USSOCOM Selects SIG SAUER To Provide Squad-Variable Powered Scopes (Second Focal Plane)

Late last year, Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane, working as the weapons procurement arm of the United States Special Operations Command, released a solicitation to industry for Squad-Variable Power Scopes to be used on M4 carbines out to 600m.

The plan was to buy First Focal Plane Scopes and other associated items as a 100% set-aside for small business, while a Second Focal Plane Scope and other associated gear would be full and open competition. SIG Optics replied to the Second Focal Plane Scope portion of the solicitation.

Today, they announced the Second Focal Plane contract, awarding a little over $12 Million to SIG SAUER for the same optic selected by the US Army for the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle.


We first wrote about the Tango 6 earlier this year, during Enforce Tac.

This 6x optic is a variant of their commercially available Tango 6 optic, with final assembly in their Oregon plant. You can lock out the red dot on the custom BDC reticle between settings and the optic comes equipped with a throw lever. It also includes a SIG mount, manufactured there as well.


SIG plans to offer the Tango 6 for both government and commercial sale.


59 Responses to “USSOCOM Selects SIG SAUER To Provide Squad-Variable Powered Scopes (Second Focal Plane)”

  1. mike says:


    • Nick says:

      Not sure what the “lol” is for: after speaking with Sig over the past 3 days at AUSA, it seems that they not only have a number of smart, passionate, and experienced people working for them, but they are also willing to learn from their prior missteps in order to bring good-or even near “best in class”- products to market.

      I’m also pretty sure that USSOCOM wouldn’t have chosen these particular products if they weren’t exactly what they wanted in a mount and optic, especially considering that the solicitation was open to competition…

      • t1tan says:

        Sure, Sig is full of great ideas, but every time they release something new and interesting it’s almost a guarantee a few months down the line we’ll start seeing underlying issues and their attempts to obscure/ignore/deny the issues.

        Hopefully that will be different from here on out, but given their past it’s hard to expect a major change like that out of nowhere. They’ve had major contracts pulled on them before…

        • SSD says:

          Major contracts? Please expand.

        • Blaze46n2 says:

          I love Sig but the problem is every time they release a new product they stop supporting certain platforms and it’s very annoying, like the MCX platform generation one for instance, now they have made it so you can’t get any barrels for the first generation rifles because they have moved on to the Virtus,And correct me if I’m wrong but that is what originally set Sig apart from everybody else is the fact that they had awesome quality products and they supported everyone of them!

          • DangerMouse says:

            Dude, MCX and Virtus barrels are interchangeable. Just swap the bolt so it matches the barrel extension and you are good to go.

    • TheScrutineer says:

      I think there is something to what each side here is saying – both the supporters and detractors. As far as “boo SIG” goes I think its very likely that SIG has, once again, positioned themselves as the cheapest vendor to meet the requirements by a significant margin. There’s been some real controversy, regarding the MHS, over just how big that margin was and how unprecedented the move to cancel the rest of testing became but none of that seems present here.
      I will say this about SIG as a “total systems provider” though; SIG is not in the business of making lights and lasers and ammo and optics, other OEMs that they have either acquired or developed close partnerships with do and I just don’t see how they can manage quality at all levels with a business model like that. There is pretty sound evidence that’s been slowly piling up over the last decade + that SIG has been moving to a business model of releasing things before they’re quite ripe and patching it up after the fact. This allows more experimentation and innovation but if you’re not careful you become Kel-Tec and end up patching your gun for the rest of its service life. I’m not sure I’m down with that kind of SIG.

      I honestly don’t feel like this SFP is as good as a Vortex Razor HD but I bet it was considered good enough. Fair play to SIG. It’ll be interesting to see how the scuttlebutt develops after these make it out into the wild.

      • I heard something says:

        With Razor you are fixated on a brand name. A brand name I might add that was a nobody until they bought an optic from a third party vendor and slapped their name on it. SIG used essentially the same package as Vortex for this solicitation and won with it. USSOCOM is getting the same thing at a cheaper price and I hear, at a lower weight to boot.

        • TheScrutineer says:

          “With Razor you are fixated on a brand name.” hehe telling stranger’s what they’re doing/ thinking on the internet. Now its a proper thread.

          Fair enough. From a macro view they are most certainly OEM’ing their way to the top but thats pretty much all Vortex has been doing from the get go, they’ve built a brand on it, and frankly, thats just how the scope industry is in general – Even Nightforce uses Japanese parts. Vortex has been doing this scope thing far longer than SIG has. Will that matter in the long run? Probably not but if all we’re doing is comparing one Vortex scope to one SIG scope I feel like, as an individual, you would be better served with the Vortex right now. In 5 to 10 years there will be little tangible difference between the two (there might even be part sharing at this point) but there is no question that one has better edge to edge clarity and more generous eye box over the other. Both made of Asian parts (mostly Philippines and japan for these two scopes) and the commercial products are also assembled in Japan with “pre-inspection” in the U.S. Now for SIGs part they are supposedly assembled in Oregon but I’d like to know just how much of the assembly is here and how much is overseas – a lot of companies use terms like “mil-spec” and “U.S. mfg’d” loosely, vortex included.
          I don’t begrudge SIG for earning a contract on low cost, I’m concerned with their more recent adherence to reaching for something (a contract or a new technology) even if means selling at cost and even if they don’t seem to have a firm grasp of it. Vortex, most certainly, has a firm grasp for what they do in their corner of the industry.
          If I’m fixated on a brand here it’s SIG. They are making big moves these days but its looking more they’re faking it till they make it – successfully I might add. How much of a reach all of this really ends up being, we won’t know untill their stuff (the MHS

  2. Robert C says:

    Oh, shit!

    • SquarePegRoundHole says:

      I’m pretty sure that will be echoed by many when they realized it crapped out on them. Like the previous comment, great ideas and thinker poor execution. Parts made in India, and Cohen as head of the company means a lot of not so great things.

      • SSD says:

        SIG Optics are not made in India.

        • CAP says:

          Made in China, assembled in Oregon.

          • Lewy says:

            It’s a military contract.. Must be berry compliant.. Made in the USA

          • SSD says:

            Not made in China. But, quite a few optics companies assemble components made in a variety of countries.

            • CAP says:

              Where does SIG source components for the Tango 6 from? I know most other high end scopes are sourced from Japan.

              • CAP says:

                Just confirmed made in Japan. Very nice!

              • SSD says:

                Same place as the others.

                • PPGMD says:

                  Which means it can also be from China or Taiwan. SIG Optics uses glass and electronics from all over the place.

                  • I heard something says:

                    They aren’t using Chinese components for this contract. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, how about stop spreading rumors?

                    • PPGMD says:

                      SSD said “Same place as the others.”

                      Since SIG Optics others products includes components from Taiwan and China, I am not spreading rumors. And it is hardly a secret that SIG Optics uses overseas components at shows they will typically acknowledge it, and tell you the country of origin each product is sourced from if you ask.

                    • SSD says:

                      It’s a govt contract. Components aren’t from China. He’s right, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, stop spreading rumors.

  3. Stefan S. says:

    Seems SIG is buying a lot of O-6’s and above restaurant bills.

    • SSD says:

      Really? Do you have any evidence of this?

      • Steve C. says:

        What you think they won out over Glock in the MHS trial without some greased palms? This is just more of the same.

        • SSD says:

          Yes, I do.

        • tcba_joe says:

          You mean all the documentation showing equal performance entries where Glock lost because they were $100 MILLION DOLLARS more expensive?

          That MHS?

          If you’re accusing SIG and acquisitions personnel of breaking federal law, then you need to back that assertion up.

          • Jon C says:

            There are just too many cogs in the wheel, many who don’t get along with one another, to cheat a major acquisition like this.

            You can’t buy a service wide contract. I’m no fan of Sig’s commercial products, I’ve been burned by every single one I’ve bought in the last decade, but they win these honest by meeting requirements at a good value to the government.

  4. NoWayJose says:

    No way Jose

  5. Nick M says:

    Honestly I’m just curious how the decision who will get 15 mil of NF optics versus the 12 mil of Sig optics.

  6. mark says:

    Any idea of the weight of the optic + mount?

  7. b_rawrd says:

    Pretty nifty. SIG is really expanding these days. Would love to own on my at home rifle but I bet it’ll be a few or more pretty pennies.

  8. J.V. says:

    Guess the mount was ‘inspired’ by the Geissele Super Precision mount?

    • Joe says:

      Same thoughts here. Looks like someone saw the Super Presicion mount and Vortex Razor combo and ran with it.

  9. Russ says:

    What kind of an idiot would pick a second focal plane for combat use?

    If these Scopes have any type of a BDC, or Milling type reticle it makes them completely effing useless on the Fly.

    • d says:

      This is my favorite comment on here.

      • DangerMouse says:

        I’ve heard people debate that before. The thing is, with these optics, most people are generally at 1x at close range, where the second focal plane reticle would be clearer as a red dot than FFP, or once you get targets at any range where the BDC would be used they just crank the magnification all the way up to 6x and the BDC would be correct.

        So, while it’s not perfect, in real world practical use, it’s really quite reasonable. Especially in 5.56mm where the round shoots so flat that the BDC is only needed at maximum magnification anyway.

    • Adrian says:

      “What kind of idiot would pick a second focal plane for combat use?”

      I mean, plenty of dudes are canoeing skulls with the Vortex Razor.

  10. Rockymountain9 says:

    Having handled and shot the Tango 6, I can say these are excellent optics. And while second focal plane isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, it has one benefit: the reticle stays the same perceived size at all magnifications, which is nice on a low powered optic. With FFP, at 1x magnification, the reticle becomes almost microscopic, affecting its visibility for quick shots and CQB.

  11. Darkhorse says:

    The military doesn’t have the advantage of working directly with a defense contractor. The military only has the ability to write a requirement. Many times, a requirement is written in such a way that an item already in existence is the item selected while other times, pieces and parts of multiple items are conglomerated into one. The company that interprets the requirement best, wins.

    Often times, this requires a company to borrow from another. Many times, behind the scenes, those companies work out an agreement. Not saying that is the case here, but I trust the government is getting exactly what they requested and said item was tested thoroughly enough to support the decision.

    Because it’s not your first choice and you have zero insight into the actual requirement and test protocol, you should refrain from making any comments or passing judgement without firsthand knowledge.

    • JP says:

      ^This. This is well said.

    • Bengo says:

      The DoD does work directly with defense contractors. OTAs, SIBR program, trade shows, industry forums etc….

      “For those unfamiliar, OTAs give DoD and the military services a work around for the traditional acquisition process. OTAs can take many forms, but are typically used to build prototypes of systems outside of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

      Prototype contracts can be up to $250 million and must use a nontraditional defense contractor, have all of its participants be small businesses or have at least a third of its total cost paid by parties other than the government.

      Industry typically creates consortia around certain acquisition areas. Each consortium is built of businesses of all sizes who want to participate.

      “As far as I can tell these consortia have hundreds of members that are industry, academia, others and it seems to be the fair market base. It’s the same folks you would be going out for a traditional contract [with],” Zabel said.”

  12. Huch says:

    Any word on what the reticle will be?

  13. Alpha2 says:

    I like my Vortex Razor 1-6 in SFP but for a combat optic not so sure that is the best choice IMHO.

  14. Alpha2 says:

    EDIT: choice being second focal plane