Why are mini 14's so expensive

[kemikos]

...Fightlite SCR before I would buy another Mini.

I just put together an SCR (I'm not in a ban state, I just liked it and prefer "traditional" styled rifles). I've heard the original ones by Ares were pretty terrible, but the 2.0 I got is fantastic. Of course, even with the cheapest PSA upper it'll come out to a couple hundred more than a Mini. Mine ended up significantly more. But I'd bet it's a better rifle than a Mini, too.

I tried to get in on the Walmart Mini dump too, but all the stores in my state had sold out of them before I could get to one. At $400 (roughly) they're a lot better value propositon...

 

[illinoisburt]

if true...respect

Not sure why it wouldn't be?
Had a few mishaps - drops, fences, etc. - over the years, still chugging along

 

[Old Stumpy]

I owned both a Mini 14 and a Colt AR-15 A2 at one time back in the 1980s.
The guns were as different as night and day, apart from the cartridge that they fired.

1) Mini 14 = adequate accuracy despite crappy sights from the bench.
AR-15 = superb accuracy with excellent factory sights from the bench.

2) Mini 14 = crappy ergonomics, uncomfortable cheap and clubby stock.
AR-15 = superb ergonomics, excellent quality synthetic stock with a storage trap for a cleaning kit.

3) Mini 14 = adequate practical offhand accuracy at short range thanks to clubby stock and poor ergonomics.
AR-15 = wonderful practical offhand accuracy thanks to superior ergonomics and superior sights.

4) Mini 14 = designed as a cheap police carbine for small police departments who could not afford AR15s.
AR-15 = made to the highest military standards. Colt Fillet Mignon compared to Ruger hamburger.

5) Mini 14 = a few improvements, but still the el-cheapo alternative which is now much overpriced.
AR-15 = many improvements and still the best design. A decent quality one still kicks Ruger's arse.

I would buy an AR-15 or variant again, but I would never bother with another Mini 14.
But I suppose that a Mini 14 is better than an SKS.

 

[mustanger98]

Just as the naysayers will not be convinced by our positive experiences, the reverse is also true. I've had plenty of good results with a 1990's Mini-14. I've also had occasion to examine and shoot a couple of AR-15 variants. While they ran fine and hit where I aimed, for all practical purposes, they won't do anything my old Mini-14 wouldn't do.

Sights- Mini-14 and scoped AR carbine are simpler to zero than I've heard the A2 rear sight made out to be.

Accuracy- edge goes to the Mini-14 in spite of simple aperture sight which requires a tool to adjust.

Ergonomics- Mini-14 has Garand style safety right there ahead of the trigger... no add-on required for ambidextrous use. Mini-14 charging handle more user friendly.

Stock- pretty much even, but the Mini-14's semi-pistol grip doesn't require an extra $10-60 to feel right.

Mags- to load/reload, think M1A and AK variants. Price of mags has been noted.

While Jerry Miculek is noted as being the fastest man alive with an AR-15 in competition and exhibition, I recall a video where he demonstrated his just-in-case rifle... a stock SKS. It got me to thinking... except for the LOP, it looks like it should work fine.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Sights- Mini-14 and scoped AR carbine are simpler to zero than I've heard the A2 rear sight made out to be.

Accuracy- edge goes to the Mini-14 in spite of simple aperture sight which requires a tool to adjust.

Ergonomics- Mini-14 has Garand style safety right there ahead of the trigger... no add-on required for ambidextrous use. Mini-14 charging handle more user friendly.

Stock- pretty much even, but the Mini-14's semi-pistol grip doesn't require an extra $10-60 to feel right.

I suggest that anyone considering a purchase shoot and compare the two rifles.
The only edge that the Mini had at one time was cost.
Minis certainly are NOT more accurate.
For offhand shooting the AR is vastly superior. (No need for any silly aftermarket pistol grip)
It's why Eugene Stoner designed it with a straight line stock and pistol grip.
The AR adjusts to the human body. No need to cramp your body around it.
And, as conventional stocks go, the mini is pretty clubby.

But, like I say, try one. Shoot at 25, 50, and 100 yards and experience the difference firing offhand for yourself.

 

[illinoisburt]

Up until 20 years ago, the mini was cheaper and had much better reputation for reliability and ruggedness than ARs. They were also easier and more ergonomic to scope versus the carry handles. What has happened is the AR platform matured into a much better gun while the mini has remained essentially the same with a slightly better barrel. For the money today I would (and have) opted for new ARs, but the mini keeps working as they always have and that's perfectly okay.

 

[mustanger98]

I suggest that anyone considering a purchase shoot and compare the two rifles.
The only edge that the Mini had at one time was cost.
Minis certainly are NOT more accurate.
For offhand shooting the AR is vastly superior. (No need for any silly aftermarket pistol grip)
It's why Eugene Stoner designed it with a straight line stock and pistol grip.
The AR adjusts to the human body. No need to cramp your body around it.
And, as conventional stocks go, the mini is pretty clubby.

But, like I say, try one. Shoot at 25, 50, and 100 yards and experience the difference firing offhand for yourself.

Like I said, I have shot and compared the two. I also recommend a test drive. Most of what either of us just said... as I've said, neither will be convinced of the alleged superiority of the other's preferred rifle. And the AR-15 still won't do anything a Mini-14 won't do.

None of this offers any more explanation of why Mini's are currently more expensive. That question seems to have been answered a while ago.

 

[mustanger98]

Another advantage with a Mini-14 is its wood stock feels stiffer. For field use with a sling... loop or hasty... you can wrap in without torquing your rifle. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the AR's are too flexible for most sling techniques. At extended distances like 100yds and out, the steadier you can hold any good rifle, the more accuracy you'll get.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Like I said, I have shot and compared the two. I also recommend a test drive. Most of what either of us just said... as I've said, neither will be convinced of the alleged superiority of the other's preferred rifle. And the AR-15 still won't do anything a Mini-14 won't do.

None of this offers any more explanation of why Mini's are currently more expensive. That question seems to have been answered a while ago.

I've been here before
Both parties simply state opinions and nothing is settled.
Often their statements seem more about winning the argument rather than being entirely credible. (present company excepted, of course)
I DO know what I experienced however.
But I concur with you about trying them out.
Test drive them both and see which one shoots more accurately.
Since you can't haul a shooting bench around with you, you will find that in the field an AR-15 is much easier to shoot accurately offhand.

I also agree with you that the Mini 14 is far more expensive than it should be.
That alone is an excellent reason not to buy a new one.
Why does Ruger charge too much for one?
Since they are overpriced and second best, who cares?

 

[Old Stumpy]

Up until 20 years ago, the mini was cheaper and had much better reputation for reliability and ruggedness than ARs. They were also easier and more ergonomic to scope versus the carry handles. What has happened is the AR platform matured into a much better gun while the mini has remained essentially the same with a slightly better barrel. For the money today I would (and have) opted for new ARs, but the mini keeps working as they always have and that's perfectly okay.

No.

Back in the 1980s, the shooting faternity held the Mini 14s in a very negative light compared to AR15s.
It was indeed cheaper and also had terrible sights usable only for close range work.
The original Minis were like Garands in that there was no suitable way to mount a scope on them at all.
So, scope ergonomics? Well, an easy-to-mount carrying handle scope is certainly better than none at all.
The Mini 14 stocks were stained birch with a cheap plastic curved carbine buttplate like the 10-22.
The AR stocks were tough structural plastic and carbon fiber hand guards. Very rugged.

But, as you say, over time the AR platform matured such that mounting any sights at all is easy.
The Mini acquired better sights, the ability to accept a scope, and some optional stocks. That's about it.

 

[illinoisburt]

Another advantage with a Mini-14 is its wood stock feels stiffer. For field use with a sling... loop or hasty... you can wrap in without torquing your rifle. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the AR's are too flexible for most sling techniques. At extended distances like 100yds and out, the steadier you can hold any good rifle, the more accuracy you'll get.

Eh, slings are for carrying these days. Most use a single point to carry and forward hand grip for shooting. It's a whole lot faster and generally more stable for most shooters, so +1 AR on that level.

This really isn't an AR debate anyway. Mini's are good and fun. I like them regardless.

 

[illinoisburt]

No.

Back in the 1980s, the shooting faternity held the Mini 14s in a very negative light compared to AR15s.
It was indeed cheaper and also had terrible sights usable only for close range work.
The original Minis were like Garands in that there was no suitable way to mount a scope on them at.

Like everything, that was a function of who/where. The people I was around were not at all fond of the AR in the 80s into the 90s. Nobody used one to hunt anything and they were generally derided as fragile jam-o-matics. Right or wrong, people had their opinions. Minis were relatively popular for plinking and hunting. Lots of folks used the steel side plate scope mount from Burris. Its a good design - I still use one myself.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Like everything, that was a function of who/where. The people I was around were not at all fond of the AR in the 80s into the 90s. Nobody used one to hunt anything and they were generally derided as fragile jam-o-matics. Right or wrong, people had their opinions. Minis were relatively popular for plinking and hunting. Lots of folks used the steel side plate scope mount from Burris. Its a good design - I still use one myself.

Considering that nobody here seems to disagree with you, perhaps you are right.

The AR-15 and all of the newer rifles sharing it's heritage must be extremely unreliable and inferior.
We should pity all branches of the armed services and special forces that still use this terrible rifle.
They should have listened to you and your friends and retired it and replaced it with the Mini 14 since it must be vastly superior.

It is odd though. My militaria and collecting gun club back then passionately loved the AR-15 rifles for competition, because they were so reliable and easy to hit with offhand.
I can't recall that my A2 ever had a stoppage through about 2000 rounds.

 

[illinoisburt]

Considering that nobody here seems to disagree with you, perhaps you are right.

The AR-15 and all of the newer rifles sharing it's heritage must be extremely unreliable and inferior.
We should pity all branches of the armed services and special forces that still use this terrible rifle.
They should have listened to you and your friends and retired it and replaced it with the Mini 14 since it must be vastly superior.

Right... Think we have already agreed the AR has been vastly improved.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Right... Think we have already agreed the AR has been vastly improved.

Improvements since the 1980s concern only externals such as sights, mounting rails, stocks and such.
They are no more and no less reliable than they were in the 1980s.
So if, as you say, it was a jam-o-matic then, it must be one now.
But, I think that we both know that you don't believe any such thing about the AR-15, then or now.
You do enjoy your games, don't you?

 

[hq]

Supply and demand. They have a coolness-factor in their own right. Personally I prefer the design in other calibers than .223, namely 7.62x39 & .44Mag, because they're legal for deer around here whereas .223 isn't.

I certainly wouldn't pay anywhere near what they retail these days. Got my .44 Deerfield some time after it was discontinued, NIB, at a gun shop clearance, and mint Mini30 a few years later as a misspelled listing. Great guns, especially for the price. Dare to be different these days. I hunted more or less exclusively with black guns for the better part of three decades until they became mainstream and people started asking me what parts mine had in them, blurting out an exhaustive list of off-the-shelf mods in theirs.

"DIY hand-lapped floated barrel, trigger- & re-hardening job and the Zeiss/Swarowski/Schmidt&Bender on it as you might already have noticed" never seemed "good enough" compared to throwing the rifle with an aftermarket catalog, requiring little if any skill or effort to install...

Doesn't happen with Minis/Deerfields and I love it.

 

[mustanger98]

I recall discussing the earlier M-16's with some now-older gentlemen who used them in harder times. Some would say, while it wasn't ready for combat, it was a great match rifle for being so accurate. While Clint Smith's courses involve AR's, he also did a video on what he called "old guy" rifles and the M1907 sling... said you can't do that with an AR. I say, logically, you can however loop up with a Mini-14 and a Rhodesian sling.

For a match rifle to shoot offhand, I'd say the AR's accuracy being referred to here lately is because NRA Highpower rules don't allow a sling to shoot standing offhand. The rifle isn't being torqued, but rather held up and allowed to do its thing. A hunting or field rifle isn't held to those rules, so the user is basically free to do what works for his/her-self. Hence the thought of a Rhodesian sling on a Mini-14 among a seemingly endless list of options. If you don't think it's accurate/dependable/whatever enough to bother, that's another story.

To date, I've seen people from the AR and Mini camps act like "my rifle can beat up your rifle". I say the AR won't do anything a Mini-14 won't do because that's my experience. I'd say both have come a long way with being accepted as hunting rifles.

 

[illinoisburt]

Improvements since the 1980s concern only externals such as sights, mounting rails, stocks and such.
They are no more and no less reliable than they were in the 1980s.
So if, as you say, it was a jam-o-matic then, it must be one now.
But, I think that we both know that you don't believe any such thing about the AR-15, then or now.
You do enjoy your games, don't you?

Wow, very non-THR to think a collectors group had the only perspective on the world. Whether it was true in fact or not, a lot of people expressed that opinion at the time. I personally didn't much care one way or another. I think you will agree it was mostly a niche item. If you went to any gun store back then to buy a hunting rifle or truck gun, nobody said AR. If anything, they would direct you away from it for those purposes. Opinions on them have changed dramatically since then which is probably a good thing. Still, saying it didn't happen or arguing they were wrong is kind of silly. Of course people made those choices.

 

[Texas10mm]

Like I said, I have shot and compared the two. I also recommend a test drive. Most of what either of us just said... as I've said, neither will be convinced of the alleged superiority of the other's preferred rifle. And the AR-15 still won't do anything a Mini-14 won't do.

None of this offers any more explanation of why Mini's are currently more expensive. That question seems to have been answered a while ago.

It will use reliable easy to obtain $10 magazines.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Why so much defending of the AR platform, in a thread about the expense of the mini?

let somebody enjoy their inferior platform without brow beating them over it.

ive never had a facial hair snag on a mini stock, so there

 

[Old Stumpy]

Wow, very non-THR to think a collectors group had the only perspective on the world. Whether it was true in fact or not, a lot of people expressed that opinion at the time. I personally didn't much care one way or another. I think you will agree it was mostly a niche item. If you went to any gun store back then to buy a hunting rifle or truck gun, nobody said AR. If anything, they would direct you away from it for those purposes. Opinions on them have changed dramatically since then which is probably a good thing. Still, saying it didn't happen or arguing they were wrong is kind of silly. Of course people made those choices.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.......

 

[mustanger98]

It will use reliable easy to obtain $10 magazines.

Know what's even more affordable? An SKS. It don't need AK mags or AR mags or whatever... get several flavors of 7.62x39 ammo with or without stripper clips. I watched Jerry Miculek run his just-in-case rifle with loose ammo. He made it look a lot more hassle-free than a lot of the stuff some of us pick to argue over.

 

[MCMXI]

I bought a Mini-14 non-ranch type in '94 I think. I sold that to a friend because I couldn't stand the crappy scope mount options back then. I liked the rifle enough to buy a Ranch version a few years later and still have that rifle. To this day I really like the Mini-14 and can't imagine parting with mine. It wears a Hogue stock, shoots well, functions well and looks kind of cool. I'd like to find some good iron sights for it although the factory sights aren't bad. I also have a book that I bought many years ago detailing how to turn the Mini-14 into a full-auto, suppressed, folding stock "system". It's an interesting book.

 

[illinoisburt]

Why so much defending of the AR platform, in a thread about the expense of the mini?

It's the covid blues for sure! Too much time pondering the universe instead of taking your own mini or AR out shooting, especially since some people cannot go buy a new one regardless whether we think it's a good price or not due to some enlightened muckity-mucks.

 

[mustanger98]

It's the covid blues for sure! Too much time pondering the universe instead of taking your own mini or AR out shooting, especially since some people cannot go buy a new one regardless whether we think it's a good price or not due to some enlightened muckity-mucks.

Some guys are probably more upset that they can't set up a benchrest on their back porch than they are that somebody else likes Mini-14's.

I remember this one gun salesman I went around and around with... seems like a long time ago... I wanted a Mini-14 and he wanted to sell me an AR regardless of what I actually wanted. I got the Mini and enjoyed being able to hit everything with it offhand and how user friendly it was. Then, I went to buy a box of Hornady 68gr BTHP Match bullets to handload for it. That same salesman... seems he thought I had a 1:12 twist, but it was 1:9... he was laughing and telling me how it was going to be keyholing all over the 25yd target, never mind anything further. Well, the first load testing with those 68gr's, from offhand, I tore up a business card at about 25yds. Next time in the shop, I told him what happened and he was still laughing about keyholes... couldn't wrap his head around it. Later, I tried some of Hornady's 75gr BTHP's loaded to run 2500fps by the book and they did good in the 1:9 twist Mini-14 too.