Just put a wooden handguard on my Mini.  Not sure if I'm digging it over the original, especially with the more exposed op-rod.  Any pics to share or experiences with the op-rod dragging on your support hand?

Not a wooden handguard, but still exposed op rod.  It gets a little toasty, so I don't touch it.  Basically the same as my Carbine and Garand.

No need to worry about the op rod and your fingers.  5.5 Million M1 Garands, 6.1 million M1 Carbines, and 1.3 million M14s were used by GIs and not a single one had that stupid, liar lawyer requested guard over the op rod.  I've got 2 M1 Garands, 2 M1 Carbines, a M1A (carried an M14 in the Army) and my 'Mini M14' and I've put my fingers purposely on the op rod of both my Mini and M1A while firing (it's a bit of a stretch) and it doesn't do anything.  Relax and enjoy.

The monolithic wooden Mini handguards were problematic, in they did not allow sufficient cooling for the  barrel, and were fragile.

The monolithic wooden HGs on the M-14 were found to be fragile, and quickly discarded.

The subsequent plastic M-14 HGs were of two types: the vented and non-vented types.  The non-vented type was subsequently adopted for general use.

The wooden Mini-14 HGs were quickly replaced by OEM plastic handguards, which also offered "protection" against the user's hands coming into contact with the op-rod.

Quickly after that,  Mini-14 aftermarket mfrs offered plastic, vented handguards such as Choate. These were fine for most casual users, who didn't require pumping lot of rounds down range.  OTOH, the same issue with OEM M-14 vented HGs came into play, as in the vented HGs showing some heat-induced sight issues.

Funny how that thing happens, over and over again.

I have a wooden HG, but have never mounted it.  I progressed from the typical Choate vented HG to a Ultimak Scout HG, which serves my needs FAR better.

YMMV.

The Choate hand guard offers more cooling slots and better cooling, so would be better than the fugly factory hand guard for pumping rounds downrange.
That said, I use the Ultimak on all my Minis, as I want a better, away from the action mounting location for my optics.

As far as the OP's concern with the exposed op-rod, CoSteve summed it up nicely. An exposed op-rod is a non issue.

I set up my 583 Series Mini-14 5 years ago with a 'Mini M14' look to go with my M1A that I love to shoot as it reminds me of my basic training M14.  The SOCOM length Accu-Strut is there for the cooling and the 'look' as is the Choate front sight/FH, walnut stock, and OE straight 20rd mags.  

Rather than optics, I like 'old school' and have 'NM' like iron sights (a Tech Sights rear with .042" target aperture and a thinned down front blade). With some other tweaks to tighten up the accuracy, and using good 62grn Hornady HPBT bullets, I can get right at 1 MOA accuracy, same as I've seen Sandog75 get with his Mini30.

Plenty good enough to plink bowling pins at 200yds with (my favorite pastime with my Mini). I think all in all, the Mini M14 look came out about right.

I do think you have made a very good job of your rifle.  It seems that you are getting good accuracy from it.

As for myself, my eyes don't play well, anymore, with iron sights, so I was forced to go the optics route by way of using an Ultimak scope mount.

My old "pencil-barrel" 185 series rifle has pretty much every tweak done to it, except a barrel replacement, since the OEM barrel and muzzle were GTG.  I'd like to trade prioritized lists of tweaks sometime.  I'll bet we agree on most things.

I envy you, and your eyes.  That said, if it ever becomes a necessity for you to use optics, please do so.  I saw a LOT of old-timer shooters who loved the sport give it up on account of their eyes.  Nowadays, we have many more options.   Just something to consider, if need be.

All the best, raf

Don't envy me my eyesight as it's poor.  However, using a small target aperture up close to one's eye dramatically increases the clarity of your vision, even if it's poor like mine because of an optical principle called Depth of Field (DoF).  I'm far sighted, with astigmatisms, and almost legally blind without my glasses.  

That said, the DoF increase when using a small aperture held close to one's eye is astounding.  So much so that I also use another, free method of allowing me to shoot any iron sighted rifle or pistol with a clear view of both the front sight and the target, no matter the range.



I take a simple hole punch and some black electrical tape and make a tiny aperture to place on my shooting glasses where I sight through them to aim.  Try it yourself right now by curling your index finger around in a tight circle so the tip touches your palm.  In the gap between your first joint and knuckle you should have a tiny hole.  Put your eye up to your hand and sight through it to see how clear your vision is.  

That's DoF at work.  Then make yourself one of the tape apertures and apply it to your shooting glasses.  It's free and I'll bet you are astounded by the clarity of your sight through the aperture.

That's good advice, COSteve.   I've been all over modifying OEM rear sights for installation of replaceable rear sight apertures which have very small ID apertures for years.  I even have an ancient, Brit-made OEM rig for my M1917 rifle that allows precise aperture movement, and a very interesting camera-type adjustable rear aperture.  Bought it cheap long ago.  Probably unobtanium now.

I concur on apertures mounted on shooting glasses being of value, and one can make them (as you suggest), or buy expensive, adjustable ones.

As for myself, I incline to more of a "tactical' viewpoint, where such aids might not be available.  More to the point, wider-view optics, such as RDS and others, just might be far more useful for "Practical/Tactical" purposes than a rig that is ideal for the target range.

Now, I defer to your experience on the range, and having read it, find nothing with which to disagree.

However, other users might have different goals, and different abilities;  I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that goals can vary, and the means of obtaining those different goals can also vary, depending on the skill and experience of the user.

I DO consider you to be an informed individual.  Any possible differences between us are probably trivial, and could be settled over a single beer.

I respect what you have done, and what you have posted.

Go for it then.  I served my time in the Army and got out 50 years ago this June so I'll leave any 'tactical' work to the younger folks.  I'm just in the shooting sports and reloading for the hobby.

Understood.  Beers on me.  Best wishes!

I appreciate your posts very much, as you seem to have an experienced and thoughtful  mind.

Much obliged for the conversation.

That is amazing, and inspirational.

I have wondered what the M14 could have been in 8mm Kurz or .30-06 Short.

Imagine Ordnance finding out about the Soviet 7.62x39 and copying it into a scaled down BM59.

Bonus points if x40 makes it chamber in US rifles but not Soviet rifles.

@sandog75 What optics are you running?

I like the wood handguards.

Attached File

This is what a scaled down M14 in 7.62 x 39 would be like, the Mini-30:



With KCI (Korean) 30 round magazine:

Like raf I had a wood handguard for a while, then had a Choate, finally I got Ultimaks on all three of the Mini-30s.
The wood looks nice, but doesn't cool as well as the Choate, and neither of those gives the a great spot to mount an optic like the Ultimak does.

Miniz, the optics I use are Burris Fastfire IIIs in the Burris Protector mount.

sandog75 is a highly respected member on the perfectunion site, which site is the repository of most knowledge about Mini-14/-30 carbines.  I've not seen him post false info, here, or there.

Arfcom has a mistaken, false, institutional, bias against the Mini-14/30.  What you think you know about the Mini-14/-30 is probably false.  

Given the onslaught of anti-gunner proposed laws, maybe it might be better to find common ground, instead of picking apart one or another platform. sanddog75 has probably forgotten  more things concerning Mini-14/30 than most here think they know.

Let's all support one another, please!  

We have enough enemies already.  We DO NOT need to create internal divisions within the firearms community.

We either stand together, or we fall apart.

I agree, Sandog75 is MR MINI-30 and raf is right that AR15.com is significantly biased towards the AR and against the Minis. (Seems expected given the site's name and all.)  I agree with Sandog75 on the use of a the Ultimak if you want an optic, be it a scout scope or a Burris Fastfire III like he uses.  I've shot with Sandog75 a couple years back.  I shot his and he shot mine and I like his setups very much.  He knows how to tune his Mini-30s and get the most out of them.  If I were thinking of a Mini-30, he'd definitely be the one I'd direct any questions to.

However,  as you can see above, I'm an irons guy so I have no need for a mount forward of the receiver. So for me, the lower weight and better airflow with the Choate HG is what drew me to it. All I did with mine was to paint it brown to better match what I wanted. It should be clear from my pic above that I'm going for a 'Mini M14' look so that influences my choice too.  

Compare it to my NM sighted M1A and I think you'll agree.

The Choate composite plastic HG is preferable to any wooden HG, in my opinion.  Easy to paint, and resistant to heat.

Personally, since I require optics for ageing eyes, I use the Ultimak Scout rail for optics, a highly-modified set of OEM rear sights, and a Choate combo flash-suppressor/front sight unit.

Choose as you see fit, but note that your eyes will inevitably degrade, with age, to the point where iron sights become difficult/impossible to use accurately.

Regret to say that most shooters beyond a "certain" age will require optics to shoot accurately.

Suggest you plan accordingly.  Age, like Rust, never sleeps.

BTW, I don't think that I mentioned that come November, I'll turn 73 so I definitely qualify for having 'aging eyes'.  That said, the target aperture in the rear sight, as it's close to my eye, increases the Depth of Field (DoF) dramatically.  Even though I wear progressive lens glasses and sight my irons through the 'far' prescription part of the lens, I still can see both the thinned front sight and the target clearly.

Small apertures held close to one's eye (like my shooting glasses pictures above or getting close to the rear aperture) act like your iris closing down really small and therefore, like a pinhole camera we made from a box as kids, everything seen through the tiny hole is in focus.  Try my black tape on your shooting glasses.  You'll be astounded at the difference, I guarantee it.

Norinco offers a semiauto M-14 clone in 7.62x39 that feeds from AK magazines, known as the M305A.  It's not sold in the US, due to the ban on Chinese firearms, but they're available in Canada.

See https://www.forgottenweapons.com/communist-heresy-norincos-m305a-m14-in-7-62x39mm/ for a nice video overview.

" />



I still like the originals from the late 70s and early 80s, 181 and 182 series with the original wooden hand guards. Yes, they may get hotter quicker but I believe that is more from the skinny barrel than it is the handguard. Looks great though and classic. It is a handy little rifle, not intimidating looking at all to non-shooters, not the most accurate but good enough and a lot of fun.

Good looking Mini.

This is an unfired 30 year old Mini-30 that I bought a couple years ago from a couple that had advertised it in a Montana newspaper. They were asking $450, but a couple weeks had gone by and no takers, so when I offered $400 they accepted. When I took the gas block apart the screws were still staked, and there was zero carbon in there, so I believe it was unfired.
It didn't stay unfired for long once I got ahold of it !