PDA

View Full Version : Whats wrong with the Ruger Mini-14?


Nero45
May 6, 2010, 03:47 PM
I've got a friend thats wanting to sell a Ruger Mini-14 with colapsable stock. I haven't seen it yet but from what he's told me it sounds good but everything that I see on these sounds like they are not really that great. Why? Whats so bad about the Mini-14? They seem to be based on one of the greatest battle rifles of all time, the M-1. Please explain, thank you.

DnPRK
May 6, 2010, 04:01 PM
Having owned 3 Mini-14s. All were very reliable with factory magazines, but had mediocre accuracy, 6"-8" groups at 100 yards.

The one Mini-14 I bought new stayed in the back of my safe for years. A couple weeks ago, I did some of the modifications from Perfectunion.com and added a Mo-Rod, 1911 buffers, a 0.045" gas bushing, torqued the gas block screws and replaced the sloppy loose factory wood stock with a tight fitting factory composite stock. That's and additional $205 in parts. I haven't shot it yet to see if it made a difference in accuracy.

For the price of base Mini-14 and mods, you can get a base 20" AR-15 that is both accurate and reliable out of the box.

Scorch
May 6, 2010, 04:04 PM
Ruger Mini-14s are rugged and reliable, but they acquired a well-deserved reputation as lead-slingers, many of them not capable of hitting a soda can at 100 yds. Accuracy with them can be hit-and-miss, but they are typically very reliable. When I lived and worked in NV, ranchers would carry them around in saddle scabbards "just in case". Even when dirty, sandy, and dry, they worked fine, and may be one of the few truly "cowboy-proof" guns out there.

zombieslayer
May 6, 2010, 04:23 PM
"What's wrong with the Ruger Mini?"
Absolutely nothing wrong with the two I've bought. I have an AR and I love it, but the Mini is my favorite rifle I own for all-aroud use. Just my 2cents

Bartholomew Roberts
May 6, 2010, 04:35 PM
The only thing wrong with the Mini is the price. The cheapest I found for a new Mini was $630. At that number, I think price > features.

MalinoisFan
May 6, 2010, 05:09 PM
Nothing wrong if you put some work into it. My Mini is an older 182 series with the thin barrel. I bout it 4 years ago used for 275.00 then went to the PerfectUnion.com to learn. First I bedded the stock, very solid. Then added a HarBar barrel stabilizer and an Almega Ranges Mini14 Scout Rail and finally retorqed(sp) the gas block. Now it shoots 2MOA (sometimes better) from a bench all day long. As others have said its a very reliable rifle and now mine is accurate to boot! My biggest issue with the new Minis is price. With my upgrades I have about 500.00 in the rifle and it works for me. I also own an AR and a Saiga 7.62 but the Mini is the best looking of the 3! Look for a used and spend some more on some upgrades and you have a good reliable shooter. Also The PerfectUnion.com is a wealth of info for Mini owners.

Ozzieman
May 6, 2010, 05:39 PM
Having owned 2 Mini-14's one blued and one stainless, I totally agree with DnPRK. very rugged and reliable but accuracy? I have a cheep Chinese AK47 that I can group better that I could with ether of the 14's.

rickyrick
May 6, 2010, 07:10 PM
I have owned two in my life, first one was in the 80's a stainless, never noticed a problem with it, sold it when I got broke....regretted ever since.

now I have a blued one late 2009
production, and I got a pretty accurate one... lucky maybe.

I do want to add a muzzle brake, and gas bushing mod to tame the recoil a little.

uncyboo
May 6, 2010, 07:29 PM
Nothing at all wrong with them as long as you don't demand a tack driver. They are plenty accurate for what they were intended for....medium range handi as you can get truck gun.

KMO
May 6, 2010, 07:49 PM
What's wrong with the Ruger Mini-14?

I suppose one could ask this about any firearm, and there will always be something to point at and deem a fault. With the Mini-14, the knock has always been accuracy. Has it been overstated? I believe so. If someone owns a Mini with the traditional barrel that Ruger produced for decades, and the owner wants to improve the accuracy, there are certainly some inexpensive upgrades that will tighten up the target groups. Ruger has ultimately made some changes with the introduction of the tapered barrel, and this has been a nice improvement. Overall, the Mini-14 is a rugged, well-designed carbine that will perform well under most any circumstances. One can have a tactical look, or go with a more traditional ranch setup. It's an extremely versatile rifle.

Firepower!
May 6, 2010, 08:21 PM
Didnt we just finished this discussion a few days back? We spent over six pages and discussed this topic to death,

themusgrat
May 6, 2010, 08:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with it. It does what it does very well. If you need to be shooting 1 MOA at 100 yards, then you need something other than a ranch rifle.

Nnobby45
May 6, 2010, 08:40 PM
On the pro side, they're utterly reliable. None of the 3 I owned ever hiccupped.

Cons are that the thin bbl. heats up and accuracy deteriorates to where you have, essentially, covering fire by the time you've fired 20 rds. Rounds start going low and left. My 187 series falls into that category.

Even so, it would take a pretty big fire fight to lose acceptable accuracy.

However, my new 587 series does not heat up as fast with it's heavier bbl. I put 30 rds. thru mine fairly rapidly and 100 yd accuracy still put most rds. on a 9" plate. Barrel was REAL hot. This shorter bbl'd version is excellent for HD or primary AR. I have an AR15 H-Bar with Eotech, but it's the Mini 14 that I grab and take with me for security when I go to shoot on public land (where I'm usually outs there all by myself).:cool:

Edward429451
May 6, 2010, 09:24 PM
AFAIK the only thing wrong with the Mini was the twist rate. I measured all of mine and got 1-7". They brought these Minis out when the Gubmint was dumping millions of rounds of 55 gr ball ammo on the surplus market. They changed the twist recently and that's why the one poster "got lucky" and it shoots. The older Mini's with the 1-7" should shoot 69 gr bullets ok, maybe even the 77's:) (But still only for 5 shots):rolleyes:

w_houle
May 6, 2010, 09:29 PM
I thought the accuracy issue was because of them having a 5.56x45 chamber?

EdInk
May 6, 2010, 09:37 PM
I've had my eyes on one for a little while now too. From the research I've done they are great M1/M14 styled rifles made for the smaller 5.56/.223
cartridge. They have never been super precision rifles like the AR but they are way more reliable. The more recent "508" series seem to have alot of the accuracy issues worked out.

Stevie-Ray
May 6, 2010, 10:05 PM
I'm generally a Ruger fan, but I always thought the Mini a good $300 gun. So obviously, I find it overpriced.

Bamashooter
May 6, 2010, 10:07 PM
maybe back in the day they werent that good, but the ones they are making now are much better rifles. mine is a 580 series thin barrel. it has a tapco stock. trigger job. retorqued gas block. accustrut, and wilson 1911 recoil buffers. right around 150 dollars in upgrades without the stock. it will shoot 1-1.5 moa @ 100yrds without stringing the shots and tearing up brass. thats from a rest but basicly what im saying is there is nothing wrong with mini's. a little TLC and you will have a fine rifle that will get the job done. my mini has never had any kind of FTF or FTE and i use ruger and Pro-mag magazines. BTW mine has a 1/9 twist. i reload Sierra 60gr. and 69gr. it is most accurate with the 60gr. suprisingly enough.

salvadore
May 6, 2010, 10:44 PM
I posted in another thread that I am getting 1.5" groups with my reloads, but more like 4"+ groups with winchester white box 5.56X45s. Mine is a new tactical 16" with flash hider.

Nero45
May 7, 2010, 02:22 AM
Thank you for your input. I knew that people would praise this gun for how good it was and then turn around and bash it. To me it made no sense, now I know why it people say the things they do about it. Its kind of sad that the it isn't as accurate as the AR. You would think that Ruger would have worked on that being that most of their guns are quite accurate such as the 10/22. Still again thanks for the info. We'll see my choices from the friend are the Ruger and an AK (also known for being reliable but not accurate as a SKS :D)

handlerer2
May 7, 2010, 03:31 AM
I have owned both 10-22 and Mini-14. I still own a 580 series mini-14. I don't consider either having braggable accuracy. Both are fine for what they are. The 10-22 was very handy in a canoe and accurate enough inside 50yds to kill a snake or a squirrel. Mini-14's don't have great bench accuracy, but they are not benchrest rifles. It will point of cayote at 200yds and I take it when camping and most always have bunny bones to lure cayote that night. If you want to shoot 1" holes in paper then, by all means a highend AR is for you. If you are going to use it, not fondle and talk baby talk to it then the Mini may be for you.

skoro
May 7, 2010, 06:59 AM
They seem to bring out the grouch in AR fans.

They have a reputation for mediocre accuracy.

The one I got last year has pretty decent accuracy and is a whole lotta fun to shoot. I haven't done a thing to it besides mount a 2-7x scope and put a sling on it.

KMO
May 7, 2010, 07:53 AM
If you are going to use it, not fondle and talk baby talk to it then the Mini may be for you.

LOL! :D

Bartholomew Roberts
May 7, 2010, 08:17 AM
They seem to bring out the grouch in AR fans.

That is probably because these days they are priced as much as a low-end AR; but don't have the same pluses that an AR has.

Like I said, $630 was the best price I found on a new Mini. $599 gets me a CMMG bargain bin rifle and CDNN is running a special right now ($699 for a S&W MP15 ORC with 18 magazines with the purchase of another firearm). If I want to venture into the parts kit world, then I can find several more ARs in that price range. I think Model 1 is offering an SPR parts kit at $620 with everything except the lower.

On the low end, it loses out to the Saiga .223, which is capable of doing everything the Mini can do; it just won't look as pretty doing it and will have even worse ergonomics.

uncyboo
May 7, 2010, 09:37 AM
Quote:
If you are going to use it, not fondle and talk baby talk to it then the Mini may be for you.

LOL!
__________________


Yep, now that's funny there....

rickyrick
May 7, 2010, 11:55 AM
"The 10-22 was very handy in a canoe and accurate"



Weird paddle...lol :D

uncyboo
May 7, 2010, 01:04 PM
"The 10-22 was very handy in a canoe and accurate"


Hope a snake doesn't fall in the bottom of the boat....:D

Edward429451
May 7, 2010, 02:07 PM
I thought the accuracy issue was because of them having a 5.56x45 chamber?

My Mini does like milspec brass better than commercial. I never heard the chamber worked against it. I have both, Mini & AR and I wouldn't sell either one. They fill different niches for me.

Even at 6" it will fill its intended use. Coyotes! Yeah right, coyotes. That's my story and I'm stickin to it...

rickyrick
May 7, 2010, 05:35 PM
When I shoot 5.56 NATO my mini is not as loud to me, more of a distinct 'crack' maybe the different velocity or something, i ain't no ballistician'ologigist guy though.

Lloyd Smale
May 8, 2010, 06:52 AM
they were a good buy back when the cost half what a basic ar did. Now for what you pay for one you can buy an ar that is just as reliable and much more accurate, easier to maintain and clean and easier to find parts and acessorys for.

RT
May 8, 2010, 07:16 AM
Sorry guys, I found this funny
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Funny%20pics/Minitarget.png

KMO
May 8, 2010, 07:40 AM
The AR cult strikes again...

Spartan23
May 8, 2010, 07:45 AM
Well, i would never trust a gun that has "Mini" on its name, but can't you equip it with longer barrel and "fix" it to perform better?

But if i can have guns like you guys from US do, i would probably got a AR-15 and of course "fix" it, just a bit.:cool:

tulsamal
May 8, 2010, 10:29 AM
they were a good buy back when the cost half what a basic AR did.

And think that's the basic problem with the current production guns. Back when you could go into Wal-Mart and buy one for <$300, they were a nifty option. I just can't see how they can compete now at close to price parity with the AR's.

They are neat looking little rifles. I've fired a few at the range over the years and they were always fun.

Gregg

Kmar40
May 8, 2010, 10:44 AM
They seem to be based on one of the greatest battle rifles of all time, the M-1.
It's not. It's more directly related to the M1 Carbine.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 8, 2010, 10:46 AM
And think that's the basic problem with the current production guns. Back when you could go into Wal-Mart and buy one for <$300, they were a nifty option.

Ah! But Ruger has an answer for that - they are now selling their own AR15 fpr $1,500 - making the Mini-14 half the cost of an AR again ;)

jmr40
May 8, 2010, 10:50 AM
^

I got heavily involved in the last discussion so I'm staying out of this one, but that is funny. Good way of thinking of it.

Lloyd Smale
May 9, 2010, 08:22 AM
why do you think ruger markets a 1500 dollar loaded ar. If they marketed a 700 dollar stripper they probably would loose 90 percent of there mini sales.

stubbicatt
May 10, 2010, 09:08 AM
I'm convinced after reading a dozen threads or more on this or a very similar topic that that AR owners have an ego thing going on here that they vent on the Mini14. I understand that from a benchrest the AR is more accurate. How many people shoot exclusively from a benchrest? I know I don't. And in the field how many people realize the accuracy "potential" of a benchrested AR15? Pretty few I'd warrant.

From standing or other field positions other factors figure in to an accurate rifle. Here, the high sight line on the AR doesn't help it much. Any cant in the rifle will throw a shot left or right easily. The lower sight radius on the Mini14 will not have such a pronounced effect.

The safety location on the Mini14 is quite nice. The rock in magazine is a feature for some, myself included. Assures a better magazine lock up than the AR style "jam it in and bend the lips" type of magazine.

The more traditional stock available on many models of Mini14 is a feature some people prefer. Some like the pistolgrips.

Unfortunately the Mini 14 magazines are more expensive than the AR15 mags. Scoping a Mini is not as easy as the AR series flat top receivers, but then again, even scoped, the Mini14 has a lower sight radius than the AR15. Cleaning the Mini14 is a "from the muzzle" proposition, something I don't particularly like.

Either rifle will perform adequately in a civilian application.

But unlike many, who seem to be tied up in "what I have is better than what you have because who I am is better than who you are" sort of mentality, my enjoyment of the Mini14 is not contingent upon the approval of others, nor does their expensive toy make them a better rifleman, nor do fragile egos make a better human being. Even those who have demonstrated superior skills with the AR than I can ever muster, no matter what rifle I'm shooting, do not change the fact that for me, the Mini14 is a better rifle. I just like it better! :)

Enjoy your rifles gents. Be happy. Shoot frequently.

darkgael
May 10, 2010, 09:24 AM
Reliable. Handy. Fun to shoot.
Mediocre out of the box accuracy.
That is about right.
A good gun to buy used to keep on the boat or in the truck.

Pete

salvadore
May 10, 2010, 09:32 AM
I'm not getting mediocre accuracy. I need to get out to the range again to confirm, but my reloads work fine.

Art Eatman
May 10, 2010, 09:51 AM
darkgael, the Mini is as good on first-shot hits as anything I've ever used--and that's a bunch of sub-MOA critters. That groups open up after the third shot or thereabouts is meaningless to most uses away from punching paper.

I want to know, how could I improve over having the first shot go where I intend for it to go?

Bamashooter
May 10, 2010, 01:18 PM
mine shoots moa the first group, the second group, the third group... you get the idea. accustrut, mo-rod, h-bar eliminates shot stringing. period.. so now its a matter of accuracy. my ruger is solid moa shooter every shot, not just the first 3 or 4. with the accustrut and a couple other inexpensive upgrades it a fantastic rifle. not a freakin boat or truck gun.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 10, 2010, 01:34 PM
Without in any way, slighting the Mini-14, I just noticed these two points that seemed to not really support the argument you were making and couldn't resist the chance to nitpick :)

From standing or other field positions other factors figure in to an accurate rifle. Here, the high sight line on the AR doesn't help it much. Any cant in the rifle will throw a shot left or right easily. The lower sight radius on the Mini14 will not have such a pronounced effect.

If the line of sight on an AR is a hindrance to accuracy, it certainly hasn't stopped it from dominating Service Rifle and many other shooting competitions - including beating out many rifles with a lower line of sight such as the M1 and M14. I also don't know that it does your argument much good to bring up a field of shooting competition where the Mini-14 is conspicuous by its absence.

The safety location on the Mini14 is quite nice.

I am not a big fan of having to stick my finger inside the trigger guard to remove the safety myself; so I would submit that is more of a personal preference thing. From an institutional firearms purchasing standpoint, it seems that these types of safeties have gone the way of the dodo. I would presume that is because large institutions dealing with a lot of new shooters found it problematic as well.

The rock in magazine is a feature for some, myself included. Assures a better magazine lock up than the AR style "jam it in and bend the lips" type of magazine.

Is that actually a problem with the AR15? I've never noted it in the past. Exactly what part of the rifle are the feed lips coming in contact with that they get bent?

johnwilliamson062
May 10, 2010, 01:44 PM
I'm convinced after reading a dozen threads or more on this or a very similar topic that that AR owners have an ego thing going on here that they vent on the Mini14. I understand that from a benchrest the AR is more accurate. How many people shoot exclusively from a benchrest? I know I don't. And in the field how many people realize the accuracy "potential" of a benchrested AR15? Pretty few I'd warrant.
I think this is the key, especially on new production minis. If you are going to the range and shooting off a bench with it the AR is really going to seem to be more accurate. In the field probably not so much. The new barrels seem to have made a big difference though, so maybe the old ones are no good at all. I like my mini a lot. A whole bunch more than my AR.

rickyrick
May 10, 2010, 02:15 PM
I went out the other day and checked the zero on my scope while a had a low wind opportunity...twenty consecutive shots made a hole the size of a quarter at 50yds...I don't know what it'll do at 100+ yds but I've never missed a critter...it's been 20 years since i owned my first mini, I don't recall any problems, but when I think back it may have been stringing because I remember spending a day trying to zero my first one.

I miked my barrel yesterday and the outside diameter is .625 don't remember the older specs but I think they were .5somthing

ostrobothnian
May 10, 2010, 02:23 PM
I like them. The fun factor is high. The fit and finish is fantastic (better than that prison labor built com bloc stuff). They are a good rifle for the guy that likes to tinker and practice with different ammunition. I happen to like they way they shoulder too.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k152/finlandssvensk/miniforum009.jpg

Rifles are tools. Choose the right tool for the job. An F1 car isn't the same thing as a nitro burning funny car either but they both do their jobs.

When my son gets a little older and we hit the woods, the mini will be what he has on his shoulder. They are also good for women :).

Note: Also have "other" 5.56 rifles. Wanted to keep all information given positive in the post. AR vs. Mini posts I won't respond to. Those type of posts make me want to grab a scythe and bash my computer monitor. :)

Best of luck with your decision.

Crosshair
May 10, 2010, 07:20 PM
If the line of sight on an AR is a hindrance to accuracy, it certainly hasn't stopped it from dominating Service Rifle and many other shooting competitions - including beating out many rifles with a lower line of sight such as the M1 and M14. I also don't know that it does your argument much good to bring up a field of shooting competition where the Mini-14 is conspicuous by its absence.
My guess is that the Mini-14 is absent from Service Rifle Matches for the fact that it is and never has been a US Service Rifle.

As for other competitions, the name of the game is accuracy. Reliability under adverse conditions is irrelevant in those areas since those guns get more attention than the Space Shuttle.

In those matches it is also easy to keep the sights level because they ground you are on is level, the targets are level, so you have a natural frame of reference. In the field you do not have that luxury.

In 3-gun competitions you see Mini-14's far more often. (I personally call them "Rambo matches". The equivalent of what cowboy action shooting has become, "pooftinkers", all style and no substance.) Plenty of other guns get used too; like M-1 carbines, AK's SU-16's. AR's are most common gun still of course. They aren't any better for that role, it's just that they have a slightly faster reload so they can finish putting holes in paper targets that don't shoot back.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 10, 2010, 08:08 PM
My guess is that the Mini-14 is absent from Service Rifle Matches for the fact that it is and never has been a US Service Rifle.

The assertion was that the height over bore on the AR15 affected accuracy negatively, yet the AR15 dominates two rifles with height over bore more closely like that of the Mini-14.

In other shooting disciplines, whether it is High Power, 3-gun, or pretty much anything, the Mini-14 is virtually never seen on the line.

In 3-gun competitions you see Mini-14's far more often.

Haven't seen it at all personally. AKs, ARs, and FALs dominate around here - though someone did have the new FN semi-auto at one match.

Crosshair
May 10, 2010, 08:36 PM
The assertion was that the height over bore on the AR15 affected accuracy negatively, yet the AR15 dominates two rifles with height over bore more closely like that of the Mini-14.
Which I pointed out was moot in the situation you describe as you always have a good horizontal frame of reference in those competitions. Get out into rolling hills, wooded land on uneven ground, etc and it becomes much easier to cant your gun. One time I thought my scope had shot loose, turns out that I was just unconsciously leveling the gun with the hill in the distance.

In other shooting disciplines, whether it is High Power, 3-gun, or pretty much anything, the Mini-14 is virtually never seen on the line.
It's not seen on the line often for the same reason you don't see my Ford Contour in the Indy 500. It doesn't mean my Contour is a bad car. Just that it isn't built for the Indo 500. With the Mini, it's magazine system is sturdier and gives more positive locking, but also gives it a disadvantage at Rambo matches. It's Garand-ish/M1 carbine-ish type gas system and action gives it reliability under adverse conditions, but means it's impossible to free float for accuracy.

None of these competitions emphases reliability Only accuracy or Rambo rate of fire. Neither is the Mini's strong point. It's accurate enough for combat and hunting and can maintain a good rate of fire. Reliability is it's main strength. (The same applies with the AK.)

If you had a competition where you drop people into the middle of Alaska and let them have an auto-loading .223 rifle, an occasional airdrops of ammo, then they have to spend a month and a half trekking back to civilization. You'll probably see a lot fewer people with ARs entering such competitions.

beardenbc
May 11, 2010, 09:19 AM
Here's what's wrong with current production mini's:
There's not as much aftermarket stuff for the mini and you're stuck with one caliber since you can't swap out uppers.

Other than that they're pretty much even.
The late model taper barrel minis are about as accurate as a similar priced AR, so with the new ones you're basically making a trade off between dependability and mod-ability. If you don't plant on hanging a bunch of rail mounted electronic doodads, the mini is fine as far as a carbine goes, and more reliable than an AR assuming you stick to factory mags.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 11, 2010, 11:16 AM
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the canting. I haven't really seen it as an issue. If you have, then I guess a lower height over bore is the right choice for you.

None of these competitions emphases reliability Only accuracy or Rambo rate of fire. Neither is the Mini's strong point.

So the Mini isn't more successful in 3-gun because the amount of time to change magazines puts it at a disadvantage; but a rifle that doesn't reliably go bang when you pull the trigger doesn't create any problems in a timed match?

It seems to me that any time you have a timed competition, reliability is going to be emphasized. When matches are won by tenths of a second, a rifle that doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger is going to impact where you finish fairly dramatically.

Crosshair
May 11, 2010, 07:58 PM
So the Mini isn't more successful in 3-gun because the amount of time to change magazines puts it at a disadvantage; but a rifle that doesn't reliably go bang when you pull the trigger doesn't create any problems in a timed match?

It seems to me that any time you have a timed competition, reliability is going to be emphasized. When matches are won by tenths of a second, a rifle that doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger is going to impact where you finish fairly dramatically.
OK fair enough, let me correct my statement. Reliability under adverse conditions.

Everyone that I am aware of who participates in those matches keeps their comp guns quite clean. Sometimes obsessively so. They have the luxury of being able to take the necessary downtime to clean the gun taking the gun apart on a table or trunk lid and go over everything. The dirtiest place those guns ever see is the trunk of the car. Virtually any gun will be reliable under those conditions. Sadly, real life rarely operates under those conditions.

Reliability like I saw with my Hi-Point 995 carbine when I bought it. (Used of course.) Recoil spring was worn out, striker spring was broken in half. Bolt to action fit was so worn and so loose that you could significantly wobble the bolt from side to side. Yet the stupid thing still worked and I put another thousand rounds through it before I sent it off and Hi-Point completely rebuilt it. Only problems I had was with the broken striker spring causing a misfire about once a magazine. That is the kind of reliability the Mini was designed around.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 12, 2010, 07:04 AM
Here is an extreme example; but a single stage in this ITRC 3-gun match (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=99368) had a minimum recommended round count of 568 rounds for carbine and 532 for pistol. Given the conditions of the match, it looks like a good test of reliability under adverse conditions to me.

How do you think a Mini would do in that match?

Crosshair
May 14, 2010, 08:04 PM
Here is an extreme example; but a single stage in this ITRC 3-gun match had a minimum recommended round count of 568 rounds for carbine and 532 for pistol. Given the conditions of the match, it looks like a good test of reliability under adverse conditions to me.
That course should be a walk in the park for a rifle. What you have posted is NOT "adverse conditions". It's just another Rambo match, all be it a very extreme Rambo match. All they effectively do is walk down some dirt roads and shoot at targets. Yea it would be a challenge for a marksman to hit all those targets in the time limit, but for the rifle it should be no big deal.

Again, it over emphasizes accuracy due to the inane scoring rules. It's telling that they specifically mention several AR type rifles failing because of the "extreme" conditions, mainly relating to the rate of fire the matches required. A Mini would pass the course just fine as far as reliability is concerned.

I'm not sure you are understanding the meaning of the phrase "Adverse Conditions". Think less "Weekend at the range with a case of ammo" and more "Battle of Chosin Reservoir".

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2010, 07:22 AM
It's telling that they specifically mention several AR type rifles failing because of the "extreme" conditions, mainly relating to the rate of fire the matches required. A Mini would pass the course just fine as far as reliability is concerned.

How is it telling? Shooters using railed aluminium gas blocks fixed with set screws saw their gas blocks expand so much from the heat that it shut off the flow of gas. The standard AR15 doesn't use set screws or that type of gas block - and doesn't have that problem.

I don't think the Mini could handle the immense heat that such a course of fire would generate and heat is a big killer of firearms. I guess we'll never know since nobody runs a Mini through that kind of scenario.

Lloyd Smale
May 15, 2010, 07:45 AM
sorry but i dont buy into the ruger being better because it can reliably shoot thousands of rounds without cleaning. I can clean an ar in 10 minutes or less. I wouldnt want to trust my life to a gun that has shot more then a 1000 rounds without cleaning no matter what the brand. To me its a silly argument. Its about like comparing how long differnt brands of car motors will last without oil!

Crosshair
May 15, 2010, 09:21 AM
How is it telling? Shooters using railed aluminium gas blocks fixed with set screws saw their gas blocks expand so much from the heat that it shut off the flow of gas. The standard AR15 doesn't use set screws or that type of gas block - and doesn't have that problem.
Exactly

It's telling because it shows that the match overemphasis accuracy, because of the scoring rules, to the point of competitors using less reliable weapon variants. That post was not meant as a blanket bash of the AR. I can see now how it could be read as such.

sorry but i dont buy into the ruger being better because it can reliably shoot thousands of rounds without cleaning. I can clean an ar in 10 minutes or less. I wouldnt want to trust my life to a gun that has shot more then a 1000 rounds without cleaning no matter what the brand. To me its a silly argument. Its about like comparing how long differnt brands of car motors will last without oil!
It's not just about how many rounds the gun has through it, it's about how well the gun will work when its full of the talcum powder they call "sand" in the middle east. About how well it will work when you're crossing a river, slip, and face plant into the river bank on top of your gun. etc.

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and take apart their gun and clean it 3 times a day to keep it working. You don't get to call a time out when sand or dirt gets someplace it shouldn't.

rickyrick
May 15, 2010, 10:16 AM
The mini is not an AR, The AR is not a Mini...
we allways fall into this mini versus AR debate...I have done it too....

The original post didn't ask whats great about the AR....It asked whats wrong with the mini...

but since we're on the subject....well never mind....the limitations of both rifles are very well known and documented....I am not going to get pulled in again.

TXGunNut
May 15, 2010, 10:41 AM
I like the new mini's, thinking about getting one. +1 rickyrick, not gonna sell my AR if the mini works out. They aren't the same and comparisons are apples & oranges.

Bamashooter
May 15, 2010, 10:55 AM
in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the mini. you can spend a couple hundred bucks and its even better. reliability has never been an issue with the mini. accuracy has. thats where my focus was on upgrades. now it shoots moa and could probably do better.

NooYawkuh
May 15, 2010, 11:05 AM
Start a thread about ARs, and nobody mentions Minis.

Start a thread about Minis, and AR enthusiasts can't help themselves. They have to chime in. It's like an inferiority complex. Like they're threatened by the Mini in some way. Why? Just because they make ARs, there's no reason for Mini's to be on the market? It's just crazy. Just about the only thing they have in common is the cartridge.

One is a rifle.

The other is the basis for a "modular tactical weapons system".

TMackey
May 15, 2010, 11:37 AM
Start a thread about ARs, and nobody mentions Minis.

Start a thread about Minis, and AR enthusiasts can't help themselves. They have to chime in.

I'm with you there. :)

IMO, the only thing wrong with the mini 14 or 30, is the price. ;)

2rugers
May 15, 2010, 11:49 AM
But... but... but.... you just can't outshoot me if I have a $1200 noveske, wilson, dpms, colt, rock river, armalite etc. etc. etc. with all the doodads screwed to it and all you brought was a wal-mart special mini-14 to the commando range.

YOU...JUST...CAN'T...

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2010, 12:46 PM
Start a thread about ARs, and nobody mentions Minis.

Start a thread about Minis, and AR enthusiasts can't help themselves. They have to chime in. It's like an inferiority complex. Like they're threatened by the Mini in some way. Why? Just because they make ARs, there's no reason for Mini's to be on the market? It's just crazy. Just about the only thing they have in common is the cartridge.

Well, the title of this thread was "Whats wrong with the Ruger Mini-14?" So the author apparently wanted people to criticize the Mini-14. And as several people have pointed out, what is wrong with it is its price. It is priced like an AR15 and it isn't one. Inevitably that leads to comparison.

But... but... but.... you just can't outshoot me if I have a $1200 noveske, wilson, dpms, colt, rock river, armalite etc. etc. etc. with all the doodads screwed to it and all you brought was a wal-mart special mini-14 to the commando range.

:D Well it is definitely true that people place an inordinate amount of emphasis on gear instead of training and I agree with you that it leads to some funny results. However, the day I run into somebody who can outshoot me with a Mini-14 will be an exciting day for me; because that is a fella who can probably teach me a thing or two from the training side. I won't hold my breath waiting though.

2rugers
May 15, 2010, 02:02 PM
Ok Bart, but never say never.:D

rickyrick
May 15, 2010, 04:01 PM
I don't care if the mini was 1000$ I would have still flopped out the cash because I wanted it. I've wasted 600 bucks on other crap that i have used less.

NooYawkuh
May 15, 2010, 05:33 PM
And as several people have pointed out, what is wrong with it is its price. It is priced like an AR15 and it isn't one. Inevitably that leads to comparison.
Yet, Ruger can hardly keep up with demand. It's one of the most successful commercially produced firearms of the past half-century.

Sure, as Ruger has made improvements, the price has come up. The Mini is better than it's ever been. And those ARs that are close to the Mini in price, they're cheapened down. They're not Colts. Think about it. Since when have firearms come down in price by like half? That happens to flat panel TVs, not firearms.

2rugers
May 15, 2010, 07:19 PM
a quick check of Gunbroker shows the cheapest Ar with a buy now price of $679 and the least expensive (new model) Mini with a buy now price of $545.

That is over $130 dollars difference so the Mini wins in that category hands down.

jmr40
May 15, 2010, 08:00 PM
Until you start buying magazines.

rickyrick
May 15, 2010, 09:13 PM
The magazines cost less than a couple boxes of good ammo to fill them up.

If magazine prices are gonna hold you up, you are probably stretching you means by buying a 600 dollar gun.

Thats like buying a Hummer then crying about how much it cost to fill it up.


I give up.....:rolleyes:The AR is far better in every way, including price:rolleyes: the mini is an over priced piece of crap;) I suck for owning one:o AR owners are way cooler...when I grow up I hope I can own an AR:cool:

HAPPY NOW?:)

Art Eatman
May 15, 2010, 09:53 PM
Pore ol' hoss done went flop.

Again.

Do not despair. This subject will show up again, before long...