Which One Should I Buy, SIG 516 Or Noveske N4
- Thread starter samnev
- Start date
I was issued a FA 11.5 inch 516 and it ran like a top suppressed or unsuppressed. I wouldn't hesitate to get one. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't get parts for them. They have overseas and domestic LE contracts and they will be making them for a long time.
I’d go Noveske. Basically a pure AR, so simple to mess around with it. Also, if you do decide to sell the 516’s aren’t very strong on the secondary market.
The Noveske should outshoot most ARs. They've been known for their barrels since the beginning. It's why people pay more for them.
Not really, he always shot crappy Wolf or surplus mil spec ammo. He was to cheap after spending big bucks on either rifle to shoot quality ammo or a decent scope.
There was a time when you could buy complete 516 uppers for $600. Some guys picked them up for even less. That being the case, I suspect if you are patient you could probably find a used one for a damn good price. So maybe get the Noveske and then wait for a 516 upper.
And as someone who owns a 516 upper, they are great shooting and produce good accuracy with match ammo. But I agree that the Noveske is likely to be more accurate. Also, like all piston guns they will be front heavy.
On the other hand, if you have any plans to shoot suppressed a Sig 516 would be a good choice.
And as someone who owns a 516 upper, they are great shooting and produce good accuracy with match ammo. But I agree that the Noveske is likely to be more accurate. Also, like all piston guns they will be front heavy.
On the other hand, if you have any plans to shoot suppressed a Sig 516 would be a good choice.
unless it's a smoking deal, I'd say neither. If you are going to spend the money, then get what you want instead of being offered and choosing.
how much steel ammo has he put through them?
steady diet? i might pass on those. it wears out the rifling faster…especially at high rates or so says the lucky gunner test
that's not what the lucky gunner test showed and that test has been pretty much debunked
what the test proved was that the powder and burn curves matter far more as it's heat and friction that wear barrels. the steel cased bullets are no harder and no more abrasive than regular brass based pills. when testing various types of ammo, the jacket width varies, ironically, wolf gold is some of the thinnest and tula steelcased some of the thickest (more so than federal)
extractors are the only thing that is actually directly impacted by the steel vs brass debate and that is a replaceable item
Also, pretty sure OP is going semi auto in which case, it doesn't matter
JHC this board is becoming so arfcom like it's becoming less intelligent by the day
Last edited:
from their test write up:
The soft copper jacket of the Federal ammunition simply doesn’t cause the same amount of wear as the bimetal (copper and steel) jacket of the Russian ammunition.
so…..?
they did indicate the power in russian ammo burns faster. are you suggesting that wore out the rifling faster? thats fair.
It’s been like that for a while now, you have people asking about AKs, SBRs and chrome lined barrels. Nothing related to accuracy, snipers hide should be a clue those questions are being asked on the wrong board.
