Having both used the M-14 and the M-16 in the Army, my predilection is toward the Mini 14. I never cared for the gas system of the AR stuff. The traditional Garand style gas system (as well as the AK, Galil, and FN FAL styles) were more to my liking. And the new 801xxx serial numbered Mini 14's on up have far better barrels on them. One can even get an adjustable gas port to fine tune to type of load one is running thru it. And I am a traditional sort of old coot. I just plain like a wood stock M1 / M14 look. And if one is in a close quarters scrap, what is likely to get the job done better.... a hardwood stock or a plastic AR stock if one needs to butt stroke someone and keep them down. After all, we are talking about home defense here. And if one were to break the butt stock on either rifle, the AR is down for the count since the buffer and recoil spring use the butt stock. The Mini is still fully functional with a broken butt stock. Folks need to think beyond the rifle range. Since the AR and the Mini 14 shoot the same cartridge, I opt for the Mini. And MOA accuracy is not that critical in a fight, unless you want to engage that guy who is breaking into your house 2 blocks before he gets there.
Ruger Mini-14, yay or nay?
- Thread starter 28oz
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
Having both used the M-14 and the M-16 in the Army, my predilection is toward the Mini 14. I never cared for the gas system of the AR stuff. The traditional Garand style gas system (as well as the AK, Galil, and FN FAL styles) were more to my liking. And the new 801xxx serial numbered Mini 14's on up have far better barrels on them. One can even get an adjustable gas port to fine tune to type of load one is running thru it. And I am a traditional sort of old coot. I just plain like a wood stock M1 / M14 look. And if one is in a close quarters scrap, what is likely to get the job done better.... a hardwood stock or a plastic AR stock if one needs to butt stroke someone and keep them down. After all, we are talking about home defense here. And if one were to break the butt stock on either rifle, the AR is down for the count since the buffer and recoil spring use the butt stock. The Mini is still fully functional with a broken butt stock. Folks need to think beyond the rifle range. Since the AR and the Mini 14 shoot the same cartridge, I opt for the Mini. And MOA accuracy is not that critical in a fight, unless you want to engage that guy who is breaking into your house 2 blocks before he gets there.
Lots of good practical info here, thank you!
I am hoping to make it back to the gun shop tomorrow to ask about what they have in stock for new rifles.
I know buying used can make for a big cost savings, but I think I would have to have a lot more real world firearm knowledge to feel confident about buying something used...and I sure don't want to end up buying somebody else's problem.
Having both used the M-14 and the M-16 in the Army, my predilection is toward the Mini 14. I never cared for the gas system of the AR stuff. The traditional Garand style gas system (as well as the AK, Galil, and FN FAL styles) were more to my liking. And the new 801xxx serial numbered Mini 14's on up have far better barrels on them. One can even get an adjustable gas port to fine tune to type of load one is running thru it. And I am a traditional sort of old coot. I just plain like a wood stock M1 / M14 look. And if one is in a close quarters scrap, what is likely to get the job done better.... a hardwood stock or a plastic AR stock if one needs to butt stroke someone and keep them down. After all, we are talking about home defense here. And if one were to break the butt stock on either rifle, the AR is down for the count since the buffer and recoil spring use the butt stock. The Mini is still fully functional with a broken butt stock. Folks need to think beyond the rifle range. Since the AR and the Mini 14 shoot the same cartridge, I opt for the Mini. And MOA accuracy is not that critical in a fight, unless you want to engage that guy who is breaking into your house 2 blocks before he gets there.
Lots of good practical info here, thank you!
I am hoping to make it back to the gun shop tomorrow to ask about what they have in stock for new rifles.
I know buying used can make for a big cost savings, but I think I would have to have a lot more real world firearm knowledge to feel confident about buying something used...and I sure don't want to end up buying somebody else's problem.
No offense to Tired Trucker, while his input is not untrue, I feel that it would be a stretch to call some of it practical. Sure, while I'd probably rather have a heavy wooden stock over an AR style stock to butt stroke a bear, I really don't think it's gonna matter on a human target. I guarantee if you smacked someone in the head with the stock of an AR, they're gonna know it. The end result would be broken bones and possible permanent damage. Unless you've bought the cheapest stock known to man, the typical stock found on an AR is going to get someone's attention and possibly ruin their day. Not that I have an issue with it.
An AR's gas system is not some maintenance queen either. Also while a gas piston system can be more reliable in EXTREME use, the type of use we as civilians will give it, makes it a virtual non issue. Look up Iraq Veteran 8888 on youtube for failure videos on both. While the gas piston does typically outlast the direct impingement system, it not a realistic representation of actual use. The GPs will go to about 900-1200 rounds of sustained fire and the DI is in the 700ish round range. That's dozens of 30 and 40 round mags with 60 and 100 round mags being mixed in and being ran through on FULL AUTO without any pauses, until they die. What civilian is going to fire like that? None.
I see all kinds of suggestions to buy the AR over the mini because of this reason or that and to buy the mini because for this reason or that. The truth is, this being the Land of the Free and home of almost limitless choices for home defense firearms, you should absolutely buy whichever rifle makes you happy! Both are far more than adequate. Once you've made your purchase, you should then save up and buy the other. Because you can. Either way you decide, I hope you enjoy it!
An AR's gas system is not some maintenance queen either. Also while a gas piston system can be more reliable in EXTREME use, the type of use we as civilians will give it, makes it a virtual non issue. Look up Iraq Veteran 8888 on youtube for failure videos on both. While the gas piston does typically outlast the direct impingement system, it not a realistic representation of actual use. The GPs will go to about 900-1200 rounds of sustained fire and the DI is in the 700ish round range. That's dozens of 30 and 40 round mags with 60 and 100 round mags being mixed in and being ran through on FULL AUTO without any pauses, until they die. What civilian is going to fire like that? None.
I see all kinds of suggestions to buy the AR over the mini because of this reason or that and to buy the mini because for this reason or that. The truth is, this being the Land of the Free and home of almost limitless choices for home defense firearms, you should absolutely buy whichever rifle makes you happy! Both are far more than adequate. Once you've made your purchase, you should then save up and buy the other. Because you can. Either way you decide, I hope you enjoy it!
Yeah it is just preference colored by several years of experience. Many folks like the AR setup. I just never grew fond of it. It let me down on occasion and that tainted it for the rest of my life. Since military weapons like most things in the government are made by the lowest bidder, I probably just happened upon stinkers. I never belittle those who like the platform, but there is really nothing anyone can show that would convince me that it is a good platform. Some impressions that have been burned into one's mind can never be overcome.
Not only by the lowest bidder but in many cases they're handicapped right out of the gate or downgraded so to speak by the army. The M1, M14 and M16 are all examples of rifles that were altered or outright sabotaged from a solid design by the army. You tuber small arms solutions has several comprehensive videos on the topic.
I am really shaky about the details, but I remember reading that the severe fouling issues with the M16 gas tubes when it was introduced in the US Army were largely due to a change in the powder used that was not approved by Stoner.
I also remember that the Garand was designed for something like a .276 round but MacArthur forced a change to the .30-06...I don't know that there were any big negative consequences there other than lowering the number of rounds that a clip held.
I would go with the Mini 14 for sure if there weren't very capable ARs available at lower prices...the cost difference isn't going to break me, but the wife and I are looking at shelling out $6-7k for carpet soon and I'd like to minimize the total hit to our savings combined with buying Xmas gifts!
I also remember that the Garand was designed for something like a .276 round but MacArthur forced a change to the .30-06...I don't know that there were any big negative consequences there other than lowering the number of rounds that a clip held.
I would go with the Mini 14 for sure if there weren't very capable ARs available at lower prices...the cost difference isn't going to break me, but the wife and I are looking at shelling out $6-7k for carpet soon and I'd like to minimize the total hit to our savings combined with buying Xmas gifts!
The 5.56 powder was indeed the main culprit that caused a lot of early M-16 problems, and fail to extract issues were a factor also due to heavy bolt carbon fouling. But it also has to be faced, dumping the gasses directly onto the operating bolt carrier is not the most ideal of situations, In one early Marine account in Viet Nam, they left with 72 men in the platoon and returned with 19. The main reason for the high loss was primarily laid at the door of the M-16 rifle. Almost every dead Marine was found with his rifle stripped down, trying to fix it. That event is documented in one 1967 news report and one official Army manual.
Whereas, most firearms that incorporate operating rods that are gas driven tend to be more reliable. The gasses push the operating rod which in turn pushes the bolt. Fouling is less of a concern with those designs and are less effected when cartridge components are altered from original design.
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
Whereas, most firearms that incorporate operating rods that are gas driven tend to be more reliable. The gasses push the operating rod which in turn pushes the bolt. Fouling is less of a concern with those designs and are less effected when cartridge components are altered from original design.
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
I agree with everything else you say, but this bit is simply urban legend.
Interviews with German soldiers after war did not reveal a single soldier that was able to hear the ping over the gunfire, or would have been willing to poke their head out during the time it takes to reload a Garand. They actually laughed at the idea when questioned by Americans after their capture.
The ping means that one rifle is empty, for about 2 seconds (if you're loading a fresh clip from your belt), but a ping doesn't mean that soldier is alone, or that the other rifles nearby are empty.
Besides, if it had really worked to get the Germans (or later, the Chinese in Korea) to poke their heads up, wouldn't our soldiers have taken advantage of that? Just keep an empty clip and throw it against a rock to get your enemy to poke their heads out...yet there are no stories of anyone actually doing that...
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
I agree with everything else you say, but this bit is simply urban legend.
Interviews with German soldiers after war did not reveal a single soldier that was able to hear the ping over the gunfire, or would have been willing to poke their head out during the time it takes to reload a Garand. They actually laughed at the idea when questioned by Americans after their capture.
The ping means that one rifle is empty, for about 2 seconds (if you're loading a fresh clip from your belt), but a ping doesn't mean that soldier is alone, or that the other rifles nearby are empty.
Besides, if it had really worked to get the Germans (or later, the Chinese in Korea) to poke their heads up, wouldn't our soldiers have taken advantage of that? Just keep an empty clip and throw it against a rock to get your enemy to poke their heads out...yet there are no stories of anyone actually doing that...
Last edited:
The M1 was a really good rifle no doubt, but was originally spec'ed with a 20rd box mag. The army didn't want that because the troops would have wasted ammo. The issues with the M16 were many and varied. Powder was definitely an issue and caused more than just fouling issues. No cleaning kits was another- because the army was so against the idea, that they never planned on issuing them, so no cleaning kits. Magazines were another issue. Improper material for the receiver making them prone to corrosion issues. Improper barrel material made them prone to jamming- the chamber was not chromed, so corrosion/pitting was grab the cartridge and cause all sorts of troubles. There are more problems that were associated with the early M16s that were traced back the US Army, not it's designer, Eugene Stoner. I would encourage you to take some time and watch the video and take in all the minutia contained in it. It may well give some a different perspective.
Originally Posted by The_Eric
The M1 was a really good rifle no doubt, but was originally spec'ed with a 20rd box mag. The army didn't want that because the troops would have wasted ammo.
No, it actually was spec'ed with a 10 round internal magazine of .276 Pedersen. A shorter 7mm round, much shorter than the lengthy .30-06.
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur rejected the .276 Pedersen Garand in 1932 once he found out that it was technically feasible to build the M1 around the .30-06, which the Army already had in stock. The loss of two rounds of capacity was not considered important when viewed against the logistics/cost of two different kinds of ammunition during a time when the US Army had little money.
Internal magazines were thought to be less susceptible to the introduction of dirt/debris in the action than external box magazines.
The concern for wasting ammunition was legitimate when the Army first bought the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen in 1892. The Krag was the transition from large-bore, black-powder calibers to modern smokeless ammunition and was the first Army rifle to have a magazine. Its predecessor, the Model 1884 Springfield, itself an improvement on the 1873 Springfield of the same caliber, known as the "Trap-door" was a breech-loaded, single shot rifle in .45-70 (.45 caliber over 70 grains of black powder).
At that time, most Army units were re-supplied by horses and mules and it took months for re-supply. The Krag was equipped with a magazine cut-off that allowed the rifle to operate as a single shot* bolt action and local commanders could choose whether the magazine cut off was to be placed in the on (bolt loads from the magazine) or off (bolt functions as a single shot). It was thought that a soldier in a firefight (e.g. Little Bighorn, fought just after the introduction of the 1873 Springfield) could always flip the switch and access the full 5 round capacity of the magazine.
That concern, and that feature, were carried over into the Model 1903 Springfield.
So, at the time of the Garand's conception, re-supply by rail was demonstrated in the battlefields of WW I, and while the Army was still concerned about wasting ammo, it was far less of a concern than it had been with the previous generations of infantry weapons. With no first hand experience using box magazines, the Army stuck with the tried-and-true internal magazine for the M1 Garand.
*One of the reasons that the Krag-Jorgensen was adopted over competing designs is that its box magazine could be topped off without pulling the bolt to the rear. This was thought to have a practical/tactical advantage in combat, as reloading would not leave a soldier unable to fire immediately, as it would when the bolt was drawn to the rear to top off a magazine.
The M1 was a really good rifle no doubt, but was originally spec'ed with a 20rd box mag. The army didn't want that because the troops would have wasted ammo.
No, it actually was spec'ed with a 10 round internal magazine of .276 Pedersen. A shorter 7mm round, much shorter than the lengthy .30-06.
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur rejected the .276 Pedersen Garand in 1932 once he found out that it was technically feasible to build the M1 around the .30-06, which the Army already had in stock. The loss of two rounds of capacity was not considered important when viewed against the logistics/cost of two different kinds of ammunition during a time when the US Army had little money.
Internal magazines were thought to be less susceptible to the introduction of dirt/debris in the action than external box magazines.
The concern for wasting ammunition was legitimate when the Army first bought the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen in 1892. The Krag was the transition from large-bore, black-powder calibers to modern smokeless ammunition and was the first Army rifle to have a magazine. Its predecessor, the Model 1884 Springfield, itself an improvement on the 1873 Springfield of the same caliber, known as the "Trap-door" was a breech-loaded, single shot rifle in .45-70 (.45 caliber over 70 grains of black powder).
At that time, most Army units were re-supplied by horses and mules and it took months for re-supply. The Krag was equipped with a magazine cut-off that allowed the rifle to operate as a single shot* bolt action and local commanders could choose whether the magazine cut off was to be placed in the on (bolt loads from the magazine) or off (bolt functions as a single shot). It was thought that a soldier in a firefight (e.g. Little Bighorn, fought just after the introduction of the 1873 Springfield) could always flip the switch and access the full 5 round capacity of the magazine.
That concern, and that feature, were carried over into the Model 1903 Springfield.
So, at the time of the Garand's conception, re-supply by rail was demonstrated in the battlefields of WW I, and while the Army was still concerned about wasting ammo, it was far less of a concern than it had been with the previous generations of infantry weapons. With no first hand experience using box magazines, the Army stuck with the tried-and-true internal magazine for the M1 Garand.
*One of the reasons that the Krag-Jorgensen was adopted over competing designs is that its box magazine could be topped off without pulling the bolt to the rear. This was thought to have a practical/tactical advantage in combat, as reloading would not leave a soldier unable to fire immediately, as it would when the bolt was drawn to the rear to top off a magazine.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
I agree with everything else you say, but this bit is simply urban legend.
Interviews with German soldiers after war did not reveal a single soldier that was able to hear the ping over the gunfire, or would have been willing to poke their head out during the time it takes to reload a Garand. They actually laughed at the idea when questioned by Americans after their capture.
The ping means that one rifle is empty, for about 2 seconds (if you're loading a fresh clip from your belt), but a ping doesn't mean that soldier is alone, or that the other rifles nearby are empty.
Besides, if it had really worked to get the Germans (or later, the Chinese in Korea) to poke their heads up, wouldn't our soldiers have taken advantage of that? Just keep an empty clip and throw it against a rock to get your enemy to poke their heads out...yet there are no stories of anyone actually doing that...
I have read stories about US soldiers using empty Garand clips to make a little ping and lure enemies out of hiding to attack the "defenseless" guy who was obviously out of ammo...just stories, I would guess!
I notice that the M1 Carbine used a magazine...maybe THAT is the real reason dad traded his Garand for a carbine, to avoid getting killed by the ping!!
;^)
I guess I don't really know how often dad fired his carbine in anger as he started out in a mortar crew and ended up in the HQ company before it was all over, but I do have pics that prove he took some good looking deer with it in the Black Forest. I guess the HQ guys were the ultimate reserve force when things were really hitting the fan, and he told me that everybody was expecting to see desperate action when they faced down the 2nd Panzer at Celles in Belgium...but then a devastating series of rocket attacks by Hawker Typhoons softened up the Germans enough that the battle went much better than they expected.
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
The biggest M1 Garand problem was the clip. At the end of the 8 rounds, the clip they came in was discharged from the internal magazine with a distinctive "ping". Opposing troops learned that was then their opponent's rifle was empty.
I agree with everything else you say, but this bit is simply urban legend.
Interviews with German soldiers after war did not reveal a single soldier that was able to hear the ping over the gunfire, or would have been willing to poke their head out during the time it takes to reload a Garand. They actually laughed at the idea when questioned by Americans after their capture.
The ping means that one rifle is empty, for about 2 seconds (if you're loading a fresh clip from your belt), but a ping doesn't mean that soldier is alone, or that the other rifles nearby are empty.
Besides, if it had really worked to get the Germans (or later, the Chinese in Korea) to poke their heads up, wouldn't our soldiers have taken advantage of that? Just keep an empty clip and throw it against a rock to get your enemy to poke their heads out...yet there are no stories of anyone actually doing that...
I have read stories about US soldiers using empty Garand clips to make a little ping and lure enemies out of hiding to attack the "defenseless" guy who was obviously out of ammo...just stories, I would guess!
I notice that the M1 Carbine used a magazine...maybe THAT is the real reason dad traded his Garand for a carbine, to avoid getting killed by the ping!!
;^)
I guess I don't really know how often dad fired his carbine in anger as he started out in a mortar crew and ended up in the HQ company before it was all over, but I do have pics that prove he took some good looking deer with it in the Black Forest. I guess the HQ guys were the ultimate reserve force when things were really hitting the fan, and he told me that everybody was expecting to see desperate action when they faced down the 2nd Panzer at Celles in Belgium...but then a devastating series of rocket attacks by Hawker Typhoons softened up the Germans enough that the battle went much better than they expected.
'Bloke On The Range' on Youtube has a video where he tested out the Garand 'ping' stories. Suffice it to say, if his experience is anything to go by, there seems to be little truth to them.
As for the M1 Carbine, there was a Korean veteran at the gun club I used to go to as a kid in the UK who had one in Korea and hated it. From what I remember he said a full magazine wouldn't kill a North Korean soldier, and it wasn't strong enough to beat them to death when they charged you while you were out of ammo.
(Of course, it could be just another old-soldier's-tale, for all I know
)
As for the M1 Carbine, there was a Korean veteran at the gun club I used to go to as a kid in the UK who had one in Korea and hated it. From what I remember he said a full magazine wouldn't kill a North Korean soldier, and it wasn't strong enough to beat them to death when they charged you while you were out of ammo.
(Of course, it could be just another old-soldier's-tale, for all I know
)The main problem with the M1 Carbine round and use in Korea was that PRK and "volunteer" Chinese troops had very thick multiple layers of clothing due to the cold weather. This is why the M1 Carbine got a bad rap especially by the "frozen Chosen" at Chosin Reservoir event.
But M1 / M2 Carbines were used quite a bit in Viet Nam and they did a pretty good job. The cartridge has its limitations but still adequate in many situations like the close range fighting of VN and folks not bundled up like they are dealing with winter winds blowing out of Manchuria.
I realize that many stories about M1 Garand clip "pinging" may seem to be fantasy, but having fired a lot of M1 Garands, the ping is definitely a reality. and one is not going to get an M1 Garand loaded with another clip in 2 seconds. It is possible if one has a spare clip in one hand, but retrieving others from a cartridge belt, no way. Find someone who owns an M1 Garand and try it yourself, and not at a shooting bench where it is easy.
But M1 / M2 Carbines were used quite a bit in Viet Nam and they did a pretty good job. The cartridge has its limitations but still adequate in many situations like the close range fighting of VN and folks not bundled up like they are dealing with winter winds blowing out of Manchuria.
I realize that many stories about M1 Garand clip "pinging" may seem to be fantasy, but having fired a lot of M1 Garands, the ping is definitely a reality. and one is not going to get an M1 Garand loaded with another clip in 2 seconds. It is possible if one has a spare clip in one hand, but retrieving others from a cartridge belt, no way. Find someone who owns an M1 Garand and try it yourself, and not at a shooting bench where it is easy.
I'm very familiar with the M1 ping. The M1 ping is loud to the shooter, but not to an enemy at moderate distance, particularly when shooting is going on.
And a squad with just one one soldier who is reloading isn't vulnerable.
I don't need to "find someone" with a Garand, I own 4. Two Springfields, a Harrington & Richardson, and an International Harvester.
A properly tuned/timed Garand loads quickly. Most Garands these days have a worn bullet guide, which requires the op Rod handle to be bumped to close the bolt.
That's not how they work when properly timed. Insert clip and release your thumb, the bolt closes automatically.
It's about two seconds, with practice.
And a squad with just one one soldier who is reloading isn't vulnerable.
I don't need to "find someone" with a Garand, I own 4. Two Springfields, a Harrington & Richardson, and an International Harvester.
A properly tuned/timed Garand loads quickly. Most Garands these days have a worn bullet guide, which requires the op Rod handle to be bumped to close the bolt.
That's not how they work when properly timed. Insert clip and release your thumb, the bolt closes automatically.
It's about two seconds, with practice.
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
I realize that many stories about M1 Garand clip "pinging" may seem to be fantasy, but having fired a lot of M1 Garands, the ping is definitely a reality.
Perhaps on a range, on a warm sunny Saturday afternoon. Remember, most all soldiers are not wearing hearing protection. And it's doubtful if suddenly engaged in a combat situation they will first stop to put ear plugs in. Try firing a .30-06 rifle on a line with several others with no hearing protection. While at the same time getting shot at yourself. If the ping is remotely a "reality", it won't be after the first shot. Let alone after a magazine full.
I realize that many stories about M1 Garand clip "pinging" may seem to be fantasy, but having fired a lot of M1 Garands, the ping is definitely a reality.
Perhaps on a range, on a warm sunny Saturday afternoon. Remember, most all soldiers are not wearing hearing protection. And it's doubtful if suddenly engaged in a combat situation they will first stop to put ear plugs in. Try firing a .30-06 rifle on a line with several others with no hearing protection. While at the same time getting shot at yourself. If the ping is remotely a "reality", it won't be after the first shot. Let alone after a magazine full.
My stainless Mini 14 .223 has been my favorite firearm since I bought it 25 or so years ago. I can't remember even a single FTF or FTE ever. Iron sights, and accurate, more accurate than I am nowadays with my eyesight. Its a buy in my book.
It's like a Glock 19.
Everyone needs 1.
Everyone needs 1.
I've got both ARs and a Mini-14 otherwise known as the Ranch rifle, series 187 with scope mount dovetails in the receiver.
There's lots of parts and options to improve the Mini and a facebook group with lots of tips. I love the Mini, but it's not great until you mod
it which is half the fun:
1- It has a crazy heavy trigger, after market weaker disconnector spring helps
2 - not too accurate,
3 - action slams hard with more felt recoil then the same .223 round in an AR!
4 - needs a hard rubber buffer behind the op rod and one at the gas block.
5 - Barrel whip needs a "Accu-Strut" in the front but works they say.
6 - original gas bushing replaced with .050" or .060" smooths out action
7 - google mini-14, there a few good vendors with options.
There's lots of parts and options to improve the Mini and a facebook group with lots of tips. I love the Mini, but it's not great until you mod
it which is half the fun:
1- It has a crazy heavy trigger, after market weaker disconnector spring helps
2 - not too accurate,
3 - action slams hard with more felt recoil then the same .223 round in an AR!
4 - needs a hard rubber buffer behind the op rod and one at the gas block.
5 - Barrel whip needs a "Accu-Strut" in the front but works they say.
6 - original gas bushing replaced with .050" or .060" smooths out action
7 - google mini-14, there a few good vendors with options.
Originally Posted by i_hate_autofraud
I've got both ARs and a Mini-14 otherwise known as the Ranch rifle, series 187 with scope mount dovetails in the receiver.
There's lots of parts and options to improve the Mini and a facebook group with lots of tips. I love the Mini, but it's not great until you mod
it which is half the fun:
1- It has a crazy heavy trigger, after market weaker disconnector spring helps
2 - not too accurate,
3 - action slams hard with more felt recoil then the same .223 round in an AR!
4 - needs a hard rubber buffer behind the op rod and one at the gas block.
5 - Barrel whip needs a "Accu-Strut" in the front but works they say.
6 - original gas bushing replaced with .050" or .060" smooths out action
7 - google mini-14, there a few good vendors with options.
Yep, Ruger just does not(or at least didn't) build them to be tack drivers. Inconsistent gas block pressure on the barrel, creepy trigger, etc. https://www.offthegridnews.com/self-defense/the-ruger-mini-14s-biggest-problem-and-how-to-fix-it/
I've got both ARs and a Mini-14 otherwise known as the Ranch rifle, series 187 with scope mount dovetails in the receiver.
There's lots of parts and options to improve the Mini and a facebook group with lots of tips. I love the Mini, but it's not great until you mod
it which is half the fun:
1- It has a crazy heavy trigger, after market weaker disconnector spring helps
2 - not too accurate,
3 - action slams hard with more felt recoil then the same .223 round in an AR!
4 - needs a hard rubber buffer behind the op rod and one at the gas block.
5 - Barrel whip needs a "Accu-Strut" in the front but works they say.
6 - original gas bushing replaced with .050" or .060" smooths out action
7 - google mini-14, there a few good vendors with options.
Yep, Ruger just does not(or at least didn't) build them to be tack drivers. Inconsistent gas block pressure on the barrel, creepy trigger, etc. https://www.offthegridnews.com/self-defense/the-ruger-mini-14s-biggest-problem-and-how-to-fix-it/
Originally Posted by hatt
I'd pass at $600. You can get a decent AR for that which will be better in every way. Including millions of cheap mags. Ruger factory mags are $$$.
ETA: those mini ranch guns really don't bring out my inner A Team.
If accuracy is important to you , much easier to achieve with an AR .
The mini is a fun gun to shoot , reminded me of shooting a M1 Carbine .
I'd pass at $600. You can get a decent AR for that which will be better in every way. Including millions of cheap mags. Ruger factory mags are $$$.
ETA: those mini ranch guns really don't bring out my inner A Team.
If accuracy is important to you , much easier to achieve with an AR .
The mini is a fun gun to shoot , reminded me of shooting a M1 Carbine .
- Status
