jerkface11
Member
He basically said only the military has a use for AR's and M1A's. If no one else is going to call him on it I will.
How about a mini-14
- Thread starter chrissmallwood
- Start date
- Status
Neo-Luddite
Member
"Heresy!" they shout! (but down deep you know it's true).
OK--he approached over-the-top-there. The thing I took away was that Edrice prefers the m-14 action and that the mini-14 meets his needs for close-quarter firepower as well as an AR could.
OK--he approached over-the-top-there. The thing I took away was that Edrice prefers the m-14 action and that the mini-14 meets his needs for close-quarter firepower as well as an AR could.
edrice
Member
jerkface11 said:
Bingo!
Eugene Stoner agrees with you. That's exactly the reason he designed it.
But reading carefully, my premise says they are "well suited for that purpose." Not "only suitable for warfare" as you mistranslated. So I never said that. Big difference.
And lets not forget that the civilian AR-15 is not as well-suited for that purpose as the M16 fully-auto variant, and it that regard, it's really no better than the Mini. Anyone who seriously believes that an individual with a civilian AR pitted against an individual with a Mini automatically wins the battle is missing some data.
Ed
jerkface11
Member
The Mini-14 was designed to do the EXACT same job as the AR15. When it proved not to be up to the task Ruger began marketing it as a plinker and ranch rifle.
tomh1426
Member
I had a mini 14, I really regret selling it.
It was alot of fun and seemed really accurate in the desert and never stopped running.
When I shot it at the range off a bench it did kinda suck.
I shot Ar's and they just dont do it for me, AT ALL
If I had the money I wouldnt buy either
It was alot of fun and seemed really accurate in the desert and never stopped running.
When I shot it at the range off a bench it did kinda suck.
I shot Ar's and they just dont do it for me, AT ALL
If I had the money I wouldnt buy either
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
jerkface11 said:
As a fellow vet who has used the 5.56 in combat, please don't put words in Ed's mouth.
When you state "he basically said only . . ." you're drawing the conclusion YOU want to draw rather than perhaps what was trying to be communicated.
And, regardless, he has more than earned his right to opine about BOTH the combat applications of the weapon as well as the hunting and plinking applications.
Jeff
edrice
Member
jerkface11 said:
Demonstrably untrue, jerkface11. I can't think of two more different hertitages.
The AR had it's roots in the 1950s as a direct result from research to replace the military battle rifle, and it was accepted by the US Army in 1964. It's design development was purely to compete for military purposes.
The Mini-14 wasn't even produced until 10 years after the military had already adopted the M16. So saying it was designed to do the exact same job as the AR seems to be without merit. The Mini was a compact knock-off of a previous military design to attract civilian sales and it was a very popular rifle. The reason the Ranch rifle was added later is because of the difficulty of adding a scope to the original. The brass now deflected sideways instead of up into the scope and the rear sight was no longer in the way.
Saying Ruger came out with the Ranch rifle because the military didn't want it just doesn't give an accurate picture.
Bart Skelton said:
Yes, a full-auto version was produced and these became popular with foreign militaries and many police departments.
So, I'm not certain where you got your information but it might be worth the time to read the Mini-14 and M16 articles on Wikipedia to brush up on the actual history of development.
Ed
GeezerwithGuns
Member
I recently sold my mini. I'm now shopping for an AR. The mini is a lot of fun to shoot (at first), but when the fun level decreased, I started looking for accuracy and was disappointed.
jerkface11
Member
I guess if wikipedia disagrees with me I must be wrong.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Wikipedia's information is only as accurate as the person entering it to the review board, plus the board's own knowledge...
I always have liked the Mini because the first shot from a cold barrel, today, goes to the same place as it did last week. That's made problems for Jack the rabbit, or Ol' Wily the coyote.
And they're real reliable on ruining the looks of aluminum cans...
, Art
I always have liked the Mini because the first shot from a cold barrel, today, goes to the same place as it did last week. That's made problems for Jack the rabbit, or Ol' Wily the coyote.
And they're real reliable on ruining the looks of aluminum cans...
, Art
rbernie
Contributing Member
Well, not quite. The actual cost of most lowers with a cheapie collapsible stock is around $300, and the CMMG uppers are going to hit closer to six by the time it gets to your doorstep. As a general rule, it's pretty hard to get a NIB AR-15 platform of any reasonable quality in your hands for less than $850. Used, only the Oly Plinkers sell for less than $650; most basic AR-15s sell for between $650 and $750 and many (especially those with features that the Min-14 lacks, such as a chrome-lined barrel) are still pushing close to a grand.
A NIB Mini-14 is going for around $650; used ones hover around $400-$500.
That's a bit uncharitable, IMO. I have both. In fact, lots of both. They are what they are, and I do not try to make either be something that they're not.
The Mini-14 with an Ultimak and a Aimpoint is going to be as effective for varmint control duties inside of 150 yards as would an AR in a similar configuration. It has a manual of arms similar to that of an AK, for those that have AKs and switch back and forth. The Mini-14s biggest issue for actual field use is the variability in quality of the aftermarket magazines available for it. Accuracy in standard form is adequate, but generally no more than adequate without stiffening the barrel in some fashion. But I can buy a Mini-14 used for $450, put $450 into an Ultimak and Aimpoint, and have a carbine that will be effective for any varminting/SD situation inside of 150 yards, short of repelling entire zombie hordes singlehandedly by shooting their left eyeball out for days on end.
An AR is going to be, generally speaking, 1-2 MOA more accurate. An AR will, especially in HBAR form, have a more consistent POI during fast strings. An AR will have more accessory options, and magazines will be far more plentify and of higher quality. A decent used AR will also cost $300 more than a decent used Mini-14, at least where I shop.
Sometimes, it's OK to spend that extra $300 on ammo and learn how to shoot a rifle, instead of dumping all of your cash into the platform and neglecting the software.
armoredman
Member
I have a Mini-14. I only have two factory mags dueto price, but will get more. The rifle works perfectly, even with some of my weirder handloads with some odd ball bullets. Generic 55gr factory fodder tend to shoot low, and don't group well after about 80 rounds. The only good factory stuff I have found yet is the 45gr JHP Remington, which gives about 2-3 MOA. 55gr Sierra HBFMJBT over RL15, and 60gr Hornady SP over H4895 also seem to work well, about 2MOAright now, with stringing coming in at the same place, about 80 rounds.
BTW, I have seen the clamp on "harmonizer" before, but it was called AccuStrut, and sold by a guy over at PerfectUnion.com, for about $10-15 less. I want one eventually, but for me, for now, the Mini-14 is an excellent home use firearm, and fun range rifle.
BTW, I have seen the clamp on "harmonizer" before, but it was called AccuStrut, and sold by a guy over at PerfectUnion.com, for about $10-15 less. I want one eventually, but for me, for now, the Mini-14 is an excellent home use firearm, and fun range rifle.
edrice
Member
jerkface11 said:
In this case, you're right.
If anyone can show me where Wikipedia's dates of introduction are incorrect, I'm open to it. Until then I stand by it.
I also stand by the other reasons I gave and I'm going from memory on those and not from Wikipedia. Ruger introduced the Ranch after there was demand for easy scope mounting, not because the military rejected it. The M16 was already the solidly established military rifle and Bill Ruger didn't introduce the Mini with any intention of trying to unseat that.
Ed
jerkface11
Member
I didn't state ANY release dates so how can I be wrong about them? The mini14 does the EXACT same job as the AR15 just not as well. It isn't even cheaper.
armoredman
Member
Dick Metcalf wrote in an article in June of 2000, as technical editor of Shooting Times, that the Mini-14 was introduced in 1974, and the M16 replaced the M-14 in 1969. I wasn't in Vietnam, (born during), but I got to use both the M-16 and the M-14 in the US Navy in '86-'89, and really like the M-14 better. I know, wasn't the jungle, etc. But I like the look and feel of a good wood stocked auto loading rifle.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Development started on the Mini-14 in 1967, according to TheGunZone. By 1967, the M-14 was 'officially' phased out in Vietnam by the Army and all Army troops issued M16s.
I have seen the 1974 introduction date for the 180- series as well, and Rugers site shows the 181- series (from which the current Mini-14 is derived) as started production in 1978.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-3.html
http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/PS-SNH-RI-Mini14A.html
This is the kind of inflammatory and unsupportable comment that seems to characterize any Mini-14 thread, eventually.
The Mini14 on the shelf today is not as expensive as the cheapest AR-15 available today, and in general is $200-$300 less expensive in any guise. The Mini-14 should not be considered a replacement for an AR-15, and they occupy differing subsets of the market.
Anyone that's owned and used (off the range) both of them has an intrinsic understanding that they are not DESIGNED to be competitors of each other.
jerkface11
Member
You can put an AR together for $500 if you're willing to look for deals.
Chris, it sounds like you've made your choice and are a happy camper.
Although... I think a lot of times we already have are minds set on what we want no matter what anybody says. If you're happy with a 5" 100 yard group then you have made the right choice. You can get a lot of good info. on quality accessory's out of this thread.
Are you kidding... I would jump at the chance to own a AR 15. (or a Barrett .50) I still want a .223. After I do some more research the Rem most likely will be added to my 08 gun budget
Although... I think a lot of times we already have are minds set on what we want no matter what anybody says. If you're happy with a 5" 100 yard group then you have made the right choice. You can get a lot of good info. on quality accessory's out of this thread.
Thanks Ratshooter - This post was the pearl in the oyster of this thread for me. I live in CA so I don't have the luxury of a choice. Right before XMAS I was all set to buy a New Mini 14 Match-grade because I wanted (and still want) an accurate .223. semi. After doing some research I put the mini on hold and bought a SOCOM II .308.Ratshooter said:
Are you kidding... I would jump at the chance to own a AR 15. (or a Barrett .50) I still want a .223. After I do some more research the Rem most likely will be added to my 08 gun budget
edrice
Member
jerkface11 said:
I was just talking your word for it.
jerkface11 said:
Seems rather open-ended. I doubt anyone would be inquiring after being smacked by a 5.56 round as to which rifle it came out of before deciding whether or not to die about it. It just seems so moot and hardly worth arguing about.
As I stated previsouly, I choose the Mini because it suits my needs better than the AR. That's an extremely important personal criteria. You may have different needs (or wants) and obviously some different perspectives. I personally don't waste time being threatened when others make choices different from my own. I'm secure in my choice and I hope you are, and if you are you won't need to spend time disparaging others' choices.
I said it in my first post -
1) The M16 is an excellent weapon.
2) The M16/AR-15 does not fill my needs.
3) The Mini does.
I hope that's clear.
Ed
edrice
Member
armoredman said:
I loved the M14! I loved knocking over man-sized targets at 600 meters, open sights.
Since I can't really justify owning an M1A/M14, the Mini does satisfy an emotional need for the M14 - not that it can do it as well as the M14, mind you. Certainly not! But neither can the AR come close to that masterpiece.
Ed
Tarvis
Member
Opinions opinions opinions. Some like it for what it is, some hate it because it isnt an AR-15. High five to everyone. If you're looking for a good cheap plinker, get a mini 14 at a gunshow or a LE trade in for $400 (saw one at todays gun show for $400 and bought mine for $400 LE trade in). Cheapest AR I've seen was $600 for an Olympic Arms bare bones "entry level plinker." Everyone complains about mini 14 accuracy, well, folks, its not a target rifle. Get over it. Someone posted thier mini shot 5 moa. High five, you bought cheap ammo and shot your pitted bbl rifle with a hangover.
If you want a 300yrd target/precision varmint gun, get an AR. If you want a great truck/yote/rabbit/pop can gun for a better price, buy a mini.
Still think the mini is crap and the AR was created by jesus, read this:
http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/200203-AR-15_vs_Mini-14.pdf
Nuff said.
If you want a 300yrd target/precision varmint gun, get an AR. If you want a great truck/yote/rabbit/pop can gun for a better price, buy a mini.
Still think the mini is crap and the AR was created by jesus, read this:
http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/200203-AR-15_vs_Mini-14.pdf
Nuff said.
armoredman
Member
Nice article, thanks! I see that's from a bit ago, but still good.
Myles
Member
Self-deleted for not taking the high road.
Last edited:
Tarvis
Member
Well put, my sentiment exactly. Thought I was going crazy for a minute there, but I'm not alone.
- Status
Similar threads
