AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR vs. Mini 14 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/19/2005 4:20:46 PM EDT
| A guy was saying a while back, that a mini 14 is a all around better rifle, and how the military should use them....thoughts? ( i have a M4 and i have shot a mini 14, just need it from experts in writing...) |
| Alright, I'm not an expert, and the mini 14 isn't all that bad of a gun from what I can tell. But they are known for not being all that accurate out of the box. I think most would agree the ergonomics of an ar is far superior. Even though I like the feel of an old battle rifle style, I got to admit, the ar is more user friendly. |
 The Mini is a bad copy of the best rifles ever designed (M1 Garand & M14). The AR15/M16 is FFFAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR better than the Mini in every way. Ergonomics Accuracy Portability (it's got a carry handle for G*D's sakes  )Versatility (NO Competition here at all) Aftermarket support I don't see whay anyone would pick a Mini over an AR for anything other than price. WIZZO |
|
Well, you are going to get a lot of dogma on this question, because people love their ARs. Shucks, I love my AR. But I'm not dogmatic about it. So far, no one has given you an answer that was anything more than opinion, because they did not back it up with anything objective. So, let's back up. The only way the question makes sense is if you change it a little. "Is the Mini-14 a better weapon than an AR for XYZ purpose?" Now we can talk. For instance, I saw a Mini-14 in a gunshop on Sunday that I am thinking about going back to buy. It was in stainless steel, and had a folding butt on a synthetic stock. Nice and small and durable, which is what I am looking for in a trunk gun. As a trunk gun, it would be preferable to an AR, because it is a lot less expensive and I would not care so much about it taking the normal dings and dongs of traveling mile after mile in the rear of my car, in summer heat and humidity, winter cold, etc. I'm just not going to buy an AR and subject it to that kind of treatment. Some would, in which case they would not consider the Mini-14 as superior. So, is it better for military purposes? Then you've got to define what kind of military purpose. Infantry? Special operations? Coast Guard interdiction efforts? See what I mean? |
| Ruger needs to design a much better barrel for this thing, other than that, i lovehttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/Melvinator2ko/100_0112.jpg it. |
|
Magazines. Come on, I can't believe no one has said that yet. Reliable mags for the mini are much harder to find and a lot more expensive. I own both and that is my biggest complaint. The safety on the the min is more combersome to opperate. ETA I suppose if it was a military weapon that really wouldn't be any issue, but it currently is. |
| i like the Mini 14 but i'd never take it over my SP1...i took them both shooting today and i got a better grouping with the SP1 (pics on the pic thread), even though i'm not the best shot. anywho, the AR15 is a much more customizable system and i have no problem with it. two things i dont like about the Mini 14 are the magazines arent the easiest to get in and out. and two: the sight is too low...it seems wierd firing because it kinda looks hooded or enclosed to me...i just like the M16/AR15 peep sight better...but whatever floats your boat... |
|
Depends on the Mini-14. Used to have a circa 1983 Ranch Rifle, back when they first came out. 2" groups at 100 yards all day long, including using surplus ammo. With the integral scope mounts and Ruger Rings it was a solid platform for a scope. Now days you can get a flattop AR15 with a wide range of aftermarket scope mounts, but back in the early 80's your choices for the AR were either the Colt 4x scopes, or a carry handle mount (Leatherwood or B-Square). Often using any large magnification optics on the carry handle required installing the Delta Elite style cheek piece. Having to remove the A1 stock to install and remove the cheekpiece was a hassle. As I recall in those days the AR15 still suffered from the stigma of Vietnam, the SP1 was looked down upon by the WW2 generation and many Korean War vets as the toy from Mattel. Since the Ruger Mini-14 was based on the tried and true M1 Garand design, this was looked upon with more favor in the marketplace. That and low price (about a hundred bucks cheaper than an AR15 around that time) explains why there are so many vintage Mini-14 rifles around. |
|
The mini would better be compared to the Kel-tec su-16 line of rifles. How the SU-16 beats the mini: More Accurate better available mags lighter weight standard synthetic stock (more durable than wood) cheaper mounts optics easier (integral rail) oinboard magazine storage How the AR/M4 beats the mini or su-16: combat proven 30 years of improvements to the weapon system reloads faster and easier parts much more available arguably the best ergonomics of any issued US millitary rifle (better than su-16 or mini14) multiple optic/sight possibilities barrel freefloats easily inherintly more accurate man sized targets at 600 yards are no problem if the shooter is up to the task easier than the mini to dissaseble/reassemble extremly durable stock (multiple options available from the factory) has a forward assist (niether mini or su have one) multiple flash hidders/accesroies available can easily be changed to adapt to a particular mission from 11" bbl entry gun to 24" 1/2 MOA varminter dessigned for a 5.56 round not a .223 (you can safely shoot surpluss ammo through an AR) Bayonette lug available in semi auto, full auto and burst |
|
I have owned Mini-14's for about 25 yrs. With good mags such as PMI/Federal Ordnance, the Mini-14 is ultrareliable. It goes bang every time. I am sure the mag problem will be taken care of by the freemarket soon. The inaccuracy has three main causes: (1) Skinny barrel. In fact, about the same size as the old original M16 pencil barrel. And the accuracy of those was about on par with the average Mini-14. Ruger could easily fix this problem, and offer a heavier barrel, but for some reason, won't. Cost increase would be negligable. They could charge more for a heavy barrel version. Whoever made the decision to not make a heavier barrel is cheating the stockholders and should be fired. (2) Loose crappy wood. No excuse. With this I will also toss in ergonomics. Easy fix, replace the stock with (a) Choate E2 Pistol Grip Stock, (b) Choate Folding Stock, (c) Choate Convention Stock, or (d) Butler Creek Folding Stock. These fit tightly, and this change alone will cut group sizes in half. I have demonstrated this on a number of occasions. (3) Poor rear sights. There are a number of ways to improve it, several aftermarket rear sights, and some quick fixes for the wobbling rear sight blade. Or you can buy a Ranch Rifle and use a good scope. Drawbacks, Ruger parts are hard to get. Forget stocking up on firing pins, hammer, trigger, "secondary sear" (aka disconnector), bolt, etc. The Ruger hoops to get these parts is ridiculous. The biggest drawback: Bill Ruger and Ruger "policies". I'll never own another Ruger product. |
|
I miss My Mini-14. Mine fit me like a glove. Great handling rifle. Traded it to get one of the last H&R Garands made. Should have dug deeper into my pockets instead. In a room crowded with zombies, the Mini-14 Ranch is your best choice. Get one with the bullet and the other with the spent casings that zooms off to your right at s spped just short of Mach I. My Mini was very accurate for the first three shots. Maybe 2" at 100 yards. It would open up after that. For hunting it is a pretty good rifle. You should hit the animal on the first shot right? I could break clay pigeons at 50 yards all day with it. In close quarter combat it would rival the AR. I also liked the wood stock. As stated earlier, ultra reliable. If Ruger would have made the barrel just a little bit heavier, it would be a worthy opponent for the AR family of rifles. |
If you can't do better than that, then stay away from Mini-14s. My buddy gets 3" groups at 200 yds. Yes, he uses a 4x scope. But it shows that the rifle can do a lot better than 8 in. at 100 yds. It's the man, not the machine. |
I read it in a gun magazine. 
|
| They should make the mini14 according to the materials used in the M14,8620 forged steel receiver and a quality chrome lined barrel and good reliable steel mags and that would be an improvement.As it stands get the mini real hot and see how reliable and accurate it is then.The military at one time did evaluate it I think it was called the AC556 selctfire version...deemed good for police work but not robust enough for hard military use. |
|
My old mini has a better trigger than my ARs, and better than most any semiauto. It's also light. Back in the early '80s I did my own live round CQB drills in the yard with all my guns and the mini kicked ass for getting on target fast and accurately with irons. I didn't have an AR to compare with at the time, but I think mini would still win. I thought it was the ultimate close range fast fighting rifle for shooting at house length distances. It even beat my .30-30  |
|
Mini vs Ar15 the Ar wins this being said the Mini could be great if ruger didnt ruck it up. they need me. I will fix it for them It needs -heavier bbl, chrome lined with 1/8 twist -better sights, -forged parts, -factory Folder -factory mags in the 20-30rd style -threaded bbl. |
No, I have watched him do it. Repeatedly. It's not that remarkable a feat for crying out loud. |
|
The Mini-14 is designed and built as a plinker. It's inherent accuracy isn't that far off what you can do with an AR, but it's the luck of the draw whether or not you get one that can live up to that accuracy. Mine is pretty good, but I don't expect it to give me 1MOA accuracy. A good AR is made with a forged aluminum upper and lower for strength and lightness. Mini-14s are made with investment cast steel receivers; that's inexpensive and they hold pretty good tolerances, but it's nowhere near the tolerances you can get with a machined forging. The Mini-14 barrel is designed for its appearance more than its stiffness, which give you some interesting whip when you fire it. The operating system mimics the M14's, but being made of investment cast parts, it's looser than optimum for accuracy, and when they shrunk it, they didn't adjust certain dimensions to ensure that it works every time. It's also dependent on its stock for parts alignment, which brings into play a lot of variables that can affect accuracy negatively. Don't get me started on the original sights! If I had to choose one, I'd go with the AR every time. Since I can have both, I'll keep the Mini to play with, and stay serious with the AR. |
|
Now thats funny people giving merit to the mini14 based on its official use by MR T and the "A" Team.Its good enough for BA but not for the US military..I guess the government made a mistake going with the M16.Maybe the A team should evaluate the XM8 and use that in their come back showBy the way Confederate the A team were just really actors just because FACE was also starbuck on battle star galactica dosent mean we should dump the FA18 Hornet in favor of a colonial viper.
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR vs. Mini 14 (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor