Anyone here a mini 14 or mini 30 fan? I'm sorting through models

[riffraff]

At some point I'd like to pickup a mini 14 and/or mini 30. If you like them what do you like most about them?

What initially attracts me to them is they are a less tactical sort of rifle but at the same time perfectly capable. Just something different from AR's, side charger is cool (if you call it that?), regular stock, simple sights etc..

Interested in maybe one in both 5.56/.223 as well as 7.62X39, not sure which first but at the moment I don't own anything in 7.62X39 so maybe a mini 30 first. Either way I have no plans to scope them or go beyond the iron sights, the idea is simple semi auto rifle.

Initially I was thinking simple non threaded 16 inch barrels but upon looking at their model layout they don't make them quite like that. If you want 5.56/.223 in such a configuration the only option is the stainless ranch rifle (otherwise you must go to an 18.5 inch barrel or the tactical versions w/ a flash suppressor in a 16 inch barrel).. In 7.62X39 they make no non-threaded version in 16 inch, you gotta go to 18.5 or 16 inch with the flash suppressor.

Isn't a deal breaker w/ the flash-suppressors, hell you can take them off if you wanted, but goofy how they do the lineup - seems like they should offer a regular old barrel in 16 inches without the suppressor as the standard model, shouldn't they?

First question I wonder about - the stainless versions, is there any benefit at all to stainless as far as ease of keeping or is it purely cosmetic with all the parts you can't see still exactly the same from stainless to regular models?

Then on either version - either of these rifles would not be for long range accuracy, ie iron sights out to 100 yards maybe - but how much difference is there with accuracy on these between the 18.5 and 16 inch models? Would seem like, especially with 5.56/.223 wouldn't be any difference really, but I read a couple bits and pieces of people saying the 16 inch stainless barrels are terribly inaccurate. How about barrel length in 7.62X39?

Thanks in advance!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Can’t help you with the Minis; but if you are looking for a more traditional semi-auto in 5.56 or 7.62x39, you might look at the Ares SCR. It has several of the features you are looking for but is much more modular than the Mini. That might be nice if you want both 5.56 and 7.62x39.

[jmr40]

Don't overthink this. The Ruger Mini's in either 223 or 7.62X39 are reliable rifles that will do what you want to do. I've owned several examples in the past and think they are good enough rifles. I've sold mine and think the AR platform is a better choice especially at todays prices. It isn't that the Mini is a bad rifle, but in 2018 it doesn't make sense to me to pay more for a Mini-14 when I can get a better AR for a lot less money. But at the same time I understand that there are a lot of people who simply prefer the looks of the Ruger.

If I were buying a new one I'd stick with the Ranch rifle with SS and Synthetic stock. Not so much for the SS, but to get the synthetic stock. The wood stocks have no checkering and are as slick as alligator snot when trying to carry them.

I like the 18" barrel a little better. The difference in velocity isn't that great either way, but a little longer barrel doesn't hurt. It also gives you a little more sight radius for shooting with irons. Both are pretty compact.

I'd buy the 223 version. The 7.62X39 doesn't really offer any advantages. Years ago when ammo was dirt cheap it made sense. I can remember the days of leaving a gun show with an SKS and 1000 rounds of ammo for $200.

[Minorcan]

Actually Mini-14s are chambered for the NATO 5.56 just like the ARs are (lots of “R”s aren’t there). Some people claim the Minis aren’t as accurate almost always they are using .223 ammo. ARs aren’t very accurate when you shoot .223 ammo in them either. That said overall the AR is a more accurate gun. The early Minis were not as accurate as the newer ones. The early ones came with a very thin tapered barrel. That problem was corrected some time ago.

[Art Eatman]

I've enjoyed four of the early "skinny" Minis. Uber-reliable. First shot from a cold barrel commonly was within an inch of the intended point of impact, which was rough on coyotes and jackrabbits. Three-shot groups of 1.5 MOA were commonplace.

Nowadays they seem to me to be more expensive than is justified.

[Fishbed77]

Nowadays they seem to me to be more expensive than is justified.

Agreed.

Ruger has unfortunately priced them out of serious consideration by many. There are no doubt some expensive milling processes involved in production of the Minis, but ARs have quite a bit of milling involved as well, and their prices stay low while Minis unfortunately keep increasing.

[riffraff]

Thanks guys!

I think I'd rather stick with Ruger just because I'm familiar with Ruger.

Definitely want a synthetic stock, more a debate of barrel length and to go threaded w/ suppressor or not. Maybe I go suppressor if I go to 7.62X39 and non threaded for 5.56.

They are a little pricey I guess but at the same time, looks like many of them are found starting at < $700 for the simple 18.5 inch synthetic stock ranch rifle for instance. To me anyway doesn't seem like you buy a whole lot of AR for that $$ either - at least if you are talking complete guns. But really the point is not so much "versus AR" - have AR's, want something simpler if that makes sense, kinda like owning a 10/22 and a 15-22.

Also like the idea of buying a 7.62X39 rifle and would rather have one of these versus the AK-ish options for instance. Very well probably end up with a couple of them over time - which first depending what drops in my lap maybe and a 2nd depending on how I like the first one.

[PlatinumCore16]

Personally I asked my LGS to let me know if they get a SS 18IN barrel ranch rifle in 5.56 as private sale. The newer ones do have a slightly larger/thicker bbl contour which helped with the whippy barrels and POI shift when hot. But they were never meant to be sub MOA tack drivers. Very reliable and up for whatever. That's why I want one.

[COSteve]

Yep, big time. While I've got 3 ARs and love leverguns, I also have a real respect for the Garand's basic design, owning 2 Garands, 2 M1 Carbines, and an M1A as well as my 583 Series Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. The newer, 581 through 583 series (583 is current) have thicker barrels than the older Minis and as such has much better accuracy. Out of the Box with decent ammo, your Mini should produce less than 2 MOA groups.

Mine started life as a 18½" barreled Ranch Rifle with no FH and a birch stock. Good shooting, reliable, and just plain fun to use. Out of the Box, a great bit of fun. However, with a bit of tweaking which costs about what a good quality target trigger costs for an AR, you can get near or even at 1 MOA using quality ammo. Also, there are a number of Mini-30 owners who handload who report sub MOA groups over on PerfectUnion.com's Mini-14 and Mini-30 forum (the best forum on the web for Minis).

Even though I've had my ARs for longer, since I got my Mini, I just don't take them out much anymore. As you can see, I went a bit 'hog wild' with mine which I've owned now just over 3 years. I wanted to give it that M14 look as my NM sighted M1A is a real favorite of mine.



With the tweaks I made for accuracy and using my Hornady 62grn HPBT handloads that it seems to love, my Mini, as it sits, produces just a hair over 1 MOA at 100yds. It's as accurate as my RRA AR mid-length carbine with a NM trigger and iron sights. I use it to reliably shoot bowling pins at 200yds and as you see, it's got irons, not a scope. I even have a go at the pins at 300 yds with it, however, that's a real challenge.

Yes, I 'pretty'd it up' a bit with a walnut stock, straight 20rd OE brand mags, and the Choate front sight/FH to finish the M14 vibe but even without those, it's a great, accurate shooter. Would I get a Mini-30 for hunting small to medium? Yep, in a heartbeat!! However, I'm past hunting now and just like to plink so I don't need another 30 cal plinker what with what I already have.

[T. O'Heir]

"...almost always they are using .223 ammo..." The difference between .223 and 5.56NATO(the Mini-14 uses either just like any .223 rifle has always done). is the chamber's throat and not much else. 5.56 is a NATO designation for ammo that might have higher pressure. There is no SAAMI 5.56 spec.
Mini-14's have never been accurate enough for the money demanded by Ruger(Ranch Rifle Standard's MSRP is $999. $1069.00 for one with the cheap synthetic stock.). They are reliable and fun to shoot, but my Plainfield M1 Carbine will shoot circles around either model.

[rickyrick]

My favorite rifle is the Mini14,

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...almost always they are using .223 ammo..." The difference between .223 and 5.56NATO(the Mini-14 uses either just like any .223 rifle has always done). is the chamber's throat and not much else. 5.56 is a NATO designation for ammo that might have higher pressure. There is no SAAMI 5.56 spec.
Mini-14's have never been accurate enough for the money demanded by Ruger(Ranch Rifle Standard's MSRP is $999. $1069.00 for one with the cheap synthetic stock.). They are reliable and fun to shoot, but my Plainfield M1 Carbine will shoot circles around either model.

So much of this post is wrong it's hard to know where to start.

1st, there is a difference between .223 and 5.56. Enough that it could be dangerous to shoot 5.56 in a .223 chamber because the 5.56's higher max pressure and longer lead could cause a dangerous pressure spike in a tight .223 chamber. The max .223 pressure is 50,000 CUP while the 5.56 is 60,000 CUP. That's why the Wylde chamber was invented and is used on a lot of rifles (Ruger uses a version of it in their Minis). It's got the tighter .223 specs for accuracy but with a slightly longer lead so that the rifle can safely take the higher pressure 5.56 loads.

2nd, a GI M1 Carbine's accuracy spec was for groups of 5" at 100yds, much like the other combat rifles of WWII. T. O'Heir's Plainfield M1 Carbine is an early 'replica' of the GI carbine using a cast receiver and GI parts that's sometimes underappreciated by collectors as it's not a GI carbine. Some of them were great shooters and it seems that O'Heir has one. If it's that accurate, it's not a representative example of a GI Carbine's accuracy.

The early Minis prior to the later 580 Series, had 'pencil' barrels and suffered poor groupings and stringing when they got hot. A 5" group at 100yds for them wasn't uncommon. However, Ruger redid the Mini starting with the 58X series (early 580 still had pencil barrels) where they redid the ejector design, added scalloped mounts, and included a thicker, more accurate barrel. Out of the box with good ammo, these generally produce 2" groups at 100yds.

Further, there are now cheap and well understood tweaks that together cost about what a good AR trigger costs that will shrink the Mini-14's groups with good ammo to near 1" at 100 yds while some have produced sub 1". For instance, my 583 Series Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is one such example. While I've added a few things in addition to the tweaks to give it a M14 vibe, my 3yr old Mini will produce just over 1" groups. I shoot at bowling pins at 200yds with iron sights and hitting them is a snap when I'm 'on'.

1 MOA accuracy not good enough for the price? To get a M1A or M1 Garand to shoot 1 MOA takes a ton more money than a Mini costs as you're talking a National Match rifle. To get a M1A under 1 MOA reliably, you're really talking a $3-4K M21. My M1A with NM sights shoots about 1½ MOA with my best handloads and neither of my AR carbines set up with iron sights an target trigger are any more accurate on pins than my Mini even though I've had and shot them 4 times as long.

[riffraff]

Haha i didnt want it but i knew somehow the very mention of mini 14 was going to generate some controversy .. seems to arise in any post about this rifle family..

As far as cost goes, seems like with ruger if its 800 list you find them for 600 fairly easy and same applies to a $1000 rifle - gonna run $750 without doing much shopping. To me anyway doesnt sound that expensive for a complete rifle with rugers warranty.

[PlatinumCore16]

riffraff the point people make with the mini is that you can buy a more accurate, more accessorizable, AR15 for $500 or less. Magazines, including "high capacity" ones are cheaper, more prolific, and more manufacturers are reliable compared to the mini mags that are 2x to 3x the cost and you have to get the Ruger ones or you run the risk of reliability issues, which is the big selling point of the mini.

For the rifle you get, it's not worth the shelf price. If minis were around the $500 mark, I would have one of those and not an AR.

[rickyrick]

I like the Mini14 because it’s not an
AR15

Not all Mini14s are inaccurate either.
What does cost matter? Not everyone wants a budget rifle.

Some of us just buy what we want.

If you are buying it as a substitute for an AR, that’s where you are going wrong. The Mini14 is not an AR and vice-versa.
If the mini didn’t shoot 5.56, no one would even care anyway .

[riffraff]

Ya i get it, for 500 bucks id take an AR too, and sure even after the last upper i ordered shows up i see a couple more of them in my near future.

And itd sure be great to get a mini 14 for 500 bucks like you can say a ruger 556 even, but i got ARs and have an interest in something different even if its 200 bucks overpriced i guess.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by PlatinumCore16

riffraff the point people make with the mini is that you can buy a more accurate, more accessorizable, AR15 for $500 or less. Magazines, including "high capacity" ones are cheaper, more prolific, and more manufacturers are reliable compared to the mini mags that are 2x to 3x the cost and you have to get the Ruger ones or you run the risk of reliability issues, which is the big selling point of the mini.

For the rifle you get, it's not worth the shelf price. If minis were around the $500 mark, I would have one of those and not an AR.

Like T. O'Heir, your generalities are not supported by the facts. Yes, you can buy an AR for $500 but it is a bottom feeding entry level with the same or worse accuracy of the old Minis. To make an AR shoot well (remember, I have 3 of them) you have to add decent sights and a trigger worthy of calling it a trigger. Those ain't cheap. Then it may shoot well and it may not.

Your comment on the Ruger mags is only partially valid. I got 5ea 20rd curved Ruger brand mags for $24 ea on sale. They work very well. (I don't like the balance of the 30rd as the 20rd feel better.) However, look at my picture and you'll see a 20rd straight mag. That's a OE brand mag I got from CDNN for $14 on sale (i picked up 5 of them too) and you know what? It's better quality than Ruger's current version. The welding is better and the mag tab is a welded on tab like my M114 mags vice Ruger's folded tab that allows their mag to wobble. So much for 2 - 3 times the price.

As to reliability, check out PerfectUnion.com's Mini-14 and Mini-30 forum about the OE mags and you'll find that we all are getting reliability at least as good as with the Ruger brand. Yep, I did a field test and they were better. I also posted pictures comparing the quality and construction. (I sent Ruger's CEO a message including my review, pictures, and the price and suggested he have a serious sit down with his mag supplier.)

Your comment on value is ludicrous. Comparing the cost of producing an aluminum and plastic weapon with a real wood and steel one is a fool's folly. Take a look at the price of an M1A and tell me that a real wood and steel battle rifle isn't worth the going price.

As to your "more accessorizable", that's not necessarily an advantage. Many people want a nice, compact truck gun or woods walking gun without all the extra 'crap' many put on their ARs.

They don't need or want to do this to their rifle.



Nor do they need or want this.



Heck, I disliked the plastic feel of my scoped long range RRA AR so much I spent the time and money to find a set of real walnut furniture and then I made a custom walnut target pistol grip for it just to get away from the Mattel feel both of my light weight mid-length gas carbines have.



I get it. A lot of young kids grew up watching all the shoot em ups with the good guys carrying around an M16 and saving the day. I get it that the modular design of the AR appeals to many for a certain capability. I get that. It's just not necessary to carry around a bulky, high capacity weapon when you don't need (or in many cases can't use one). Many want to hunt with their Minis and the fact is that most states limit game hunting with a semi-auto to 5-6 rds.

[PlatinumCore16]

I will yield to you on the cost of mags, because you have more experience with them, but upon my research I found that the cost of most magazines were more expensive than AR magazines and there were more AR mags that did not have issues vs. the amount of mini mags that didn't. Again, according to my research.

I will disagree with you on the cost of a wood/steel gun as the machines for building all of the "business" parts were paid for a long time ago. Steel is marginally more difficult to machine with all of today's available tooling. I work in the aerospace industry, so I have a bit of understanding here. As far as the "real wood" portion of your argument, there are more models of the mini available in synthetic than there are in wood. Would I pay more for a "real wood" gun? Probably, but their MSRP is actually listed as being cheaper than or equal to the synthetic stocked rifles.

I will also disagree with you on $500 AR's being bottom of the barrel, entry level. For example, PSA still has AR's on sale for, many times, well under $500 and, if you look through this forum alone, you will see that their AR's are considered decent and worthy of 1MOA to 1 1/2 MOA, usually. And the older minis were lucky to get 3MOA, again using research here on this forum.

Ability to accessorize may be a subjective benefit, but the fact that the aftermarket is much larger and the platform lends itself to easier customizability is not debateable.

I love the Mini platform as do you (though arguably more than I do ), but I think you're letting subjectivity speak over objectivity here. I think that many people here will agree that the mini is priced above what it's worth, subjectively and objectively.

[riffraff]

I love the pic of the ultra tacti-cool AR, seen it before but this time I noticed the fork.

I think my 1st mini 14 is gonna be a mini 30 in a 16 inch barrel w/ the flash suppressor. Today I own nothing in 7.62X39 and I'd simply like to. Then if I love it I'll go for a 5.56..

Anyone with that sort of model? Sounds like they are pretty reliable, do they eat up steel case ammo OK? Not a deal breaker but would be icing on the cake if they eatup the steel stuff.

[hdwhit]

I bought a 181-Series Mini-14 in 1979. A year later I bought a 182-Series and gave it to my Dad to replace his M-1 Carbine. I put a Choate polymer stock on mine. My father still has the original stock on his.

Neither rifle has been shot from a bench. Both are shot off-hand at targets generally within 200 yards. At around 100 yards, both of us are capable of getting at least 9 out of 10 shots into the circular divot on the side of a gallon milk jug (depending on the manufacturer that's between 2.75 inches and 3.35 inches in diameter). That's about as good as either of us can do with ARs.

I can't speak to the performance of newer models.

[turkeestalker]

I've got both a 14 and 30 cause I've got two sons and am attempting to curb arguments when they're divvying up the collection.
Besides... if I could I'd own at least one of virtually every firearm in every available caliber... and I'm greedy?

The 14 is a stainless 180-something series and originally came in a Butler Creek folding stock but I put it in the wood which I do like better, though it sometimes swaps between for fun.
Shortened the barrel and added an accu-strut socom which tightened the groups considerably.

The 30 is the heavy barrel tactical blued model and originally came in a synthetic stock, but again I like the wood better so I fitted it to a later production 14 wood stock.
Added a trueshot barrel stabilizer to it which made no discernable difference in groups but looks hella neat.

Groups with the 30 are about what I get out of the 14 after shortening the barrel and the accu-strut.
They ain't tack drivers but they'll hit what you aim at.

Put wood hand guards on both of them after trying the vented plastics, they just look better and I couldn't stand the factory ones.

Both will eat up ammo that'd choke most other rifles including steel case.

added: IF the day ever came for 'bugging out', the 14 would go in the folder with a glut of 20 round mags. But that's about as likely to happen as that weird green colored zombie apocalypse that everyone keeps going on about!

[COSteve]

As you can tell from the comments here there are as many opinions as . . . . . . . . well, you know the saying. Anyway, it come down to what the OP wants, not what any of us think he wants. I've got a large collection of arms in many different types but I'm really fond of the Mini since I picked it up. I'd been leery of them with their poor accuracy knocks but once I found that they'd been upgraded to improve accuracy and that there were some tried and true easy tweaks to make them really accurate shooters, I was in.

My suggestion would be for a new one, however, many people like the older models with a full Accu-Strut with 2 clamps vice my SOCOM length one to tame the pencil barrel's tendency to whip. Whatever the OP decides, he'll likely have a ball with it as it's a great little carbine. Like the M1 Carbine in size but with a significantly better cartridge, whether he picks the -14 or the -30.

[riffraff]

Will buy one new, just too hard to find and buy guns 2nd hand for reasonable prices. With the exact model in hand ill call or stop in a few places for a quote on ordering it - not a real experienced gun shopper but that method seems to workout less hassle and you get a feeling for real market value.

[Fishbed77]

To make an AR shoot well (remember, I have 3 of them) you have to add decent sights and a trigger worthy of calling it a trigger. Those ain't cheap.

This of course is not true.

If you can't shoot sub-2 MOA with a decent AR with a standard trigger, standard aperture sights, and decent ammo, you just need to practice shooting more.


.

[Skans]

the stainless versions, is there any benefit at all to stainless as far as ease of keeping or is it purely cosmetic with all the parts you can't see still exactly the same from stainless to regular models?

Lots of people liked to use the stainless Mini-14's for "boat guns". Folks with large boats or yachts traveling in the Caribbean, or off the shores of the US would choose stainless mini-14's or stainless shotguns for protection from thieves and pirates.

For land use, I don't think it makes a difference. I have an AC556 - full-auto Mini-14, blued version and the finish is quite durable and not prone to rust under normal conditions.