Not sure if this is OK to post here, but here goes.

Decided to put two old Mini 14's against 2 AR's in a 100 meter iron sight comparison.  I've read so much critique of the Mini vs the AR I got curious.  Having access to two Mini's I decided to have a go.

Here are the rifles:



The rifles are numbered 1-4 and from left to right;

#1}  Ruger AR556.  Rear sight is a Magpul BUIS.  Front the factory post.  Trigger is factory.  Buttstock is Magpul FCS.  Twist 1/8.  Rifle has Aimpoint PRO optic but this was turned off and only the irons were used.

#2}  Ruger Mini-14 181 series Stainless Steel.  Factory sights and trigger.  Twist 1/10.

#3}  S&W M&P-15 with PSA M4 handguard, rear sight MATECH. Rock River A2 buttstock kit on anderson lower.  Trigger is a PSA regular stock single stage and it is pretty much terrible.  Rifle has Vortex SPARC AR but the optic was turned off.

#3/A} S&W factory lower for #3 carbine.  Magpul FCS and LaRue MBT trigger.

#4}  Ruger 184 series Blued Mini-14, all stock parts.      

The protocol was simple.  

Fire a ten shot group with each of 4 rifles at 100 meters {including the MBT trigger/lower on carbine #3}.  Extreme spread in inches was measured and jotted down on the target.

I am not interested in bench accuracy, but rather field accuracy, so the rifles were shot from sitting position as shown here:



Target was a simple more or less tracing of a Bulgarian steel helmet, spray painted on white paper.

Results:

#1}





#2}





#3}





#3/A}





#4}  





Target setup:



Comments:

First, overall, I see no tremendous disparity in the performance of the rifles WITH IRON SIGHTS.  I might add a group shot with my field AR to demonstrate just how much suprior the scoped rifle is to the iron sighted guns, but for the purpose of the use of iron sights,  I don't see too much difference.  There appear to be reasons...........

I have excellent distance vision but my close in vision is not so hot.  So the advantage went to the Mini's with their front sight positioned further out.  It makes a big difference to me.  The AR front sights are just a blur.  As you can see, the Mini fronts are about 5 1/2 inches farther out from the eye than the AR sights.



Further, the triggers....

The Mini's have pretty good 2-stage triggers.  Not too shabby.  The SS gun was not as good as the Blued gun, but both were the equal and maybe a bit better than the Ruger and MUCH better than the rifle-stocked lower on the S&W.  The MBT was excellent and the group shot with it demonstrated that to some degree, tho the low flyer mucked up the group.  I called the flyer.  It was the last shot in the string and I was rushing.  It is very dry and we are only shooting early, and the last group {#3/A} was shot in a hurry to get off my range as the breeze was starting to pick up.

Note the POI shift between the two lowers on the M&P.  It is quite significant.  

Use of iron sights thru the optics was acceptable, but I was surprised at how much dimness was introduced merely by the optic.  Interesting.

I didn't go into this with much expectation either way.  

The Mini has one notable advantage for a field rifle on small critters, like grouse, and that is the line of sight is closer to the bore than the AR.  So little to no adjustment is necessary on small varmints or grouse with the Mini whereas the high AR sights have to be compensated for or the bullet goes under the critter.  

I found myself shooting the Mini faster than the AR's.  The ergonomics on the Mini are really superb, at least for me.

Interesting,thanks.
The Mini, especially the newer ones are capable of way better accuracy than most would expect.

Ball ammo?

OOPS!

Forgot to add that...

I used a plinking load, my standard 25 grains of H4895 and in this case, the Hornady 55 grain FMJ. I say "plinking load" as this is made up using mixed brass, not segregated to make.  None of these guns are MOA shooters, and the ammo wouldn't make it either.

I didn't want to give an advantage to one gun or the other as the AR's have loads worked up for them and the Mini's do not.  I wanted to put them on the same playing field as much as I could, and thus went with a load I knew would shoot mediocre in all.    

I chose the 55's as I didn't want to disadvantage the 1/10 guns with long heavy bullets, either.

I knew the ATeam used them for a good reason!

Even if that were true, why would anyone buy a mini nowadays, when an entry level AR is the same price and so much better; in many ways?

The mini would be a great rifle if it were under $400.00 I suppose but the  reliable factory mags are insanely expensive

I don't think you are going to notice a big difference in accuracy between a mini-14 (even the old ones) and an AR with one 10 round string.  Shoot 60 rounds through the rifles to get them heated up and then redo your test. ;)

FTR, my mini-14 will hold 4MOA groups (@100 yards, bench) until it gets hot, at which point the groups will expand to around 8MOA.

I think that is very true, but for my purposes which is field shooting, the excessive heat buildup isn't really a concern.  i was mostly just curious as to whether the guns would produce reasonable 100 meter groups from an unsupported position.  i have very little experience with the Mini.

Gotta say, tho I prefer the AR, I really like shooting the Minis!

By the way, what your performance is at the bench, if repeated with the 2 rifles I shot, indicates I'm giving up only 2 to 3 MOA in accuracy from the unsupported position.  this is in line with my shooting on the SHTF Challenge here:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/SHTF-Challenge-Lessons-Learned-/5-1950750/

You would do better with a sling.
4MOA unsupported with a sling is very doable.

Mini-14 does have a bad reputation for accuracy that isn't entirely warranted, you just need to use them within their window of limitations.  Of course, as another poster pointed out, when you can buy a complete AR for under $500, a mini-14 makes very little sense.

You can buy an AR for under $500?

Anyway, back in like 1982 when mini's were selling for like $200.00, they made sense but not today's prices.

Good post.  And the only reason you shot the first AR better is because it went first.  

JUST KIDDING.  

Yeah, the sight radius on a carbine is not so good for me.  It can be pretty blurry for me too.  Depending.  Sometimes it's not so bad depending on the lighting.  At my range the 100 yard range is covered.  So when I'm shooting at 100, it's darker and harder to see the front sight.  When I shoot at my 25 meter range, the front sight on a carbine is much better because it's not covered.  But part of me doesn't know if it's because it's covered, or because of the longer distance.  It might be both.

Actually, I had been zeroing the Mini and wanted to let it cool off before shooting it for group...

That's why it's banned in the SHTF Challenge.

Why would the lowers have significant differences?  Is it due to the triggers?

Mostly.

No.

AR's act as all 2-piece stocked rifles do;  Lee-Enfields, Winchester 94's, 71's, etc, Marlin 336's, etc.  Variations in hold will cause variations in POI.  This is mitigated somewhat in freefloated actions, but nevertheless still presents itself to some degree.

A different lower is going to apply some slightly different pressure to the upper, especially if they are not mated well or worn in.  This one I just put together, and slapped on the upper to get a "worse" trigger.

BTW:  Both of my red dot sighted rifles here are zeroed at 50 meters with irons cowitnessed in lower 1/3.   The Ruger w/ the Aimpoint PRO is my wife's and the other with the Surefire is mine.  On the ranch here we have need of a rifle every now and then to take care of 4-legged troublemakers.  I generally keep my field rifle handy, too, a PSA upper and lower with LaRue MBT trigger as it wears a 3-9 Burris scope {w/ German 4A reticle} and that is usually my go-to for furry stuff.  But it is really nice to have rifles that have the exact same manual of arms.

I recently carried one of those Minis on a workout hike and I foud myself going for a pistol grip a few times.  Sheesh!



I never had a speck of interest in AR's until I was about 48.  I got one and it took about 2 seconds for me to take the hook bait line and sinker.  Our AR's have replaced our other rifles for about 90% of what we do with them.  Except during the big game seasons while actively hunting, I carry one every week all year, sun, rain, snow, sleet, on hikes, skiing, shooting targets of opportunity and in the late spring/summer bait shooting for my coyote sets.  Man, I pick up a bolt action rifle and it feels like it's a Smokepole!

I have never shot a deer or elk or bear with an AR but plan to use my field rifle to fill a doe tag I have this year.

I never said it was better than a AR. Just more capable than the older models.

That's true.

Shouldn't you have compared to rifle gas length FSB on the AR's?

Actually, tested with the scope, it has no effect on accuracy at all and oddly, caused very little shift in POI.  I wondered about it but who knows, maybe I lucked out and hit the harmonic sweet spot?

Ok, thanks. I swap lowers quite a bit and haven't noticed any differences. I'll have to group them to see if there's something more minute there.

nvm

Check this out.

For comparative purposes, I grabbed the top 5 slots of the "Iron-Sighted Carbine Division" in the SHTF Challenge.  Granted, that one is 15 shots, not 10, and it is calculated to MOA.  #3 is the Smith used in the test w/ the Mini's above, no optic attached.

1] johnfz6 - Anderson frankengun 5.56 NATO - 16" - A2 iron - None - Ultramax 5.56 55gr FMJ - crossed leg sitting - 5.508 = 5.261 MOA
2] Muad-Colt M4A1 clone-14.5" Colt SOCOM bbl 5.56-Pinned Smith Vortex FH - Carry hdle rear-std FSB - Geissle SSA trigger-ZQI SS109/M855 5.56 62gr-crossed leg sitting-5.880=5.616 MOA
3] EVR – Smith & Wesson M&P15 5.56 – 17.5" - Carry handle Rear, Standard FSB - MAGPUL FCS – 55 gr Handload - Sitting – 5.901" = 5.636 MOA
4] EVR - PSA Mid Upper, PSA lower & parts-17.5" 1/8 twist Melonite bbl-PSA Carry Handle Sights-55 gr Hornady FMJ handload-Sitting, elbows on knees - 6.526" = 5.699 MOA
5] BillyDoubleU- DPMS M4 .223/5.56- 17.75" - Carry Handle - Wolf Polyformance 55gr FMJ - Crosslegged - 6" = 5.73MOA

Adding an optic makes a big difference.  Here's the top 5 in the "Optical-Sighted Carbine Division".  #2 is the Smith used in the test w/ the Mini's above.:

1] gunner76-AR-15 build-5.56-17.5" Faxon 1/8 GUNNER bbl-Weaver 1-4x24 set @ 4x-ALG QMS trigger-ADI .223 69gr SMK-sit, elbows on knees- 2.902"=2.77 MOA.
2] EVR – S&W M&P15 – 17 1/2" - Burris 3-9 Fullfield - Magpul FCS – PMC 55 FMJ - Sitting, elbows on knees – 3.2135" = 3.069 MOA
3] EVR-PSA Blem lower/pencil bbl 1/7 twist upper-16.5" bbl-Burris 1.75/5x scope-No Mods-55 gr Hornady SP handload-Sitting, elbows on knees - 3.901"-3.726 MOA
4] johnfz6 -Stag/YHM/DPMS frankengun 5.56 - 16" barrel-BSA 4-16x40 Contender scope - Spike's Tactical Battle Trigger-handload w/Hornady 55gr FMJBT-crossed leg sitting- 4.012"=3.832MOA
5] johnfz6 - LRB/JSE Surp. 5.56 - 17.75" - Vortex Strikefire red dot - no mods - handload w/55 gr Hornady FMJBT - crossed leg sitting - 4.169 = 3.982 MOA

I might have to put the Mini's on the bench and see what they do.

You mean to get the same sight radius?

It could be that this particular lower applies torque to the upper.  I wonder if simple use over time might introduce some slop that might reduce that.  I am guessing that two lowers that apply no twist or bending to the upper are going to shoot very similarly.  But if there is any lateral or vertical pressure to the upper, a shift in POI seems quite logical.

In exactly the same way as shooting from sitting or prone is going to apply different pressure to the forestock and barrel than traditional bench technique.

For all 2-piece stocked rifles we use in the field, we hold the forestock when zeroing on the bench, then final zero from sitting position as used in the test above.  Regardless, variable holding frequently causes shifts in POI.

Lol

Maybe not the same but the normal full length sight radius, yes.

I just have one Mini14.  Stainless steel, bought back in the early 80's.  Not shot in probably 20 years or so (put a scope on it to see if it would shoot better groups with a scope as my eyes were beginning to go there about 40/42 years of age.)

I stopped shooting the Mini back in the early 80's due to poor groups vs. my other .223 (bolt action Rem M700) as I did little plinking but lots of varmint hunting.

My experience with the M16A1's of the mid to late 70's left me not (ever) feeling the need for an AR15 as they were no better, in my memory, than the Mini14 I bought a few years later.

Then I bought an AR15.  And one with a very short barrel (XM177 clone made by Olympic Arms) and man, did that thing shoot.  Changed my whole perception of AR15/M16 rifles.  It's a little tack driver.  Led to me building many more AR15's over the years.  Every one of them make the Mini look bad.  

Maybe I just got hold of a poor example of a Mini 14???

It is a neat little rifle.  Just not for me.

???  I don't get it.

I just checked the following:

ArmaLite AR10 B-series w/ carry handle, measured from front sight post to rear sight = 21 3/4"

ArmaLite M15A4 National match from front sight post to KAC BUIS {about the same as w/ carry handle} = 20 1/2"

So with the Mini at 20 3/4 or so it is right in there.

I pulled my entry from the SHTF Challenge for the AR10 and it comes up better than what the Mini's produced.

8] EVR - Armalite AR10A4 7.62 NATO Caliber- 20" bbl - Irons {A2 Front installed by ADCO} - Speer 150 BTSP Handload - Sitting - 5.616" = 5.364 MOA

FWIW, the MOA of these groups works out to be:

Rifle:

#1} AR,  4.476 MOA

#2}  Mini, 6.110 MOA

#3}  AR,  6.987 MOA

#3/A}  AR, 6.332 MOA

#4}  Mini, 5.950 MOA

So, averaging these groups we get:

AR's #1 & #3 = 5.732 MOA

Minis #2 & #4 = 6.03 MOA

AR's #1 and #3/A = 5.729 MOA

So even with my sketchy shooting on rifle #3 we still see the AR's beating out the Minis to the tune of .298 MOA or .341 inches at 100 meters.  About a third of an inch in group size.

Maybe it would be a safer/fairer comparison to pit two AR's with good triggers against the Minis with their superior stock triggers, since I can hear some folks saying that everybody chucks the factory OEM triggers on AR's anyhow.  

Now if Molon were here he would say I need to shoot 3 10-round groups for each rifle and in that he would be correct.  I'm certain the disparity between the rifles would actually increase somewhat as the groups shot with #3 AR are not representative of the superior groups it normally turns in.  

But whatever, we see this set of AR's being slightly more accurate than the Minis in spite of:

1}  poorer triggers
2}  shorter sight radii
3}  the optical disadvantage of using iron sights thru glass {there was some, more than I expected, tho I don't think it was very significant}

Everybody is a critic.  As soon as you post pics of groups people jump all over how they can shoot much better.  Whatevs.    Usually said people aren't posting their groups.  Or if they are, they're comparing apples to oranges.  "Well, when I put my AR in a sled with my 14 power scope and I buy match ammo I get better groups than that".   But ask them to shoot in a position you might actually use while hunting with some run of the mill ammo and where's their groups now homey.   ?????   I'm only going on about it because it's just annoying.  

Sure there are some really good shooters on here.  But usually those aren't the guys giving people crap about how they should be shooting better.

Oh, I see.  I was a little slow on the uptake.  

Well, he/she most likely shoots in a realm all his/her own.  But he/she is certainly welcome to shoot in the Challenges various arfcommers have set up here, especially my SHTF Challenge.

We need to knock those guys in the number one spots down a notch!!  LOL.    

Maybe off topic, but useful for contrast of scoped bolt gun to iron semiauto carbines:

Here's my hunting qualification group for this year;  asymmeterical target, 6.5x55 SAKO, 5 shots, 100 meters {109 yards}, sitting, elbows on knees:

I know.  You say AR's just feel right to you.  I've been shooting ARs for quite a while and whenever I pick up a bolt gun I hear harps and angels singing.  I guess cuz it was my first type of gun to shoot a deer with.  But for me they feel better.  A traditional stock feels way more intuitive and comfortable.  Only time I like a pistol gripped gun better is when I'm prone.  And even then I can handle the traditional stock just fine.  

(your bolt gun is beautiful btw)

But kneeling, standing, sitting, fondling, a bolt gun with a scope balances a ton better to me than an AR with a scope.  They just feel funky to me and probably always will.  But they have their upsides.  

Part of that is my physical make up.  My left arm is kind of weak because I'm missing my major pectoral muscle on my left side.  I know, weird.  So my left arm is mostly at home further back.

Mmmmmmm..... the 03



I'll have to do your SHTF challenge.  I haven't tried it yet.

Shoot the Challenge with that 03A3!!   We are trying to get as many milsurps as possible.

AR ergos are not as "natural" as traditional configured rifles and I suspect that is one of the selling features of the Mini. With the world awash in mil configured AR's, I'd love to see somebody re-engineer the system into a traditional setup for a hunting rifle.  Could have a wood stock, etc.  Accuracy would be there.

In the meantime, I'll make do with what we have, which as it goes, I've learned to like a lot.

Get both with the Ares SCR.

A traditional stock works pretty good offhand, but doesn't fit well in other positions due to the higher hand position/lower cheekweld.

That's why the Tubb T2K/McMillan Alias (or whatever the name is now) dominated NRA High Power until better cartridges were fitted to ARs.

Yup, that pretty much fits the bill.

'cept why did they ditch the safety and of all things, go w/ an unfenced mag release button?

I wouldn't buy it for that reason alone.  I've lost a mag while skiing in an AR where the button stood just a wee bit proud, no way I'd feel comfortable with one with no fence.

Yes, all over the place, have you been living under a rock?

And http://palmettostatearmory.com/ruger-16-ar15-5-56-adjustable-rapid-deploy-rear-sight-rifle-8500.html

I need to do this one rifle at a time.  Taking time to get used to the trigger and then shooting for group.  As I compare the results of the AR's with the performance in the SHTF Challenge, I see a pretty significant difference.  I'm particularly curious about the Smith.  In the SHTF Challenge, I shoot it quite well.  Then I switched out the factory hand-guards for some PSA M4-type jobs because the stock things were getting too hot in long strings {one of the reasons I really like my PSA middy's}. Did they have a negative effect on the performance or was the fire season and my hurrying to blame?  I don't know.

The Ruger turned in good performance, very good, actually.

I didn't mention that I have shot one of the Minis at 200.  That is where I need to do the next test.  I found un-called flyers at 200 that I attribute to the Mini-thing.

Another idea is to put 20 rounds thru the rifles fast and then shoot a good solid 5 or 10 shot group to see what effect heat has on the guns.

It's endless, really, but I like the Minis a lot in shooting them.  There are times I do not want a scope.  Few, actually, but times.  Mostly in the winter.

I'm not sure if it still happens with scopes now a days, because it's been a while since I've been deer hunting.  But there were several occasions were scopes were fogged up at very inopportune times with guys I hunted with.  I'm not sure if it ever happened to me, but I hunted a lot with irons.

I used a cheap 3-9x on my carbine in a couple matches last winter. Averaged about 455/500. Irons were low 480s.

If all I had was a Mini 14, then I would make the best of it, but the ergonomics and hit or miss accuracy, especially once they heat up, will never make we seek one out.
- Safety in the trigger guard
- cost of factory mags (30's)
- general ergonomics.. Everything I could do with a 14, I do better and faster with a AR.
- lack of aftermarket support.

Glad you like yours, but there's is nothing about them I ever liked or will like.

Safety no big deal. Its easy to find and work.Big brother John C Garand style .  Yeah its old school design.

Factory mags ( 20"s ) can be had for $20 on sale and $25 when not. Been a year since I bought any. But should be the same. But the mags are built like a T72 tank.

I agree with you on Ergonomics for the most part. Funny thing is you shoot a Mini enough and the M16 ergo's seem a little misplaced. Its muscle memory.Hell you have folks that operate an AK super fast.mag change and all. They just done it alot.

I always thought the mini had good aftermarket following. But I haven't looked in years. I run stock most of the time.


The modern Mini is carbine accurate. I will say it's as accurate as a standard run of the mill out  of the box AR. Its very close.  I have a 187 and 581. The 581 is AR accurate and don't change when hot. Short thicker barrel changed that ,I suppose.


I will say this about the Mini. It will shoot ammo that will stop an AR/M16 dead in it's track. Been there done that. Many time at the range someone shooting inconsistent powered ammo and short stroking there AR they let me run it through my minis. Eats it up. Just a more forgiving gas system.


Now  I will say I will take my AR over the mini in a SHTF . I can work on my AR's and parts is everywhere. But if I'm scouting land/property I take my light handy little Mini 14 .  Cheers Wardawg

EVR

The AR front sights are just a blur.  Try focusing on the front sight next time no matter which rifle, not the target.  I've shot M4/M16 out to 600 with irons and M14 irons at 1000 in Army matches.


CD

Somewhat interesting.

But almost totally useless in depicting whether one rifle is more capable or accurate then another.



Since the shooter didn't use a more stable position, this only shows how well he shot with these 4 firearms.  It's a demonstration of his skill with these particular firearms.  Nothing more.