Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/6/2005 8:03:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 8:09:31 PM EDT by AyeGuy]
Do you think the Mini-14 would have made a better combat weapon than the M-1 Garand?

No, wait! Stop laughing! Think about it...about half of the GIs in the field preferred to carry the M-1 Carbine, despite the anemic .30 carbine cartrige...Why? Because it was handy, light, and easy to shoot.

So, were these GIs sissies, afraid of a "real" rifle? No, they KNEW what they needed...the role of the Carbine was to replace the pistol, and give support troops a more potent weapon than the pistol, but not as bulky as the service rifle. Patton might have called the Garand "The best battle implement ever devised", but that's patent nonsense. Sentimentality aside, the M-1 Garand, however well engineered and superior than a contemporary bolt action rifle, could have been a much more effective weapon, if it had not been designed around a full power cartrige. Combat proved what the more forward thinking theorists already knew...that the rifleman ideal and the full power battle rifle was an anachronism, no longer the best solution for the task the infantryman of the time faced.

But the Carbine could not fulfill the role it found itself forced into by the general unsuitability of the Garand. So, let us consider if the Mini-14 design, if somehow the drawings for it found their way to the engineer's drafting tables in place of the M-1 Carbine, would have been a success on the WWII battlefield...

As you might guess, I think the Mini would have made the grade. Consider the Garand's weak points: overly powerful cartrige, complicated structure (expensive to make and difficult to field strip), and archaic clip feed system, and the Mini suddenly isn't so much of a joke. Certainly it wouldn't have been "the greatest combat implement ever devised", but again there has never been such a fabulous rifle. And, the Mini, besides being mechanically simple, reliable, and easy to manufacture, cured the Achillie's Heel of the Carbine...The .223 is a proven man-killer, period.

Can't hit anything over 300 meters with a Mini? No problem...that's what Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles are for. Most firefights happen at ranges at less than 100m anyway, and you can't even see the Enemy past 300m due to terrain features and other obstructions to vision.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:15:44 PM EDT
Oh I can't wait to see this.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:16:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 8:19:38 PM EDT by PigGuy]
I fired a Garand once... a guy at the range loaned it to me for a clip. I've never hit anything more easily in my life. I stood and hit smaller stuff further away more easily than anything else I've shot... I'd go with the Garand.

Though, while we're in this fantacy land, I'm going to go with that gun Al Pacino used in the movie Heat.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:17:38 PM EDT
you make a good case for the Mini-14, despite it's flaws......
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:17:53 PM EDT

July 2005


Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:18:47 PM EDT
This oughta be good. This may help too. When the Garand came out it was considered a mickey mouse piece of shit compared to the m1903 springfield. Later it was accepted more openly. Just the same as when the m-16 first got to Nam. Took some trial and error but even though it was dis-liked at the time it's obviously loved now. Now lets see the it go. lol. Excuse me while I duck.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:18:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

July 2005




Woah... being new can be overcome... being from California is forever.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:26:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 8:28:03 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

July 2005





So what? I've been shooting for 30+ years.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:27:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 8:27:40 PM EDT by m-dc]

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

July 2005




MAY 2003
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:35:55 PM EDT
You should have asked this question here

www.perfectunion.com/forums/index.php

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:40:29 PM EDT
Nah, I'd take a Garand any day.

Though an M14 would have been perfect.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:40:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 9:40:52 PM EDT


Mini-14 is good enough for the A-Team, it should be good enough for Allies



Link Posted: 8/6/2005 9:59:41 PM EDT


So, you see, I have one of these. This fact, however, does not turn me into a rabid M-1 fanatic.

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:05:29 PM EDT
The only thing wrong with the Mini-14 is the thin barrel and a lack of popularity.

I think a Mini-14 would be fine in WWII, Hell its my SHTF weapon. Give it a better barrel or put a rigidity strut on it and you should be good to go. But the biggest advantage the Mini-14 would have over a M-1 Carbine is a necked spitzer bullet.

However the M1 Garand itself was a great advance. No other major player in the war had a general issue semi-automatic rifle OR carbine through out the entire duration.

There were designs for a shorter barreled and lighter weight BAR as a general issue weapon that were never put though. The Marine Raiders used Johnston rifles and Light Machine Guns. The Johnston Rifle was a semi-auto that was loaded with 1903 Springfield type stripper clips into a internal rotary magazine. I'm not sure if it would have been topped off. It was a ten shot. 10+1 I dont know if that was possible?

The Johnston LMG was a similar weapon and mechanism but fed from 30 round magazines that were attached horizontally.

The best the US could have done in WWII would have been M14 Battle Rifle, Mini-14 Carbine and a Belt Fed Bren gun as a 223 SAW. You could even make a M240, which is basically a upside down belt fed BAR.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:08:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The only thing wrong with the Mini-14 is the thin barrel and a lack of popularity.





So, how much testing have you done of the Mini-14 in a military environment in terms of reliability. Ok, wait, thats not fair. Tell me about the results of some that have used it in a military environment.

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:44:09 PM EDT
I love my LEO Mini 14 GB, but I also understand its limitations. The Mini 14 is very comperable in performance/accuracy to a 5.56 AK variant. The AK will have certain reliability advantages, but accuracy will be similar. Comparing the Mini 14 to anything other than a .223 AK really is absurd.
Its outclassed by military 5.56 battle weapons. The Mini 14 is a reliable/effective autoloading carbine suitible for civilian consumption. It is reliable, but certainly not durable. Institutional abuse as inflicted by soldiers, causes AC556s/Mini 14s to kill space on the Armorer's work bench not commie pinko's. The Mini 14 fulfills its mission perfectly. It was never intented to shoot sub MOA or fire millions of rounds on a battle field. My Mini will shoot 3 inches at 100 yards with M193*at least until it gets really hot* and it will shoot slightly under 2 while cold and using BH blue box 68grn HPs. It heats up rapidly, due to its light barrel, which causes the groups to grow but it still allows for plenty of defensive accuracy. My Mini is zeroed at 100 yards, wich is just perfect for this weapon. I love the way it feels/points/shoots. Its really a great gun to own....that being said, its a Daisy compared to a cheap AR. Trying to compare a Mini 14 to an AR 15 is retarted...I don't know how to describe comparing it to the M1 garand. The Mini is a civilian weapon and has no buisness being compared to a military 5.56 weapon. Its totally outclassed.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 6:35:41 AM EDT
I think the mini 14 would have neccesitated a change in battle tactics. The fire and manuever we used needed the longer range and higher power of the garand. I do think the germans could have used it with little change to their battle plan with great efficiency.
For the pacific area of battle the mini 14 might have performed quite well. Sure we did pretty good with the M1 but for the japs, anything would have been an improvement.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 8:46:46 AM EDT
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 8:52:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The only thing wrong with the Mini-14 is you can't hit a barn from the inside with it.



Fixed it for ya.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:11:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 9:12:29 AM EDT by sic_ness]
Since it's all hypothetical, I want to know if anyone would consider the Mini14 if it WASN'T a contemporary product.

Like if The government arsenals created and produced it. I think the platform is a decent one (however I have little experience with the Mini), but they way it's executed is less than ideal for military purposes. If we had Winchester, Remington, and Springfield Armory turning them out, wouldn't they make a huge jump in quality/reliability?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:14:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 455SD:
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.



In what area exactly do you think the Mini is not sturdy enough? What parts don't hold up?

The Mini was never marketed as a military rifle; it was instead put on the market as a Police weapon, and in fact has sold quite well. There are Minis in Police service all over the world; I've seen the pics.

My main point is, if half the GIs preferred to carry the Carbine, think of the impact the Mini would have made, considering the killing power of the .223.

And, ever field stripped a Garand? All those flinking little pieces that have to fit back together just right. And can get lost.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:22:13 AM EDT
If the US Gvt. adopted the Mini 14 in the 1930 (Like the Garand) it would have worked out all the bugs & today we would be talking about how great a rifle it is.
A mini 14 with all forged parts & A high quality Mil spec. barrel would be such a bad thing??

+ We could have used the "A" team to win the war
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:35:44 AM EDT
4" groups, 20 yards. HELL NO (yes I have one, Yes it can burn your hand off after 3 rounds)
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 11:53:20 AM EDT
When we switched from the M 1 Garand to the M 14 there was much whining and gnashing of teeth among the troops in my company. The M14 was a piece of shit, the M1 was twice the rifle, etc.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 11:54:29 AM EDT
whodefuk cares?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 11:56:48 AM EDT

about half of the GIs in the field preferred to carry the M-1 Carbine, despite the anemic .30 carbine cartrige


I'd like to know where you come up with this. I have never once read anything remotely
like that, certainly not that half wanted it. Jeep drivers maybe, but no one
I've ever read about would have traded his M1 for a Carbine.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 1:19:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

about half of the GIs in the field preferred to carry the M-1 Carbine, despite the anemic .30 carbine cartrige


I'd like to know where you come up with this. I have never once read anything remotely
like that, certainly not that half wanted it. Jeep drivers maybe, but no one
I've ever read about would have traded his M1 for a Carbine.




IIRC Audie Murphy carried one by choice.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 1:44:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 1:51:08 PM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

about half of the GIs in the field preferred to carry the M-1 Carbine, despite the anemic .30 carbine cartrige


I'd like to know where you come up with this. I have never once read anything remotely
like that, certainly not that half wanted it. Jeep drivers maybe, but no one
I've ever read about would have traded his M1 for a Carbine.




IIRC Audie Murphy carried one by choice.



That is true. One seargeant does not make half of the GI's though.


Sergeants liked them because they were lighter and they were already carrying more
crap anyway.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 1:44:24 PM EDT
Probably GIs preferred the M1 carbine because it was lighter to carry.

Pat Rogers has commented that Mini-14s usually fail to function/break at some point during Gunsite carbine classes. They are simply not up to the task.

Maybe you should wonder if the M1 garand with a detachable mag in 5.56mm would have done well in WW2.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 2:16:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

about half of the GIs in the field preferred to carry the M-1 Carbine, despite the anemic .30 carbine cartrige


I'd like to know where you come up with this. I have never once read anything remotely
like that, certainly not that half wanted it. Jeep drivers maybe, but no one
I've ever read about would have traded his M1 for a Carbine.




IIRC Audie Murphy carried one by choice.



That is true. One seargeant does not make half of the GI's though.


Sergeants liked them because they were lighter and they were already carrying more
crap anyway.



Agreed, the "1/2 of all G.I.'s" comment was a bit of a stretch............

A M1 Garand scaled down to something like .243 Winchester or .257 Roberts might have been interesting, especially if it used a detatchable mag.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 2:44:35 PM EDT

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:03:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Agreed, the "1/2 of all G.I.'s" comment was a bit of a stretch............

A M1 Garand scaled down to something like .243 Winchester or .257 Roberts might have been interesting, especially if it used a detatchable mag.



IIRC the Garand was, in it's early development, chambered for the .276 Pederson, which was an 1/2" shorter. But MacArthur in all his wisdom said no use the .30-06, we got tons of it left over from WWI.

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:23:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brentwal:

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Agreed, the "1/2 of all G.I.'s" comment was a bit of a stretch............

A M1 Garand scaled down to something like .243 Winchester or .257 Roberts might have been interesting, especially if it used a detatchable mag.



IIRC the Garand was, in it's early development, chambered for the .276 Pederson, which was an 1/2" shorter. But MacArthur in all his wisdom said no use the .30-06, we got tons of it left over from WWI.




It's not like we wouldn't have had .30-06 chambered guns still in inventory. All the M1917 & M1919 Browning machine guns, the BAR & M1903 Springfield & M1917 Enfield bolt guns. The USN still had .30-06 Lewis guns also IIRC.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:25:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 455SD:
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.



I feel that's correct. The receiver of the mini is too soft, and will start to stretch after about 25000 rounds. That counts in a military weapon.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:51:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By 455SD:
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.



In what area exactly do you think the Mini is not sturdy enough? What parts don't hold up?

The Mini was never marketed as a military rifle; it was instead put on the market as a Police weapon, and in fact has sold quite well. There are Minis in Police service all over the world; I've seen the pics.

My main point is, if half the GIs preferred to carry the Carbine, think of the impact the Mini would have made, considering the killing power of the .223.

And, ever field stripped a Garand? All those flinking little pieces that have to fit back together just right. And can get lost.




Talk to anyone who owns an AC556 and shoots it a lot. Stuff breaks, like extractors and bolts, and they frequently go back to Ruger.

You are correct the mini was never marketed as a military weapon because it is not up to the task. It does great in LE roles because it rarely ever gets fired and it is cheap. Sure it is a very reliable weapon in a civilian role, but just won't cut it in a true military enviorment.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:26:47 PM EDT
Actually most GI's preferred to carry a Thompson..
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:39:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

Originally Posted By 455SD:
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.



I feel that's correct. The receiver of the mini is too soft, and will start to stretch after about 25000 rounds. That counts in a military weapon.



If the circa WW2 US military adopted the Mini 14 it would have a Nice Forged Receiver/Barrel/Bolt/Op rod that would last almost forever, Like USGI Garand Parts!!
I only wish Ruger made them that way!!
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:55:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:
If the circa WW2 US military adopted the Mini 14 it would have a Nice Forged Receiver/Barrel/Bolt/Op rod that would last almost forever, Like USGI Garand Parts!!
I only wish Ruger made them that way!!



+1
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:08:13 PM EDT
Don't know about the mini but something with a 30/40 rd mag might have been welcome.On the other hand trying to shoot from a foxhole or tench might be a pain. I remenber the bad old days when all I had was a mini with 30rounders and trying to stack sandbags to be able to shoot it off the bench.
I have never been in the military and of course never in a two way range situation (combat). I have a M1Garand and a M1Carbine and often take them to the range together.When I shoot the carbine I am always feeling what a handy little easy to hit package it is.The Garand is also easy to hit with and just screams "I am in charge now!!" just a power trip!I don't honestly know what one gun I would pick if I had to for some unknown combat situation.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:09:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brentwal:

Originally Posted By garr:
If the circa WW2 US military adopted the Mini 14 it would have a Nice Forged Receiver/Barrel/Bolt/Op rod that would last almost forever, Like USGI Garand Parts!!
I only wish Ruger made them that way!!



+1



+2

The Mini-14 is a good idea fvcked up by 1/2 assed execution. A true 5.56 scale M1 Garand or M14 would kick ass, the Ruger just ain't it.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:10:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brentwal:

Originally Posted By garr:
If the circa WW2 US military adopted the Mini 14 it would have a Nice Forged Receiver/Barrel/Bolt/Op rod that would last almost forever, Like USGI Garand Parts!!
I only wish Ruger made them that way!!



+1


+2

It always iritates me when people who should know better about weapons in general just further state old rumors/wives tales as fact.

The mini-14 is built to Civilian spec, built by a company that is nearly against private "evil" gun ownership, of course its not going to hold up like other weapons designed for that environment. Are you saying the action is bad design, hell its the same basic Garand/Carbine/M14 type weapon. I guess all those weapons suck to huh? [rollseyes] The Mini-14 is a 5.56mm M1 Carbine. If were one built to military spec (forged) it would be every bit as good as an AR and much more reliable.

I have a home made rigidity strut on mine ($25 in parts) thats made of two flash light clamps and some carbon steel tubing (dremeled out to slip over the gas block) and it greatly helps against barrel heating and helps with the mini's accuracy. That an an ultimak scout rail and mine will do 1.5 moa with the "top shelf" ammo and 2 moa with green tips at 100 meters.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:16:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

Originally Posted By 455SD:
I do not think the mini would hold up at all in a military enviorment. It would get beat to death.

I do not believe any military in the world has ever used the mini as a standard service weapon. This should tell you something.



I feel that's correct. The receiver of the mini is too soft, and will start to stretch after about 25000 rounds. That counts in a military weapon.



If the circa WW2 US military adopted the Mini 14 it would have a Nice Forged Receiver/Barrel/Bolt/Op rod that would last almost forever, Like USGI Garand Parts!!
I only wish Ruger made them that way!!



Is there any way to heat treat these components on a completed rifle, or is that too 'spensive to be practical?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:19:35 PM EDT
Go to perfectunion.com and the mini-14 board (its the arfcom of mini-14's)

A lot of guys have cryo-heat threated their guns. Only costs about 35 dollars plus shipping. It virtually eliminates stringing and the one off flyers. Should probably help with soft recievers, but honestly I've never had a problem with a "soft" on my gun. Dont know, mine was made in 95 or 96 so who knows.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:44:18 PM EDT
What, do they have just the barrel cryo'd or do they send the whole barreled reciever?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:00:56 AM EDT
The Garand itself is not that complicated in action. I hav never had a problem cleaning mine. And if you want to talk about small parts, look at the AR platform. Firing pin retainer anyone?

Also, there is the logistics question. A Mini14 as a battle rifle in the 40's would require the military to procure millions of rouns of .223 whereas the already had massive stocks of leftover 30-06 from the Great War some 20 years earlier.

I also dont know if I would believe that the extra range and power of the -06 was unnessisary or unneeded. .223 may be a man stopper, but -06 is a man, plane and car stopper. I have yet to see an aircraft fitted with .223 guns for attacking or defense. The doctrine of the day called for a heavy cartridge like -06. A lighter one would have equired a massive retooling of our tactics and way of thinking.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:28:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 3:42:35 AM EDT by Tweak]
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:16:13 AM EDT
If one has looked at the collector grade publications books (war baby 1&2) there is a carbine that Marsh williams perfected but was too late by several months to Be called or adopted as the M1 carbine..though winchester said it was an improvement over the M1 carbine that was adopted. That carbine was reserected in .224winchester(basicly .222magnum)for trials against the AR15
and lost. So in a round about way this very simular subject has come up...it just wasnt called a mini 14.....But we can see that carbine may have been the inspiration for the mini14 .

while there is no doubt that 5.56 would have done ok in WW2 just as it has since 1964 and counting...the question of what vehicle to fire it from would have factored in its success.
As well as any discovered shortcomings.....the mini 14 in police service does well but there are different conditions involved there...no storage outside for weeks on end, in rain, snow, and mud.
police weapons are babied more/used less than military guns . The Mini 14 could stand to have a heavier barrel, better rear sights, and some dust cover arraingement for that big hole you can see the hammer/internals though(yes the garand has that too but the parts are bigger and have a better chance of working despite of mud in the action)
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:47:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 8:51:46 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:48:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:05:05 AM EDT
Gosh, if we're debating the Mini14 vs. the M1 for the purposes of WW-II, then why not debate whether the M16 would have been better...

The M1 was the best standard infantry rifle of its time. By the same token, I don't think we should start issuing them to troops now. Times have changed.

But seriously, maybe I'm just not getting the whole point of this thread...

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top