PDA

View Full Version : A C-93 versus Mini 14.


Ignition Override
May 21, 2011, 03:43 AM
I had a '90 Mini 14 from 2008-2009 and really liked it, but sold it when the 'Enfield fever' first overwhelmed my immune systems.

My hang-up with so many types of imported semi-autos is that many/most were assembled by Century Arms, and have read a large number of reports of problems with not only CETMEs but some C-93s.

If you could find a good C-93 which somehow had Not been assembled by Century, would you consider this before an average Mini 14 for basic plinking?

AR-15s have little muzzle rise, are nice, but the character and style just don't 'grab' me.

Single Six
May 21, 2011, 06:49 AM
You and I are on the same sheet of music. Not only would I prefer the Mini for plinking, but I'd want it for HD as well. I know that the AR in all of it's various configurations is the hot ticket these days, but they just don't appeal to me. Maybe it's because while I've seen ARs jam, I have NEVER seen it happen to a Mini. The LE agency I serve with issues the M4, but as I've stated many times, I would happily trade that for a Mini 14.

zombieslayer
May 21, 2011, 07:03 AM
I'd rather have my mini than anything made by CAI.

Crosshair
May 21, 2011, 07:42 AM
For a plinking and practical rifle I would take the Mini for the following reasons.

1. Roller Delayed blowback action on the C-93 is hard on brass. Gas operation is far easier to tune using either an adjustable gas block or reduced gas bushings.
2. I don't like the placement of the charging handle on the C-93.
3. Mounting optics on the Mini is easier.
4. Many more options for accessories on the Mini.
5. Magazines are cheaper, more available and come in a variety of sizes. 20 round mags get in the way a lot less than 30's, but the 30's hold more ammo. Easy with a Mini to just buy both and use whichever size is appropriate at the time.
6. Far easier to clear malfunctions on the Mini with the Garand style action, even with optics installed. (Shooting some VERY rusty steel cased ammo I found that someone had forgotten at the range. My .223 AK choked on it too.)
7. Easier to field strip. Separating the Mini into the trigger group, action, and stock lets you do all the field cleaning you need to do (Unless something really weird happens.) with no small parts and is stupid easy to do.

Those are the reasons I could think of off the top of my head. There are probably others.

About the only reason I would buy a C-93 is for collectors purposes, which is a perfectly valid reason for wanting one.

rickyrick
May 21, 2011, 10:44 AM
Waving The Mini Flag...That Is all....Carry on.

raftman
May 21, 2011, 12:30 PM
If I could get a non-Century-assembled C-93, I would chose one over a Mini hands down... heck I would probably even choose a Century C-93 over a Mini as well, provided I could inspect it before buying.

In particular I disagree with the assertion that the Mini is easier to field strip, that's most definitely untrue. There are considerably more small parts to lose disassembling the Mini than the HK clone.

Crosshair
May 21, 2011, 11:25 PM
In particular I disagree with the assertion that the Mini is easier to field strip, that's most definitely untrue. There are considerably more small parts to lose disassembling the Mini than the HK clone.
Sorry but I have to disagree. You are describing a detailed stripping, not a field stripping. For field stripping you only HAVE to bust down the Mini into action, trigger group, and stock. The smallest of those is the trigger group, which is still a sizable hunk of metal. Everything on a Mini that needs cleaning can be cleaned at this point without further disassembly. That's how my Mini's get cleaned after coming home from the range.

Could I strip it down further and get more small parts? Sure, but most of the time there is no need to do that. Most of the time you can bust the Mini down into the "Big 3" and get everything 99% clean, only breaking it down further when you are in a comfy place where you won't lose parts in the grass or gravel. Even then the only real need is to get the last bit of old grease out of the works.

Here is an example of the C-93 field stripping. Far more complex and more parts to lose.

C93 Takedown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK4azDPnx_w)

Bamashooter
May 21, 2011, 11:40 PM
The mini any day of the week. I have had one for a long time so fieldstripping isnt an issue. I think the mini is just a better gun.

bamaranger
May 21, 2011, 11:46 PM
No question, the Mini. Made and designed here. Big name behind it for service. Lots of custom options. Don't know the exact numbers but I bet its lighter and handier too.

raftman
May 22, 2011, 12:14 AM
For field stripping you only HAVE to bust down the Mini into action, trigger group, and stock.

Not according to Ruger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93XmX2IIjQQ

Art Eatman
May 22, 2011, 06:25 AM
With four Minis over a twenty-year period and a few thousand rounds run through them, I never had any problems with limiting my field-stripping for cleaning to the major groups as stated by Crosshair. Never a failure of any sort, ever.

Come and take it.
May 22, 2011, 07:30 AM
Did we mention that aside from cleaning the barrel and chamber that a mini can go for a very long time without having to be disassembled. In fact on Garand style actions long range shooters advise not to frequently break down garand style actions due to the inevitable loosening of the stock to gun tightness.

If a sniper/ long range shooter advises this for an M14, Than a mini-14 moreso because it has a self cleaning fixed gas piston.

rickyrick
May 22, 2011, 11:23 AM
The mini rarely needs q thorough cleaning, unless it makes an unscheduled departure from your body. Run something through the bore now and then. Field strip every 4 outings or so