CA tactical carbine - Mini-14

[dave3006]

This thread is not for the mini haters. It is for us that are held captive in occupied Kali. Here is what I have done to turn the Mini-14 into a decent fighting carbine. I also have M1 Garands if I need more punch.

1. Shorten barrel to 16" - eliminates POI shift as gun gets hot. Makes groups a realistic 2-3 MOA. Makes the gun more manageble in tight quarters.

2. Ultimak rail - allows you to cowitness the iron sights with Aimpoint. Good for stiffening barrel. Amega ranges is too high to cowitness.

3. Aimpoint CompML2 - Excellent for low light shooting. Faster than iron sights.

4. XS rear sight - better than factory original.

5. Mags - PMI or factory. Not one malfunction in last 5000 rounds with cheap wolf ammo.

6. Trigger job - the trigger can be made decent for about $25.

I also have a Yugo SKS. I like the Yugo. But, for a SHTF situation, I would much rather have the Mini. It loads easier, higher capacity, better trigger, better sights, and smaller.

That's it. If I lived in a free state, I would buy an AR-15 too. With these mods, the Mini is good gun.

 

[bad LT]

I think you have a better SHTF gun with your Garands. Garands have actually been in many SHTF situations (Bastogne, Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.) and like you said, they have more "punch."

 

[George S.]

There are a couple of threads over on the Perfect Union Forum in the Mini-14 section regarding barrel stabilizers and how they apparently help with shrinking groups to close to MOA sizes. Shortening the barrel is one good method to shrink group sizes.

One version is a rod held by clamps and the other is a standard industrial collar that you can slide back and forth to find the "sweet spot" for your particular rifle. Either one sound very intersting and the consensus is a stabilizer will be a great help with factory length barrels.

Does CA allow a threaded muzzle brake? I have a Masen pin-on brake on my Mini and it did help with accuracy a bit. I also have a smaller gas port bushing that cured the Mini's ability to toss cases out to 30 feet

I had a trigger job done (by Mike Knifong in Beaverton, OR) and got his small gas port bushing set, a op-rod buffer and a bedding video. With these items and the brake, I can get <-2" groups at 50 yards with the factory sights. The factory sights don't work well at 100 yards so my next mod will be a scope. The smaller gas port bushing and the buffer will help to improve scope life. Factory Mini's can tear up the low end scopes easily.

I like my Mini; it's fun to shoot, doesn't have the "look" of EBR's and the action is based on a well-proven design. I have both Masen mags and Pro Mags in various capacities and both have yet to cause problems.

 

[db_tanker]

how much for those mods?

I used to have one and wouldn't mind getting another bullet hose again...


I think that making the barrel thicker and modifying the gas block to accomodate the larger diameter would help alot on the barrel whip....

Darrell

 

[355sigfan]

I think you have a better SHTF gun with your Garands. Garands have actually been in many SHTF situations (Bastogne, Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.) and like you said, they have more "punch."
END QUOTE

The Brown Bess and the Henry rifle have seen a lot of SHTF action as well but they are a poor choice today as their time has come and gone like the Garands. The Garand is a nice piece of history but its no longer a viable fighting rifle unless you have no other choice. The 223 also does fine inside 300 yards and its better for selfdefense applications inside a home than the 3006.
Pat

 

[dave3006]

The Garand no longer a viable fighting rifle??????!!!!!!!!!! You are joking, right? It is obsolete like an M1A is obsolete. It is equal to the M1A in practical terms for any civilian.

I would never feel undergunned with a Garand. It will penetrate cover in ways a .223 Mini-14 can only dream of. Enblocs are faster than a box mag. And, it is accurate and reliable.

The Mini-14 would perform better at night with the red dot scope in a shtf scenario. I took my Garand to a "Tactical Carbine Class". I held my own with the AR15 guys except for the night shoot. The ARs with red dots did much better.

If I need penetration - Garand

If I need low light capabilty - Mini with Aimpoint.

 

[Ian]

The Garand is a nice piece of history but its no longer a viable fighting rifle unless you have no other choice.

I've really got to disagree with you here, 355sigfan. An M1 is a perfectly viable fighting weapon, either tweaked or in original form. I just recently took mine to a 4-day tactical rifle class, and did very well with it.

My idea for a good CA-legal tactical rifle would be a CMP M1 Garand retrofitted with a .308 tanker kit (Numrich sells these for $225). Presto, a handy, potent, and reliable rifle.

 

[El Rojo]

The Garand is a nice piece of history but its no longer a viable fighting rifle unless you have no other choice.

I disagree. I will challenge you to a tactical shoot-out with your Mini-14 and my Garand. (of course this will never happen) My point is not to boast, but to simply say I would take a Garand into battle anytime.

 

[dave3006]

I have done some simple comparisons with my Mini-14 (with Aimpoint) and my Garands. At 100 yards, shooting a 12" x 12" steel plate from a ready standing position to kneeling, I get the same hit ratio with both rifles.

The Garand is more accurate. But, the Mini is easier to shoot due to lower recoil, red dot sight and less weight. They are both good rifles, each with their own advantages. At least I NEVER worry about either malfunctioning. It just never happens.

 

[355sigfan]

disagree. I will challenge you to a tactical shoot-out with your Mini-14 and my Garand. (of course this will never happen) My point is not to boast, but to simply say I would take a Garand into battle anytime.
END QUOTE

I will take you up on that but I will use my Colt M4 with an Eotech and a surefire forend. I don't care for the mini. The Garands barrier penetration is a liability in a civilian selfdefense situation not an asset. You say enblocks load faster than box mags I would like to see that. But even if I conceed that point you wil lbe reloading a lot more often and you can't tactically reload. (top off your gun after firing a few rounds) thats a real liablity. Then there is the enormous size of the Garand which makes moving around in tight spaces difficult. It can hold its own at range but it sucks in CQB situations.
Pat

 

[dave3006]

Any civilian situation that requires a rifle is, by definition, messed up. When the shooting starts, people hide behind things. Punching through cover is in my opinion THE most neglected feature of a SHTF rifle. Ammo capacity is overrated for a semiauto carbine. Your AR15 has a 30 round mag because it was designed as a selective fire weapon. You probably don't have a selective fire M16. Therefore, you are trading off a reduced power round for a feature you can't even use.

 

[goalie]

Anyone that says a Garand is not a viable fighting rifle has not done much fighting with a rifle in their life. One could argue more convincingly that the AR platform is less "viable" as a true fighting rifle than a Garand.

Plus, reloading with a Garand is fast. Real fast. Scary fast.

 

[wasrjoe]

It seems to me like two different types of fighting are being considered here. I would think that the Garand would do perfectly well medium-long range, and an AR-15/Mini-14 platform would do well short-medium range. Pick what's most suitable for your environment.

 

[natedog]

I sold a Mini-14 and bought a Garand. Since I'm limited to 10 round magazines, I figure I'd rather have 8 really big cartridges than 10 small cartridges. I don't doubt the effectiveness of the 5.56mm on human targets, but the '06 does give me a range advantage and a penetration advantage. The Garand is a lot longer and heavier, but it's also more durable with better sights. If I could have an AR-15 with 30 round magazines, though, it'd be no contest.

 

[The Dutchman]

what's a .308 tanker kit?

 

[Ian]

I will take you up on that but I will use my Colt M4 with an Eotech and a surefire forend.

Heh. One of the guys I beat in the man-on-man shoot at Front Sight (with my M1) had pretty much that setup.

The Garands barrier penetration is a liability in a civilian selfdefense situation not an asset.

Maybe in suburbia penetration is a liability, but not everyone lives in a stick-framed house 50 feet from their neighbors.

You say enblocks load faster than box mags I would like to see that.

Not two weeks ago I was in a class that included reloading under time pressure, and beating a lot of AR shooters at it. They were given 2.5 seconds for a mag change, and I was getting a new clip in and my sights back on target in 2.2 or 2.3 seconds.

But even if I conceed that point you wil lbe reloading a lot more often and you can't tactically reload. (top off your gun after firing a few rounds) thats a real liablity.

True that M1s need to reload more than most rifles. But how many civilian defensive scenarios are going to require 9+ rounds of .308 or .30-06? As for tactical reloading, just dump the partial clip and load a new one. No big deal.

Then there is the enormous size of the Garand which makes moving around in tight spaces difficult.

I just measured my M1, it has an OAL of 39 inches. That's only 4.75" longer than an AK, and the exact same length as an AR with a 20" barrel.

It can hold its own at range but it sucks in CQB situations.

I've never been in a CQB situation, so I couldn't say for sure. What I do know is that at 7 yards, my first shot comes as fast as anyone with an AR, and my followup shots are almost as fast. It's a matter of practice, not gear.

 

[Zach S]

At least my AR wont give me the "garand thumb"

Personally, I'd take the AR15 over a Garand. Of course, I have a good bit of time behind the AR, and none behind a Garand, other than fondling one or two at the store.

 

[Ian]

Zach - Keep in mind that dave's original post was about California-legal guns, which would rule out new ARs.

 

[Sunray]

"...what's a .308 tanker kit?..." Aside from a waste of a good rifle, it's a shorter barrel(usually 18") and the parts to try and get it to work properly. Gives you a massive increase in blast and noise too. If it actually works. Most of 'em are jam-a-matics.
"...wont give me the "garand thumb"..." Neither will a Garand if you're loading it properly. Keep your thumb on top of the clip facing forward with the other four fingers alongside the rifle and you'll never get bitten.
"...Shorten barrel to 16" - eliminates POI shift as gun gets hot..." How? Lopping off 2.5" won't make a lick of difference. Nor will it make a rifle that comes with an 18.5" barrel any handier. Mind you, for the money Ruger wants for a new Mini-14($750 or $809 MSRP), it should be much more accurate out of the box. And how does a .223 have more punch than a .30-06?
My Garand would not be my first choice for a fighting rifle. Just because of the weight. My M1 carbine using my handloads is another story. Those 110 HP's will blow a hole the size of a grapefruit in meat.
Zach, you really should shoot a Garand whenever you can. There's nothing like it. Go to a CMP or J.C. Garand match, if you can. Somebody's sure to let you shoot one. An AR just isn't the same.

 

[GW]

So, is a Springfield Socom or Scout out of the question in this discussion?
They are CA legal, give .308 power, are handy for CQB and IMHO much more accurate than a Mini

 

[natedog]

Shortening the barrel makes it stiffer, so it whips around less. Same affect as adding mass to the barrel (ie, bull barrel, HBAR) without the extra weight.

 

[355sigfan]

I've never been in a CQB situation, so I couldn't say for sure. What I do know is that at 7 yards, my first shot comes as fast as anyone with an AR, and my followup shots are almost as fast. It's a matter of practice, not gear.
END QUOTE

Try shooting a fail to stop drill from 5 yards (2 rounds to the chest 1 to the head) in 1.5 seconds from guard with your Garand. thats from out SWAT course. Let me know how it works out for you. As for 39 inches over all who carries a 20 inch AR. Most use 16 inch guns or less. The Garand will do ok in a medium to long range fight but it will get its ass kicked up close. Its obsolete thats why no one uses them anymore.
Pat

 

[Sven]

Get em while you can: M1As, SU-16s, Mini-14s, M1 Carbines, M1s... rate em later.

 

[Duke of Lawnchair]

Get em while you can: M1As, SU-16s, Mini-14s, M1 Carbines, M1s... rate em later.

Word.

dave3006, it looks like you found yourself a nice handy little carbine. Rock it.

 

[El Rojo]

I will take you up on that but I will use my Colt M4 with an Eotech and a surefire forend.

Note the title of the thread. We aren't talking about Colt M4s. If we were going to just introduce random guns into our little Internet pissing match, I would just use a the 120mm cannon from my M1A1 tank and blow your entire set of cover away and follow up with the 240 or M2 or whatever it is they have up there.

355sigfan, you are the crap with your AR. Congrats. You can shoot two rounds into someone and one to the head in 1.5 seconds. I can shoot one round to center mass in less. What is the point? First round on target wins, unless you are using a mouse gun, then it might be first three rounds on target wins.

Anyway, serious, who cares about your AR and what not. You said the Garand is not a viable fighting rifle and you are wrong. Are there better rifles out there for CQB or 1000 shooting? Sure. That wasn't what you said. You said the Garand isn't a viable fighting rifle and you are wrong. Like they say at Front Site. "Any gun will do if you will do."