. The gas system featured two-positions gas regulator (for normal or adverse conditions) and a separate gas cutoff, combined with folding rifle grenade sights. When grenade sights are raised into the ready position, the gas cutoff automatically blocks the gas supply to the action, allowing for safe launching of rifle grenades. Both gas cutoff and a grenade sight are located on the gas chamber, just behind the front sight. The now common rotating bolt has two massive lugs that locks into the barrel extension.

From here:
world.guns.ru/assault/as24-e.htm

Beretta AR70:

The gas operated action of the AR-70/90 is fairy conventional, with the long stroke gas piston, located above the barrel. The gas piston rod is linked to the bolt carrier by using a cocking handle as a lock, and the return spring is located around the gas piston, above the barrel. The gas block featured a two positions gas regulator (for normal and adverse conditions), and the gas cutoff, integral with raising grenade sight. When grenade sight is raised into the firing position, it automatically closes the gas port. The rotating bolt is somewhat similar to one, found in the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, and has two massive lugs, which are locked into the barrel sleeve, which is welded into the receiver. The charging handle is attached to the bolt carrier.

From here:
world.guns.ru/assault/as11-e.htm

Quoted: Except that the M14's gas port is at the very end of the barrel.  And the SIG's piston travels the full length of the bolt (as well as being located at the end of the barrel). I've yet to figure out just who the hell is the "authoritay" on the definition of long stroke and short stroke and the differences therein.  As far as I can tell, it seems just as valid of a distinction as arguing the difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle, because while the difference seems obvious on the surface, there's never any consent on the grey areas because there's never been a proper definition to begin with.

The M14 gas port is no where near the muzzle - I am not going to take mine out to measure it but I bet it is around 6" back.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The SIG is absolutely a derivative of the AK; you pictures prove it. Also, both the SIG and the AK are short-stroke piston systems, not long. I'm guessing you consider the AK and the SIG to be short-stroke due to the short length of the actual gas cylinder. I can see your point; however, most people consider them long-stroke because the piston travels the entire distance the bolt carrier moves. Karl No, I consider them short-stroke because they are. "Most people" are ignorant as to what the difference is between a long and short stroke piston. Gas systems Short stroke A short-stroke gas system is defined as one that diverts high pressure gas from the middle or rear portion of the barrel that impinges on the piston head for a short period of time before excess gas is either cut-off (M14), vented (AK-47), or the piston head reaches a stop (M1 Carbine). The distance the piston travels under pressure is generally less than its diameter. The piston may or may not be attached to the bolt carrier. This is the most common type of gas operation. Long stroke A long-stroke gas system is generally defined as one which the stroke of the piston under pressure is greater than its diameter. Because of the greater dwell time, gas must be ported from the barrel very near the muzzle of the weapon as in the M1 Garand. This relatively lower pressure gas acts over a longer period of time to impart the same amount of energy to the operating system. Because the operating parts are longer, they are necessarily heavier and this system is not used in modern weapons.

You've chosen to list an article from Wikipedia written by one person, who cites one good firearm reference and two automotive references for firearm terms? That sounds definitive to me. I'll have to obtain a copy of Hatcher's Notebook to see exactly what Hatcher has to say about venting and gas cut-off. Bore to stroke ratio? Ridiculous.

I admit I may be wrong. My definitions are those I read in actual paper books as a child, before the errornet.
Food for thought:
The M14's piston, while it does cut off gas after a short movement, remains under gas pressure for nearly its entire stroke, which is longer than its bore.
How much does an M1 Garand's piston move before the bullet uncovers the muzzle and vents gas to the atmosphere? More or less than the piston's diameter?

Karl

PeaceDevil,

The best thing you can do is come down to the European HTF. We will happily hide the truth about your SIGs there. Of course, you may have to prove you're "really" Swiss by sleeping with your SIG:

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The SIG is absolutely a derivative of the AK; you pictures prove it. Also, both the SIG and the AK are short-stroke piston systems, not long. I'm guessing you consider the AK and the SIG to be short-stroke due to the short length of the actual gas cylinder. I can see your point; however, most people consider them long-stroke because the piston travels the entire distance the bolt carrier moves. Karl No, I consider them short-stroke because they are. "Most people" are ignorant as to what the difference is between a long and short stroke piston. Gas systems Short stroke A short-stroke gas system is defined as one that diverts high pressure gas from the middle or rear portion of the barrel that impinges on the piston head for a short period of time before excess gas is either cut-off (M14), vented (AK-47), or the piston head reaches a stop (M1 Carbine). The distance the piston travels under pressure is generally less than its diameter. The piston may or may not be attached to the bolt carrier. This is the most common type of gas operation. Long stroke A long-stroke gas system is generally defined as one which the stroke of the piston under pressure is greater than its diameter. Because of the greater dwell time, gas must be ported from the barrel very near the muzzle of the weapon as in the M1 Garand. This relatively lower pressure gas acts over a longer period of time to impart the same amount of energy to the operating system. Because the operating parts are longer, they are necessarily heavier and this system is not used in modern weapons. You've chosen to list an article from Wikipedia written by one person, who cites one good firearm reference and two automotive references for firearm terms? That sounds definitive to me. I'll have to obtain a copy of Hatcher's Notebook to see exactly what Hatcher has to say about venting and gas cut-off. Bore to stroke ratio? Ridiculous. I admit I may be wrong. My definitions are those I read in actual paper books as a child, before the errornet. Food for thought: The M14's piston, while it does cut off gas after a short movement, remains under gas pressure for nearly its entire stroke, which is longer than its bore. How much does an M1 Garand's piston move before the bullet uncovers the muzzle and vents gas to the atmosphere? More or less than the piston's diameter? Karl

Yes, I've chosen to list an readily available source; you've cited "most people" and "paper books" you "read as a child" as sources
The beauty of wikipedia is if you think it's incorrect, you can dispute it. I've gone back and read Hatchers Notebook on the subject, and it does not seem to shed much light on it either way. He uses the M1 carbine as an example of short-stroke,  however it is described in such a way that both definitions apply. So, Ill stick with the engineers definition.

Quoted: I have never thought that a Sig 55X and an AK were similar at all, but after reviewing your post, I will agree that a Sig 55X is just a Swiss AK.

+1

Thanks for pointing out the similarities.  

i stopped caring about similarities when he posted the pic of the 550.. im just so damn jealous that he has an actual sig 550 and all we get is the 556 is is just a jacked up version of an AR..

ok maybe not but i would take an original 550-551 over the 556 anyday of the week

Quoted: PeaceDevil, The best thing you can do is come down to the European HTF. We will happily hide the truth about your SIGs there. Of course, you may have to prove you're "really" Swiss by sleeping with your SIG: img524.imageshack.us/img524/3632/img2021sk8.jpg

i just nutted on myself

Quoted: PeaceDevil, The best thing you can do is come down to the European HTF. We will happily hide the truth about your SIGs there. Of course, you may have to prove you're "really" Swiss by sleeping with your SIG: img524.imageshack.us/img524/3632/img2021sk8.jpg

Look a distraction!



I sleep on my guns, not with 'em
And I think I posted that picture already once in euro HTF, but I seldom venture there.

Ok, I illustrated it:

If anything Id say the SIG is more like a Daewoo IMHO.

that 55X extractor is a monster.