Mini-14 or AR-15

[Art Eatman]

I've had four of the early Minis; two blued and two stainless. I kept trading in and out because of "deals and profits". I'm on my fifth AR.

I'm mostly a hunter. I like to carry my rifle at the balance point, quite often while walking-hunting. That's a big plus for the Mini. The factory 10-round mag is no problem for carrying at the balance point.

What I found was that with all four Minis, the first shot hit reliably to the point of aim. So, equal to an AR.

Commonly, the first two or three shots from a Mini were no worse than 1.5 MOA. That's plenty good if I need a second shot on a coyote. (Never did.)

What has bugged me since the mid-1990s is that Mini mag prices have gone up a lot, and quality-control problems seem to have been commonplace. In the 1970s and 1980s this was not the case. Good quality and reasonable prices, back then.

Anyhow, I never considered my Minis to be benchrest target rifles. I had a Bushmaster Match Target which was indeed one of those "half-MOA, all day" bench rest guns. But, at 9.5 pounds I thought it to be too heavy for a walk-around hunting rifle.

I guess that the gist of what I've said is that purpose should control the decision between the two.

 

[tark]

jmorris, damn it! When I saw your pic of the Mini with the string I laughed so hard I almost swallowed my Cohiba Churchill that has a yellow ring with the word 'HABANA"on it. !!!

But I got to thinking, why would it be illegal? The rifle only fires one round for each time the string D) pulls the trigger.

 

[jmorris]

jmorris, damn it! When I saw your pic of the Mini

For clarity that is not my photo. It was likely posted by someone with a SOT and FFL to be able to make it (thus the metal tag).

It is illegal because one pull of a single finger, held in place, results in more than one round fired.

Same thing with the Akins accelerator and AW Sim, the springs seem to be the problem as the Slide fire is OK, last time I checked. As the slide fire requires action (opposite from recoil) of at least one finger for it to work.

Kind of the same logic works towards the "double trigger" mini mod being OK. One pull fires one round, then another action, letting go, fires another. They said this was OK...

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I've had four of the early Minis; two blued and two stainless. I kept trading in and out because of "deals and profits". I'm on my fifth AR.

I'm mostly a hunter. I like to carry my rifle at the balance point, quite often while walking-hunting. That's a big plus for the Mini. The factory 10-round mag is no problem for carrying at the balance point.

What I found was that with all four Minis, the first shot hit reliably to the point of aim. So, equal to an AR.

Commonly, the first two or three shots from a Mini were no worse than 1.5 MOA. That's plenty good if I need a second shot on a coyote. (Never did.)

What has bugged me since the mid-1990s is that Mini mag prices have gone up a lot, and quality-control problems seem to have been commonplace. In the 1970s and 1980s this was not the case. Good quality and reasonable prices, back then.

Anyhow, I never considered my Minis to be benchrest target rifles. I had a Bushmaster Match Target which was indeed one of those "half-MOA, all day" bench rest guns. But, at 9.5 pounds I thought it to be too heavy for a walk-around hunting rifle.

I guess that the gist of what I've said is that purpose should control the decision between the two.

I agree with everything you said. Yes Ruger did have QC issues. For example I should not have had to to ream the undersize cylinder throats on my 2 Vaquero's to proper size. That should have been done at factory.
And yes the Mini carrys very well. My use of them is in alpine county, on foot after marmots. 5-6 hour day, going up and down. Hardly notice the Mini and all I ask is the first shot be true, which it will be. I'm not going to lay down a 10 shot barrage.

 

[Bobson]

Can't imagine a practical use for a mini that an AR can't more efficiently meet. Of course, if practicality isn't your game, then this isn't my thread.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Can't imagine a practical use for a mini that an AR can't more efficiently meet. Of course, if practicality isn't your game, then this isn't my thread.

All us mini owners drive heavy, gas guzzling 1958 Cadillac's. Why? Because we enjoy and like them.
Yes you could say a 2015 Honda is more "practical."
You AR owners seem to feel you have cornered the market on comman sense.

 

[Ash]

I have either a Springfield P9 in .45acp or a Ruger Police Service Six in .357mag that I wear on my belt. If going into the roughest of the rough, I take the Six. I wear it for hours upon end, get tangled in briars or vines, fight brush, crawl under brush, you name it, while cruising timber. Yet folks will tell me a Glock is better than my old six-gun and I should be using that instead. When my safety is on the line against an angry boar in the middle of nowhere, I want that .357.

For me, that Mini-14 did everything I required, and did so in a way that best served me. The AR's I owned brought nothing to the table that I required, they did nothing better for me. A dead coyote is still dead with that Ruger. I don't play "operator" nor do I compete in shooting sports.

That the Ruger STILL gets sold at the prices Ruger sells them for, every year, is proof that it fulfills a useful role for tremendous numbers of people. The Mini actually does everything we need - and want - it to do. If a firearm meets all the performance requirements of the user, is it NOT the ideal tool for the job?

 

[Bobson]

All us mini owners drive heavy, gas guzzling 1958 Cadillac's. Why? Because we enjoy and like them.
Yes you could say a 2015 Honda is more "practical."
You AR owners seem to feel you have cornered the market on comman sense.

It's not like that. I had no mind toward an us versus them attitude, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was just saying that personally, I tend to lean toward being practical, especially in regards to gun ownership. I don't think that makes me better or smarter than anyone else, and I know many folks don't share that approach, and that's fine. That's why I ended the comment abruptly and by trying to let the OP know that if he's not strictly about practicality, he should disregard my comment and move on.

 

[samweller]

Practical? I can't imagine anything more practical than the simple, direct, Garand action of a Mini 14. Easy to clean, you don't need an assist to lock up the bolt, no parts in cleaning that need tweezers, quick on target and handles well.

 

[Kame B.]

I have either a Springfield P9 in .45acp or a Ruger Police Service Six in .357mag that I wear on my belt. If going into the roughest of the rough, I take the Six. I wear it for hours upon end, get tangled in briars or vines, fight brush, crawl under brush, you name it, while cruising timber. Yet folks will tell me a Glock is better than my old six-gun and I should be using that instead. When my safety is on the line against an angry boar in the middle of nowhere, I want that .357.

For me, that Mini-14 did everything I required, and did so in a way that best served me. The AR's I owned brought nothing to the table that I required, they did nothing better for me. A dead coyote is still dead with that Ruger. I don't play "operator" nor do I compete in shooting sports.

That the Ruger STILL gets sold at the prices Ruger sells them for, every year, is proof that it fulfills a useful role for tremendous numbers of people. The Mini actually does everything we need - and want - it to do. If a firearm meets all the performance requirements of the user, is it NOT the ideal tool for the job?

Well said.

 

[tark]

Jmorris, I am confused. From the looks of that contraption, the gun starts firing itself when you chamber a round, and doesn't stop until empty. A finger never touches the trigger, from the looks of it.

What am I missing? I think I'll ask my old boss (Les Baer) If he has ever seen or heard of this thing. Les collects machine guns and has all the appropriate licences.

Whatever the result, I won't attempt to make one myself, that's for sure and for certain, as Quigley would say. Got enough worms in my life, don't need to open a new can.

 

[skoro]

I'm familiar with the AR-15 from carrying the M16a1 in my USMC days. And it's a fine rifle. I understand the attraction.

But I chose the Mini-14 ranch rifle for very superficial reasons: I like its looks. Wood stock, blued metal, etc.

That said, it's functioned flawlessly for the past 7 years. No complaints and no regrets.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

My S&W Sport has seen 1100 rounds in 4 month's now, no failures. It doesn't have the forward assist or the dust cover.....the bolt always locks up.

I've come to really like the AR, I can rapid fire 30 rounds into a 4 inch circle at 50 yards like no other rifle I have. For me, its very well balanced and ergonomic. No measurable recoil so it stays on target, like the 9mm full size pistols.

 

[jmorris]

jmorris, I am confused. From the looks of that contraption, the gun starts firing itself when you chamber a round, and doesn't stop until empty. A finger never touches the trigger, from the looks of it.

What am I missing?

The concept is that the key ring in the photo is the new "trigger", once it is pulled enough to fire the rifle, it does. This makes the bolt move to the rear chambering another round and when it is back where it started, the bolt handle would then pull the trigger again, without the "operator" doing a thing.

This turns a semiauto into a full auto by definition. To me, it would also make it quite dangerous, in that if that finger didn't stay in the exact same spot, the hammer could drop before the bolt was fully into battery.

I wouldn't do it for safety reasons and legality reasons, in that order but it would be close either way as I care for my safety first then butt and don't want to break federal laws (I have neither the proper FFL or SOT).

Posted for information purpose only and again the photo is not mine, rather one posted here more than a decade ago.

I thought there was an '03 thread but did find this old one.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163966

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

I'm surprised these are legal, but apparently they are. I've got no interest in this, as I can fire my AR in its stock form plenty fast enough.

https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/

 

[jim in Anchorage]

It's not like that. I had no mind toward an us versus them attitude, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was just saying that personally, I tend to lean toward being practical, especially in regards to gun ownership. I don't think that makes me better or smarter than anyone else, and I know many folks don't share that approach, and that's fine. That's why I ended the comment abruptly and by trying to let the OP know that if he's not strictly about practicality, he should disregard my comment and move on.

My mini is light, a joy to carry, reliable as a anvil and as accurate as I need. It's only job is to shoot marmots which it doe's exceedingly well.
I don't care if it holds zero after a 20 round rapid fire burst. I have no interest in swapping uppers or adding rails or flashlights.
So how is this not "practical"?

 

[jmorris]

I'm surprised these are legal, but apparently they are. I've got no interest in this, as I can fire my AR in its stock form plenty fast enough.

https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/

They are legal because the gun can only run with operator's input, have them return by them selves with a spring, for example, and they would become a machine gun (at least to the ATF.

Like the Akins accelerator or AW Sim.

 

[The Big D]

Can't imagine a practical use for a mini that an AR can't more efficiently meet. Of course, if practicality isn't your game, then this isn't my thread.

I have to agree that the mini 14 doesn't really have any advantages other than a slightly lighter weight than some ARs. And of course whatever subjective cosmetic preferences people have.

 

[stoky]

Practical? I can't imagine anything more practical than the simple, direct, Garand action of a Mini 14. Easy to clean, you don't need an assist to lock up the bolt, no parts in cleaning that need tweezers, quick on target and handles well.

well stated
The Mini has better access to the action for malfunction clearance, and in my experience it malfunctions less.
I have both, I prefer the Mini. If I had a lot of trigger time and muscle memory with the AR (with uncle Sug ammo), I probably wouldn't switch platforms.

 

[tark]

Jmorris....I gotcha now. The op-rod only fires the gun by pulling on the string if you are taking up the slack in the string by pulling on the key ring behind the trigger, which has become the new trigger!

Sneaky. never underestimate the ingenuity of the North American Redneck. And that is a redneck contraption if I ever saw one. Hope I didn't offend anyone with a possible unintended slur but if I did I don't care.

 

[hq]

I have to agree that the mini 14 doesn't really have any advantages

Out of curiosity, is an "advantage" one doesn't have use for still an advantage? Or is "good enough for intended purpose" really a disadvantage? Too many people buy "advantages" just to get legit bragging rights. Abundance of cheap magazines are irrelevant when you only want a few, aftermarket support isn't a big deal if you don't want more than basic accessories, maximum bench rest accuracy is far more than can be used effectively in many/most real world situations and so on.

Whatever fits the bill. Too many people buy "advantage" instead of what they really need and, most importantly, like and want.

I'm not defending Mini 14, AR15 or any other rifle for that matter. I'm defending the freedom to make a choice for oneself. More often than not it consists of far more than bench racing with numbers and picking the "winner".

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Out of curiosity, is an "advantage" one doesn't have use for still an advantage? Or is "good enough for intended purpose" really a disadvantage? Too many people buy "advantages" just to get legit bragging rights. Abundance of cheap magazines are irrelevant when you only want a few, aftermarket support isn't a big deal if you don't want more than basic accessories, maximum bench rest accuracy is far more than can be used effectively in many/most real world situations and so on.

Whatever fits the bill. Too many people buy "advantage" instead of what they really need and, most importantly, like and want.

I'm not defending Mini 14, AR15 or any other rifle for that matter. I'm defending the freedom to make a choice for oneself. More often than not it consists of far more than bench racing with numbers and picking the "winner".

Give it up. Many posters on here believe the only guns a "serious" shooter would own are a AR 15, a AR10 and some Glocks. Every one else is just puttering around and living in the past with their brown Bess's.

 

[jmorris]

Too many people buy "advantage" instead of what they really need and, most importantly, like and want.

I'm not sure why someone would buy something they don't like or want but I don't have any issue with buying a better product than I might need at the time. Who knows, maybe some day I will need better and if I bought the "adequate" product because it filled the need I once had, now I have to buy another. Oh yeah, I already did that...

Not like we are talking about say a Rolex vs Timex, where the cheap one will keep better time longer than the expensive one. These days one can pick up an AR for less than a mini if they shop around.

 

[The Big D]

Give it up. Many posters on here believe the only guns a "serious" shooter would own are a AR 15, a AR10 and some Glocks. Every one else is just puttering around and living in the past with their brown Bess's.

That may be the case, but it's certainly not my position. I own plenty of guns with old designs, classic aesthetics, etc. Well over half my gun collection was designed before WWI. Many of those designs are still best in class today.

That said I do believe the AR10 and AR15 are the best rifle designs in their respective classes. They're more accurate, more reliable, and have better ecosystems than the competing products. In the case of the AR15 they're also notably inexpensive for what you get.

 

[hq]

They're more accurate, more reliable, and have better ecosystems than the competing products.

This is exactly what I mean by bench racing. They may be this and that, but unless there's a distinct need to exceed the capabilities of other, competing products in the intended day to day practical use of the gun, it's literally meaningless outside the context of bragging rights.

Better for the sake of being better is IMO utterly pointless and whenever it contradicts actual needs or wants, there's a chance you'll end up buying someone else's idea of a perfect gun and eventually hate it. The whole culture of being "better" and pushing the ideology to everybody else makes me so sick that even though I have a sizable collection of AR:s, I rarely take them to the range. Everybody knows how fanatic some Glock fanboys are, making a big deal of how much better the plastic fantastic is compared to whatever you're shooting, and AR has - unfortunately - gathered a very similar following lately. A few months ago at the range I came across one; he kept babbling how great AR:s are, telling all about the virtues of floated barrels and precision triggers, implying that I should really consider switching to an AR and accessorize the heck out of it.

It was a bit ironic to say the least. I was shooting a PSG-1.