Ruger Mini-14 vs. AR-15 - Which one and why?

I have many AR-15's, only 1 Mini 14. If I had to choose one as my only .223/5.56 rifle, it would probably be the Mini.

I love shooting the Mini, I find shooting it to be more comfortable, especially quickly dropping into Prone with a sling. It is very similar to shooting my Garands, just costs less per trigger pull.

With that said, I can shoot an SR-1 target in the black reliably with a Mini. Sounds Good....right? With my PSA M4A1 Clone AR, I usually only one (maybe 2) round out of the 10 ring in a 10-shot string. It is not my most accurate AR, just usually the only one I lay down with a sling with.

If I compare a scoped Mini to a Scoped .223 AR (keeping in mind PSA is generally my "expensive" ARs) the result is embarrasing for the Mini. It is a modern one. The weapon system is not accurate when compared to other modern rifles (or any US Service Rifle after 1903.)

So why would I keep the Mini? Because .223 is "meh" at best for me. As far as ARs go, I like 7.62x39, 9mm, 45, 350 Legend, 300 BO, and .308 better. If it was full auto, like it is supposed to be, it would be different. But semiauto, nope. For close shooting, the PCCs are more fun, and much quieter. For shooting Meat, 7.62x39 and 350L are preferable. For long range, .308, Grendel, and others flat out beat it. In semiauto, .223 is merely OK for just about everything. In full auto, it is #1 in my book.

So setting aside my .223 ARs for a Mini wuld be easy. But I would still have several ARs. Oh, and my 10.5" Bear Creek $450 on sale 9mm AR Pistol....still more accurate at 100 than my Mini.

For the most part, Minis are Fun, but they are not accurate. I have personally seen a sub-MOA mini ONCE. And the owner sold it without telling me. It was a department of corrections trade in from some state or other.

Check out these groups from a Mini-14 Tactical with a folding stock:



The orange circles are 2" and the groups were shot at 50 yards. There is more than one sub-MOA group there. Now, I only shot two, but you can bet that if I shot some more, it wouldn't be long before I came up with a 3-shot sub-MOA group -- and that would qualify for a lot of manufacturer's sub-MOA guarantees. Ruger could, by the same rights as other makers do, claim the Mini-14 comes with a "sub-MOA" guarantee. I don't think they have the gall to do that, but other makers do, and it lends to the perception that Mini-14's are behind the ball when it comes to accuracy. I don't doubt a Ruger American would be a safer bet for accuracy vs. a Mini-14, not to mention Ruger's Precision Rifle. Don't perceive this as a claim that the Mini-14 is more accurate than it really is. What I'm saying is that a lot of other rifles are perceived to be more accurate than they are and if we look at actual results vs. perceptions, we get a better picture of reality.

ditmo said:

Why does it always turn into a pissing contest. I have and like both AR's and Mini's. I bought my first Mini-14 in 1989 because it was a lot cheaper than an AR. I still own it and like it. This is pre ranch model. I also have a Mini-30, and a Ranch Rifle. If I'm shooting off of a bench the AR wins everytime. If I'm shooting field positions I actually prefer the mini. Making snap shots I'm quicker with the mini.

For a new shooter looking for a semi-auto rifle in todays age the AR makes a lot more sense dollar wise. Cheaper magazines and parts galore.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why does “my” choice, or justification thereof have to include tearing apart someone else’s choice? Doesn’t matter what side you’re coming from it’s not a good look.

You don’t care for ARs, he doesn’t care for Mini 14s, this guy hates em both, and the next guy has and uses three of each.

So be it…lol

I just pray if it ever hits the fan y’all are half as good as you say you are with whichever one you choose.

Ignition Override said:

-and still had the LEO-Only 20-rd. magazine.

Click to expand...

That was a major complaint back in the 80's when Bill Ruger was still alive and hated us lowly civilians (I really surprised he even sold us the guns ) and didn't think we could be trusted with or want us having hi cap mags. Other than basically the black market, you couldn't get them, and the guns only came with a 5 or 10 rounder (cant remember which right now CRS kicked in ). Most of the aftermarket mags were trash too and way overpriced.

Over the years, Ive had a love/hate relationship with Ruger, and mostly more annoyance and hate than anything good.

westernrover said:

On the thread about Ruger's new Mini-14 SKU with the folding stock and bayonet lug, someone mentioned considering it if it were 2 MOA, and another person suggested 2 MOA would be the exception.

Click to expand...

I would say that it is the exception, but I have not given up. Mine HATES 77gr pills, does not do well with 52/55gr. 62's are starting to show promise though. I am hoping to find a load that gets mine <2MOA. If the reviews of the Accu-Strut weren't so mixed on maodern Minis, I would have already done that.

trackskippy: True, I've read so much back then about the Grand Appeaser of the Antis, Bill Ruger.
That pretty used but rock solid mag certainly kept the rifle 100% reliable. The ammo was about 600 rds. of Silver Bear.

Much of the magazine info and details about Bill's actions as an Enemy Collaborator was on the gun website Perfect Union, --not-- the "P U" Weed shop in CA...

They were both designed by the same fella. Here he is:



I know most people attribute the AR-15 to Eugene Stoner. I'm sure the trivia buffs will have a more correct understanding than I express, but Stoner primarily worked on the AR-10 and Sullivan shrank the design down to become the AR-15. I'm not claiming Stoner was un-involved, but that Sullivan did that, and then you can hear him speak for himself about the design of the Mini-14.

westernrover said:

Check out these groups from a Mini-14 Tactical with a folding stock:

The orange circles are 2" and the groups were shot at 50 yards. There is more than one sub-MOA group there. Now, I only shot two, but you can bet that if I shot some more, it wouldn't be long before I came up with a 3-shot sub-MOA group -- and that would qualify for a lot of manufacturer's sub-MOA guarantees. Ruger could, by the same rights as other makers do, claim the Mini-14 comes with a "sub-MOA" guarantee. I don't think they have the gall to do that, but other makers do, and it lends to the perception that Mini-14's are behind the ball when it comes to accuracy. I don't doubt a Ruger American would be a safer bet for accuracy vs. a Mini-14, not to mention Ruger's Precision Rifle. Don't perceive this as a claim that the Mini-14 is more accurate than it really is. What I'm saying is that a lot of other rifles are perceived to be more accurate than they are and if we look at actual results vs. perceptions, we get a better picture of reality.

Click to expand...

This was shot with 10.5" PSA AR kit gun off a rest prone at 100 yards and with a 4moa Aimpoint getting the gun the gun zeroed. The "badge" on that hat is about 2"x 1.5". Ammo was just my run of the mill USGI equivalent 55 grain ball reloads and blasting ammo. Basically covered the "white spot" on the hat with the dot, as at that distance it subtends 4" and I couldn't actually see what I was aiming at.



Ive got one AR, and Armalite, that's set up as a precision rifle, and with my reloads tailored to the gun will literally shoot bug holes prone off a bipod at the same distance if I don't blow things. Same platform, totally different guns. But the "sloppier" shooting AR's I have still would have been shooting better than any of the Mini's Ive owned and shot, of any era.

westernrover said:

There is more than one sub-MOA group there.

Click to expand...

There are multiple instances where statistical certainties of group distributions placed one bullet closer to the others than in the other instances. This is another example of an observer bias where the shooter/reloader found confidence in coincidence. Looking at these targets and the relative dispersions, I'd largely bet that repeating the test would result in incongruent "results."

Remember, the confidence interval for small sample sizes in highly variable populations is exceptionally poor. Also remember, 68% of shots will fall within the center ~1/3 of a potential group, and 95% of shots will fall within the center ~2/3 of a potential group. Having a few out of a dozen 2 shot groups fall within 1moa at 50yrds, with one out of 14 groups nearly 4moa, eh... I'm betting that rifle really wants to shoot around 2moa... Certainly, a 2moa rifle WILL deliver a sub-moa 3 shot group, but it'll be just as meaningless in terms of the actual rifle performance.

westernrover said:

Check out these groups from a Mini-14 Tactical with a folding stock:

The orange circles are 2" and the groups were shot at 50 yards. There is more than one sub-MOA group there. Now, I only shot two, but you can bet that if I shot some more, it wouldn't be long before I came up with a 3-shot sub-MOA group -- and that would qualify for a lot of manufacturer's sub-MOA guarantees. Ruger could, by the same rights as other makers do, claim the Mini-14 comes with a "sub-MOA" guarantee. I don't think they have the gall to do that, but other makers do, and it lends to the perception that Mini-14's are behind the ball when it comes to accuracy. I don't doubt a Ruger American would be a safer bet for accuracy vs. a Mini-14, not to mention Ruger's Precision Rifle. Don't perceive this as a claim that the Mini-14 is more accurate than it really is. What I'm saying is that a lot of other rifles are perceived to be more accurate than they are and if we look at actual results vs. perceptions, we get a better picture of reality.

Click to expand...

50-yards? …. A blunderbuss can look MOA or better at 50yds.

Let’s try the exercise again with a solid 100-yd zero but shoot for score at 200-yds. Will the Mini hit the bull?

You know the answer ….

Mini 14 barrels get hot quick.

Varminterror said:

There are multiple instances where statistical certainties of group distributions placed one bullet closer to the others than in the other instances. This is another example of an observer bias where the shooter/reloader found confidence in coincidence. Looking at these targets and the relative dispersions, I'd largely bet that repeating the test would result in incongruent "results."

Remember, the confidence interval for small sample sizes in highly variable populations is exceptionally poor. Also remember, 68% of shots will fall within the center ~1/3 of a potential group, and 95% of shots will fall within the center ~2/3 of a potential group. Having a few out of a dozen 2 shot groups fall within 1moa at 50yrds, with one out of 14 groups nearly 4moa, eh... I'm betting that rifle really wants to shoot around 2moa... Certainly, a 2moa rifle WILL deliver a sub-moa 3 shot group, but it'll be just as meaningless in terms of the actual rifle performance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. My claim of "sub-MOA" is meaningless. My point was that so is the sub-MOA guarantee of many manufacturer's rifles. On the other hand, those claims and guarantees skew the perception of consumers -- not the F-class shooting segment of consumers, but a lot of the rest of them -- so that people perceive that rifles in general should shoot sub-MOA and they're critical of rifles that don't. Some of that criticism is misplaced and a better understanding of reality would probably change their perceptions.

Frulk said:

I’m a big Mini 14 fan. But when asked in this context (Mini vs AR)….considering the AR’s numerous advantages, I’m not sure why

Click to expand...

The AR platform is objectively better than the Mini-14 platform. Just like a Honda Accord is objectively better than a '71 Camaro. That may be an extreme example but the reasons pointed out in this thread (nostalgia, looks, feel, personal preference) certainly apply to both. If that analogy hurts your feelings, try maybe the new Acura NSX versus a '71 Camaro. Is one an objectively better car in every measurable way? Certainly. But some people prefer wood and steel and "classic" looks, and let's say "flexible" accuracy standards and performance. LOL For a daily driver or serious-use rifle? I think the answer is pretty clear.

I think there's room in the world (and the safe) for both. However at current MSRP, I'm not sure I'd own a Mini. The price is absolutely laughable.

Ignition Override said:

Because of the thick post and trigger I sold it (when Armslist was Good) to have ready cash because the "Enfield #5 "Jungle" bug bit me hard.

Click to expand...

A milsurp addiction also spelled the end for my Mini

westernrover said:

Exactly. My claim of "sub-MOA" is meaningless. My point was that so is the sub-MOA guarantee of many manufacturer's rifles. On the other hand, those claims and guarantees skew the perception of consumers -- not the F-class shooting segment of consumers, but a lot of the rest of them -- so that people perceive that rifles in general should shoot sub-MOA and they're critical of rifles that don't. Some of that criticism is misplaced and a better understanding of reality would probably change their perceptions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and IMO quite a few of the people who parrot AR-15 accuracy claims have 1. Never actually shot their rifles on paper and measured any groups; and 2. Aren't actually capable of getting "1 MOA at 100 yards all day long" with ANY rifle.

This video isn't scientific but it's interesting to consider, and it sort of supports my point.



Also for entertainment/consideration

I "usually" don't get in on threads that have to do with the mini-14. But every now and then...

The AR is hands down the better weapon system, period! Even in ban states, I have AR's and live in CA. Featureless is the best option and I still have a muzzle brake and detachable mag. Just don't get me started on the whole mud flap...

AR's can be made into every caliber from .22 to 50 BMG! Don't like the look, change it! Don't like the barrel, swap it! Want a different caliber, build or buy another upper! They're like Legos for adults.

ETA: They also make belt fed uppers for AR lowers.

We don't need to talk about accuracy, hands down the AR platform has always been better than a mini. Regardless of barrel weight or adding a strut or having someone tune them up.

The only other weapon that comes close to an AR, is the AK. But that's not because of any of the above.

The only thing I would do with a mini is give it to my enemy. I view them with great disdain, have been known to call them the biggest POS ever sold to the gun community.

I have personally seen two blow up, one was in my brother's face and the other a friend. Both were shooting factory .223 ammunition when they failed.

It will never be on my radar or in my safe.

Varminterror said:

A mini-14 is only an accurate rifle to someone who does not actually understand what is an accurate rifle. Calling a Mini an accurate rifle is fanboi drivel...

Click to expand...

That's funny. Your an entertaining assembler

I hunt so want decent accuracy.
An AR is the easy button

I had a stainless ranch and liked the gun but the lack of great accuracy and hard to make it accurate compared to the AR's AND the lack of cheap high cap reliable mags made it easy to let go when a bud wanted it more than i....

Styx said:

No, it's not as far as the gas system is concerned. It's fact and simple physics.

Click to expand...

Source?

Styx said:

I don't know what Colt’s are going for nowadays, but LMT, BCM, and the like do not go for $900 NIB. You definitely aren't going to get a LMT piston AR for anywhere around that price. I own BCM AR15s, and I can guarantee you what you claim isn't true.

Click to expand...

Source or citations to support your claim?

Styx said:

When we compare manufacturer piston AR15s to the piston Mini14, the price goes up exponentially.

Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of ARs are D.I. Thus your reference to “piston” ARs is statistically biased. So the cost factor clearly still favors the AR.

Styx said:

Yes, the current offering are accurate.

Click to expand...

Citations or sources to support the alleged better accuracy of the Mini over the AR?

Some of y'all have left the principle of the High Road, and are off in the weeds all PO'd about the reasoning and opinions of others. Kinda sad really.

I like the mini and appreciate it for what it is. It is the horribly crapped on 187 series, with the only mod being an M1 carbine rear sight.
I enjoy using it! It is fun, i like the feel of it, and its accurate enough for my purpose. Simple as that.

My AR is a lowly A2 with no optics or whizz bang doodads. Y'all'd probly crap on that too

I used to own a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle years ago. Unfortunately, it shot consistently worse than 4 MOA even with match ammo, a 3-9x scope, and a rest. It was absolutely reliable, though.

I liked everything about it except the inaccuracy and the proprietary expensive mags.

Ironicaintit said:

Some of y'all have left the principle of the High Road, and are off in the weeds all PO'd about the reasoning and opinions of others. Kinda sad really.
I like the mini and appreciate it for what it is. It is the horribly crapped on 187 series, with the only mod being an M1 carbine rear sight.
I enjoy using it! It is fun, i like the feel of it, and its accurate enough for my purpose. Simple as that.
My AR is a lowly A2 with no optics or whizz bang doodads. Y'all'd probly crap on that too

Click to expand...

Sounds aspirational.

A rifle can be fun, and can be great to look at, but still objectively suck as a rifle.

I dated a girl in grad school for a while like that. A lot of fun most of the time, but absolutely horrible in a relationship, and didn't survive the scrutiny of comparison with... well... basically any other living human on the planet as a relationship partner... But hey, it was kinda fun, and she sure wasn't hard to look at...

So if the question is rather, "Is the Mini-14 a fun rifle to shoot?" Sure is. Is it a cool looking rifle? Sure is. Is it objectively equivalent to an AR? Not in any way. Is it worth the money if compared to an AR? Not remotely. But hey, Mini's are kinda fun, and not too hard to look at either...

Styx said:

Don't believe the hype.

Click to expand...

Competitive shooting weeds the hype as the losers still lose. Mini's winning any match are as common as hens teeth, unless there are some "mini only" matches I don't know about.