Gotta get it off my chest AR-15 vs. Mini-14

[cottonmouth]

I have 3 GB Mini 14's and two AR's and I am building a third. These are two diffrent rifles, just because they both shoot .223 doesn't put them into the exact same catagory........... aww to hell with it! I love 'em both!

J.B.

[armsmaster270]

You want sticker shock, price the new Ruger AR variant.

[frankiestoys]

Ive been watching this thread since yesterday. Some boys play nice some don't ,all this name calling
I own a newer mini (see my post), again if the AR fans believe that this gun has not been improved, please go shoot one.
It's still not an AR but a much needed improved carbine.
Im glad to see that Ruger now has there own AR ,see it's not so bad.

[lobo9er]

I think where people get annoyed with "AR" guy on the forum (not all AR owners are AR guy) is when talking about any other type of rifle they chime in with something like "should just buy an AR" or "you own a mini sorry for ya" its like you can't ask about any other rifle with someone bring out he owns an AR. Same goes for shotguns with "870 guy"

[SalchaketJoe]

Have had two mini-14s. Niether of them could group any better then 3 or 4 inches at 100 yards. The mags at pricy and sort of a pain to get in and out of the rifle. The little flip up sight they had sucked. I was stuck with the ruger scope mount system.

Now, with some of the newer ones, better sights, more accurate, more mounting options. The one with the AR type collapsable buttstock looks stupid though. Same mag problem. If they would redesign it to take AR mags, make it just as accurate and do all that and keep the price low, I would go to a mini IN ADDITION to my AR.

[wcwhitey]

A couple of points. Any new Mini around my AO is at least $800. Entry level AR's are less than that now. Magazines are still 3X what good quality AR magazines go for. That said I am not bashing the Mini, I have owned two. I thought they were good rifles for the $300 price tags. At that time my first AR was $550. Once the AWB came and prices went crazy I just could not see laying down $600 for a Mini. Now new and improved and with a price of $800 I just cannot see it, not worth it, period.

Again not bashing the Mini as a weapon, I think it is a good utilitarian rifle. They are reliable and I found their accuracy to be acceptable, not great but decent for the intended usage. I just don't see them as a great value unless you get a good price on a used one. And as my last point they really shouldn't be constantly compared to AR's. Apples to Oranges IMHO. Bill

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My only gripe with the Mini-14 is that because it is a .223 semi-automatic rifle, people think it fills the same niche as the AR15. It doesn't - and it doesn't rate the same price as one. Most people don't understand that because most people don't shoot either rifle enough to appreciate the differences.

Plinking along the local creek/ravine/garbage dump? You'll never notice a difference between the two rifles. Firing a five round group at the local range to confirm sights before heading off into the woods for coyote, pigs, bambi, etc? Again, probably never notice a difference.

Paid $1,200 for a five day carbine course at Gunsite? You are probably going to be unhappy with that Mini-14 before day 5.

[Dr.Rob]

I don't doubt I can hit popper at 200 yards with a mini, but after a few shots its not a question of precision, even with optics at longer range.

It's still a decent rifle, it's just not designed for that sort of work. I like shooting them both, just have more confidence in the AR.

[JWF III]

After 4 1/2 pages, it's still nothing more than a pissing contest. I had an Ar for several years. Guess what, even it had magazine problems. In the last few years this has been addressed with different followers and springs. When I had my AR, the only reliable mags were 20 round Colts.

DI vs. piston. They both work. One is thought to be more accurate. One is thought to be more reliable. But to get a few things straight. Direct Impingement is not an older design than the Garand design. Direct impingement is not 50 years old. Direct impingement was first used in a battle rifle in 1942. It was the Ljundmann AG-42 of Swedish design. The Garand was patented in 1934 and put into production in 36. The Ljundmann was designed in 1941 and put into production in 42.

Both guns do what they were intended to do, and they do them very well. Accuracy is just fine for both in real world (battle type) conditions. I'm not talking target range here. Any body that doesn't think the Mini is accurate enough, would you be willing to stand out at 300 yards with someone firing a Mini at you? I didn't think so. Each of mine (and every other one I've shot) will shoot minute of chest past 300 yards.

As for the heating up issue, if you can't do what you need to do in 300 rounds, in 10 minutes, you may be better off throwing that last cartridge at your enemy. I've put 100 rounds through my Mini in 1 1/2 to 2 minutes before. Yes it was hot (hot enough to melt a hole in my plastic bedliner), but I wasn't scared to shoot it anymore. I would've been willing to put another couple hundred through it without stopping to take a break. But then again, any of my shooting friends can attest to the fact that I'm extremely rough of my tools. Fine antiques and collectibles I take care of. Hammers, axes, and hunting/defense guns, not so much

For the record, I got rid of my AR for two reasons. #1 I made a couple hundred dollars on it the short time I had it. #2 I absolutely hated it. It had horrid ergonomics to me. That's when I figured out I like wood more than plastic, and traditional more than "new fangled". I got a Mini 180 series to replace it. I got the Mini with what I made on the AR, and still had the cost of the AR to play with. I since have gotten two more Minis. None of which are the 580 series. And none of which I payed more than $350 for.

So AR vs. Mini. Two good rifles, built for different purposes in mind.

Next topic, comparing the .223 Remington cartridge to the .460 Weatherby, or maybe "Will my Old Timer work in a gun fight?"

Wyman

[Joe Demko]

What I'm willing to have someone shoot at me with at any range is a poor criterion for the worth of a rifle. I am loathe to be shot and am unwilling to take the chance of getting hit even by a (un)lucky shot.

[The Real Mags]

Do you think he was serious about getting shot at? He was just making a point.

[gunnutery]

After 4 1/2 pages, it's still nothing more than a pissing contest.

I fully agree, as soon as I saw the title a couple days ago I knew it would be as such. For the record I own one mini 14 and love it. I'm not a big fan of the AR, however I realize it's merits and advantages over the mini 14. My only rant to add to the pissing match is that I'd like to see gun magazines diversify from using AR pics on the covers so much. That's all I've got to say 'bout that.

[Art Eatman]

I've always figured the Mini was a good little hunting rifle. The first shot or three always went to the same point of aim as happened last week or last month. I've also found that when I hit Ol' Wily on the first shot, group size is irrelevant. Tough luck, Wily; another tail to nail up on the porch...

I've had four each of Minis and ARs over the last thirty or so years. Don't have a Mini, right now; I have a pretty nice Colt AR plus an extra flat-top upper. Outside of ergonomics, they're about the same for general utility. Howsomever, I'm much more of a hunter than I am a bangitty-bangitty sort of shooter, so I figure the AR will work as a decent truck gun.

I never have understood all the excitement about ARs/AKs/Minis/Whatevers.

[wally]

I've seen guys run Wolf ammo through AR's without problem.

All my ARs run Wolf ammo, the one that didn't I fixed (replaced) the extractor and spring.


I've love all three the AR, the Mini, and the AK. My experience is:

Accuracy: AR > Mini > AK
But for practical accuracy (i.e. not off a bench rest, using cheap ammo) I find no significant difference when exploding 2-liter bottle or knocking down steel plates.


Ergnomics:
Mini > AR >> AK

The Mini and AR are so good I won't argue if you think the AR is better here, but I have to shift my grip to use the AR safety, the Mini is perfect.


Rounds shot before failure from lack of cleaning:
AK > Mini >> AR.

But for practical shooting, all will easily go through more ammo than I can carry along with the rifle without cleaning. Although I rarely clean my AKs and Mini just wiping them off before putting them back in the safe for next outing, which is why I generally shoot them more often.


I have a Norinco MAK 90 with thumbhole stock that I bought ~1995 that I never cleaned until I converted it back to pistol grip config while having extra time off after Hurricane Ike and it has never failed, until I tried a ProMag in it

Magazine expense is the biggest negative for the Mini, but its may favorite overall.

--wally.

[RP88]

You know that's not true. People bash the mini because they want to feel superior, not because it doesn't fit their needs. If it was a matter of needs they wouldn't bash, they'd just say, "not what I'm looking for." Besides, there are a lot of mini-bashers who never have, and never will, used their olympic arms (or name your brand) AR carbine anywhere but a range....and some of them can barely hold minute-of-backstop. I've seen them at the range, and the loudest mouths typically go with the guys who can barely keep all their shots on paper.

It's true with me. My AR is a better do-all rifle for me.

But if you want the ugly truth: why pay 600-700 for the Ruger when I can get an AK or SKS(would make a nicer range gun to me) for half that, or pay a little more and walk off with a nice AR? For less money I get cheaper ammo and about-the-same accuracy, and for more money I get a gun that will do literally whatever I want depending on what I want to build it for.

If there is only one bad thing to say about the Mini, I would say that it needs to be either more competitively priced for what is is, or be more of what it should be for what it costs.

[Ed Ames]

I think you missed my point. I'll try again.

People don't bash because they want something different. They bash to try to make themselves feel better by making someone else feel worse. Making a different choice doesn't mean you must bash other people's choices.

I have no use for a .223. A few years ago someone gave me a .222 (very similar to the .223). I fired it a total of 10 times, enough to know it worked, and put it aside. Those cartridges are not practical for anything I do. If I am going to hunt, it will be for food animals and I'll use something with either a lot less, or a lot more, oomph. If I am going to fight, it will be as an individual without another 7+ infantrymen to back me up. If I'm going to target shoot, it will be either at short ranges where .223 is overkill or long ranges where it's inappropriate.

All of that said, I don't bash them. I've fired both the mini and the AR. Both were nice. Both were worthy of ownership pride. Neither is especially cost effective in my world. I would consider an AR in something other than .223... I haven't looked at it in depth, but the 6.8 SPC might do fine and in that case the mini would be a reasonable choice too. The main thing that would sway me is the multi-vendor parts availability issue, and that really has nothing to do with the quality of the rifle itself.

[rizbunk77]

fellas, fellas, fellas....
Does it really matter enough to go point by point?
Several have it right here, but you do get what you pay for. Mini's might be fine but they do not benefit from 40 years worth of devoted military improvement in design and material. This might not be all the difference either. The gas block design on the mini has been shown to be problematic, as it is the first thing accurizers try to fix. There might be a way to adapt the garand system to a smaller rifle that is better than the mini, but if so no one has developed it yet to my knowledge. Any way if I am a rancher out checking cattle and I see a coyote some 200 yds out what would I rather have in the truck? Well to me the accuracy of the mini is the biggest factor, and I don't think the finicky nature of the ar is bad enough. Advantage AR15.
BTW this thread seems to have devolved to a discussion of psychology rather than long arms

[scythefwd]

Direct impingement is not 50 years old. Direct impingement was first used in a battle rifle in 1942

Just one nit to pick. That would mean that DI is over 50 years old..67 to be exact. Please continue your regularly scheduled pissing contest now

[General Geoff]

I think that was his point.

[KAK]

This isnt a comparison thread its a bash thread. Dont feel bad that everyone else has better gun than you. Hahaha Im a college student making $310 dollars every 2 weeks and I bought an AR. Anyone can afford one if I can. So dont be a prick and call AR owners elitist. You should have bought a better rifle.

BTW thew are very different guns apart from being 223/556 and are semi-auto. NO military would ever want to carry a mini 14 its WAY heavier.

[MistWolf]

When I started reading the first page, I marshaled my thoughts for a clear and concise post regarding this subject. By the time I finished page 1, I realized it was a waste of time. We've been Mall Ninjaed by a Glock45 copycat.

Good prank stchman. You sure knew which buzzwords would get folks going. I've got to admit, it was entertaining and well worth a bag of popcorn

[KAK]

BTW I fired 500 rounds of monarch lacquered steel cased garbage ammo in one range trip with my AR. NEVER JAMMED ONCE!!!

[Quentin]

I carried the M14 most of the time from 1966-69 except 3 months in Nam when they handed us the M16. Liked them both but the 14 was pretty heavy to lug around. Must say I liked the new rifle.

After I got out I was very interested in the Mini-14 but the accuracy stories turned me off. Did like the rifle otherwise though. And love Ruger, have three of their handguns.

Well I had other rifles so didn't get any 223/5.56 over the years until recently. And it was an AR, M4 style. Main reason was I could build it myself and it turned out real good. Also prices have come back to earth so now's a good time to buy an AR before the next panic.

I still like the Mini-14 and it's not as intimidating looking as the M4 but sometimes you like intimidating! The AR was the right choice for me. Get whichever one you like best, no big deal, get the one you like and who cares what anyone else thinks.

[Handgunner]

If you're not going to battle, which most of us aren't, they're both great guns. No reason to bag on one just because you don't prefer it.

This is probably the best response I've seen when it comes to these types of threads.

[strambo]

So after this thread I guess the posters GUARANTEE that if I purchase an AR it will shoot ANY make of .223 or 5.56 ammo? I can also lube it with 5W-30 Quaker State as well.

Of course not...which AR, make, model, configuration? There can be no direct comparison in any meaningful way with a Ruger Mini-14 (an exact model and brand) and a generic "AR".

What kind of "AR, in what configuration and made by whom? Might as well say "my Ruger P93 always goes bang and everyone with a 1911 says it jams." 1911's are made by nearly every firearms manufacturer in all different sizes and configurations.

Compare your Ruger Mini 14 to a specific brand and model AR that you think is comparable/representative of what you think an "AR" is.

Can't go by looks either as there is a lot going on under the hood of a brand "X" AR vs. a brand "Y" that could adversely effect reliability in one and not the other.

What about an AR with a chrome chamber in 5.56 vs a .223 non-chrome line chamber? Might a difference like that effect reliability with certain ammo and not others? What do your friends have?

A good baseline "AR" carbine to compare to the mini IMO would be the Colt 6920, current street price $995-$1200 (unless you get suckered into paying election prices still). This is as close to the issue M4 as it gets in a civilian AR. Costs about 2X what the mini does...worth it? Who knows, but at least a debate about a Colt 6920 vs a Ruger mini-14 wouldn't bring the price, feature and reliability variance of every AR known to man including home-built ones into play vs the one specific rifle on the other side.