Mini 30 or AR-15 ?


PDA






Stretchman
February 26, 2007, 10:27 PM
I looked at the mini-30 today at Bass Pro. The price isn't too bad, at about 679 for the stainless synthetic model. Anyway, the really quick question is
is ther mini-30 more accurate than the ar-15 in .223? Do the same rules apply for the mini-30 as oppoesed to the ar-10?

They mini 30 is 762x39, if I am not mistaken. Can it shoot .308 ammo?

The ar-10?

TIA

If you enjoyed reading about "Mini 30 or AR-15 ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
texlurch
February 26, 2007, 10:55 PM
No, on average the Mini's are less accurate.

The mini 30 shoots 7.62x39, will NOT shoot 308.

All my SKS's are more accurate than my buddies mini-30, with the same ammo.

g5reality
February 26, 2007, 10:59 PM
Mini-14's shoot the same round and one with a 580+ serial number will be more accurate.

However I do like the mini-30's as well.

Kaylee
February 26, 2007, 11:04 PM
Stretch -- whatcha looking to do with it? AR-15s, AR-10s, Minis.. there's some overlap sure, but they're not really suited to the same role.

Are you looking for a cheap plinker? Something for distance shooting? Something that'd make a decent hunting rifle in a pinch? "Katrina-type" defensive role?

Answer that question, and you'll likely get a much better answer for your needs. :)

GreenFurniture
February 26, 2007, 11:07 PM
AR15.

No matter what the question is.

The answer is AR15.

mp510
February 26, 2007, 11:08 PM
.308 is 7.62x51mm. The AR-10 is chambered for that round.

7.62x39 is a very affordable round that was standard issue in the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, China, and some other Communist countries. It's also common in the Muslim world and other developing countries. That's the round the AK, SKS, and Ruger Mini-30 are chambered for. Russian made FMJ is still very affordable.

The mini-14 is chambered for .223.

SoCalShooter
February 26, 2007, 11:11 PM
Go AR 15!

Stretchman
February 26, 2007, 11:17 PM
Well, in answer to what I might do with it, I was looking for an all around weapon. Jack of all trades, so to speak. I was talking with a friend of mine, and we got to talking about bear. He said that if he was going to take a rufle out there, that he wouldn't bring anything less than a .44 magnum. In fact, he was looking at the Ruger .44 mag carbine. Doesn't look like they make it anymore.

I'm guessing that either would be a good ranch type rifle, and any would be good for HD, but I am looking for a more multi purpose weapon. Will a mini 30 shoot to 300 yds?

I am also thinking about a lever action rifle, chambered in either .38 or 44 mag. I imagine that either of them would be about as good as any of the others above for probably less money.

GreenFurniture
February 26, 2007, 11:29 PM
Ruger still makes the .44 Mag.

The Mini 30 won't be able to reach out that far.

Lever guns are great.

The AR15 is just about the best platform for an all around gun.

cheygriz
February 26, 2007, 11:46 PM
The Ar-15 is the best general purpose rifle out there.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 26, 2007, 11:58 PM
I think you can get a better rifle than the Mini-30 for $679. At $679 you are almost in the same price range as a budget AR like an Olympic Plinker.

If you are set on 7.62x39 (not the same as .308), then the Saiga and SKS are both great rifles that can do just about everything the Mini can at a much lower price, though they don't have quite as nice ergonomics.

blackhawk2000
February 27, 2007, 12:15 AM
Do you mini people not remember what Bill Ruger did to us? I can't believe we actually have people still thinking about buying rugers.

_N4Z_
February 27, 2007, 08:02 AM
Will a Ruger Mini shoot out to 300 yards?

The Mini 30 won't be able to reach out that far. :rolleyes:

That's a big wrong answer Mr. Green. Yes the Mini 30 will shoot 300 yards.

My son inlaw has a Mini 30 that is scoped. Four weeks ago at the range I sat there and watched him ring a 20" gong at 300 yards, 8 times in a row. I can ring that same gong with my Vector AK, but it's not scoped, and I've yet to hit it more than 2 times in a row.

Art Eatman
February 27, 2007, 11:09 AM
N4Z, hitting a target isn't the same deal as killing an animal cleanly.

The 7.62x39 is pretty much a marginal hunting cartridge for deer and hogs. Then, factor in the rather crude iron sights that are common plus fast-acquisition shot from an offhand or hasty-rest position. You're then mostly talking about 100 to 150 yards as a practical limit with decent hunting ammo.

Art

go_bang
February 27, 2007, 12:57 PM
For an all around rifle to cover 30 to 300 yards I think I would have to side with the AR over the Mini 30 as well. The 7.62x39 round just doesn't have the power at 300 yards that a .223 does. The .223 round comes out of the barrel at around 1000 fps more than the 7.62x39 and the bullet is more aerodynamic. It would be much more suited to dealing with long range varmints out on the ranch.

If you go with an AR I think it would be better to get a flat-top model instead of something with the carry handle built in. It's more convenient to scope the flat-tops.

I don't think I would want to use a .223 on bear though. The idea of a .44 Mag is probably a good one if you under 70 yards.

_N4Z_
February 27, 2007, 02:12 PM
Well if I read it right the poster is looking for an all around weapon that will reach out to 300 yards. He didn't say anything about killing an animal "cleanly".

I have no doubt that a Mini30 with a scope is gonna put a fatal hurtin on any yote at 300 yards. Now if yer "sportin" one shot kills on varmits then maybe the mini isn't the best, but it will work.


I agree though that an AR is more accurate, but the bigger round will do more damage.

Go-Bang - a .223 will retain less energy at further range then a 7.62. 7.62 typically weigh in between 122-154gr. .223 runs around 55. Simple physics says the heavier retains more over distance.

cheygriz
February 27, 2007, 02:24 PM
N4Z,

If the "bigger round will do more damage" then why did the Soviets switch to the 5.45MM round after they saw how effective the 5.56X45 was in VietNam??

The Afghans accused them of using poison bullets because the 5.45 rounds were so much more effective and so much deadlier than the old time 7.62MM "pumpkin rollers."

GunNut
February 27, 2007, 02:30 PM
AR15 based soley on platform and not on caliber wars. Plus, mags and accessories are much cheaper for the AR than for the Mini.

_N4Z_
February 27, 2007, 05:39 PM
OK Chey, I'll rephrase to "The bigger, heavier 7.62 has the potential to do more damage than the lighter smaller 5.56".

And you further asked my opinion as to why the Soviets changed?

#1 - The Americans were doing it.
#2 - Ability to carry more ammunition.
#3 - Smaller tumbling round has a higher propensity to maim as opposed to kill out right. Rational is this will take two to three soldiers out of the battle while they move the wounded off the field.
#4 - Economics.
#5 - And most importantly in the then USSR, because the Kremlin said so.

..Because the Americans were doing.

Revisiting #3 - The Stoner rifle fired a tumbling .223 that produced nasty wounds. The AR/M16's of today have been tweaked out to improve long range accuracy in exchange for the tumble. No tumble? No nasty wounding. Ice picking instead with a high speed .22 caliber projectile.
------- end of my opinion --------

More on this from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm

In the 1974, Soviet Army officially adopted the 5.45mm ammunition and the appropriately chambered AK-74 assault rifle as its new standard shoulder arm. The AKM, however, was never officially removed from service, and is still in Russian army stocks. many non-infantry units of the Russian Army are still armed with 1960s vintage AKM assault rifles. There's also an increasing interest in the 7.62mm weapons since many troops were disappointed by the effectiveness of the 5.45mm ammo during the local conflicts in the 1990s. Some Russian special forces troops (mostly police and Internal Affairs Ministry), currently operating in Chechnya, are using the venerable 7.62mm AKM rifles.


I'm going to call point of order on myself as this has nothing to do with the original post. AR is more accurate than Mini30, but Mini can do the job out to 300 yards.

xlh883
February 27, 2007, 07:09 PM
Try a Saiga .223 as a baseline,hell of a lot cheaper than a Mini or Ar, Saigas are based on the Ak principle. Take it to the range and try it, so u can get the feel of it, if you don't like it then sell it probalby for what you paid and upgrade to an AR, I have all three (Saiga, Mini14 and AR) and honeslty I like the Saiga better, but that is my opinion, although they will never catch up to the "Black Rifle".

RH822
February 27, 2007, 07:20 PM
Do you mini people not remember what Bill Ruger did to us? I can't believe we actually have people still thinking about buying rugers.

Yea, I remember. He kept his products off the ban list so we could all still buy them.

He's dead...get over it already.

RH

blackhawk2000
February 27, 2007, 08:20 PM
Yeah and the company still is run under the same policy. Give your money to Ruger. Support there anti IIA policy. That's great.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 27, 2007, 08:38 PM
#3 - Smaller tumbling round has a higher propensity to maim as opposed to kill out right. Rational is this will take two to three soldiers out of the battle while they move the wounded off the field.

This is myth. I've never seen a single official document that supports the notion that any country, anywhere in the world, adopted a round because it was more likely to wound than kill. If you know of even a suggestion of it in some official documentation, please share.

Revisiting #3 - The Stoner rifle fired a tumbling .223 that produced nasty wounds. The AR/M16's of today have been tweaked out to improve long range accuracy in exchange for the tumble. No tumble? No nasty wounding. Ice picking instead with a high speed .22 caliber projectile.

Well, besides being incredibly oversimplified, this is also just plain wrong. The Reading Library link at the top of the forum has a very informative link on Terminal Ballistics of most military rounds.

RH822
February 27, 2007, 08:50 PM
Yeah and the company still is run under the same policy. Give your money to Ruger. Support there anti IIA policy. That's great.

Anti 2A policy?? Tell me, just how many guns have you put in to the hands of U.S. citizens in the last 50 years?:neener:

RH

blackhawk2000
February 27, 2007, 09:15 PM
Nice comeback.

10-Ring
February 27, 2007, 09:28 PM
AR all the way! :D

MHBushmaster
February 27, 2007, 10:02 PM
...folks, the AR is very modular as mentioned.
Try a .50 Beauwolf chambering for a Bear caliber rifle.
You just buy an .50 Beauwolf Upper from Alexander Arms, get some ammo and voila! You are ready for defending yourself against anything in North America.
Slap on your 5.56 upper and go back to the setup that everyone is talking about...Gotta love that, go with an AR15, it addresses all of your concerns/wants.

_N4Z_
February 27, 2007, 10:24 PM
This is myth. I've never seen a single official document that supports the notion that any country, anywhere in the world, adopted a round because it was more likely to wound than kill. If you know of even a suggestion of it in some official documentation, please share.

Be happy to give you my source Mr. Roberts Texas Moderator.

I was told/taught this in US Army small arms training. Primary Instructor at that time was SFC Northington, 11 Bravo (infantry), Special Forces patch on the right shoulder, savvy? This man was the definition of bada$$, knew his stuff, and by God, you would take what he said as the gospel. We trained, used and qualified with M16A1 rifles. I then used one for the next 8 years in the mighty fine Army. Safe to say I am somewhat familiar with the weapon and the round, atleast from that time period.

And now you proclaim all that stuff I learned and saw was just a bunch of myth smoke blown up my rear by the US military? :confused:

:scrutiny: Sure your right.


And a Mini 30 still will reach out to 300 yards. :neener:

Bartholomew Roberts
February 28, 2007, 10:18 AM
I know it is difficult for many people to accept; but drill instructors don't always pass down the correct information for a variety of reasons.

And now you proclaim all that stuff I learned and saw was just a bunch of myth smoke blown up my rear by the US military?

Not all of it, just the two items I highlighted. There are plenty of links here to a lot of scientific studies on the subject that systematically prove that if you would like to read them. You can check the "Reading Library" link at the top for a good place to start.

By the way, there is something like 20-30 megs of official government reports on the adoption of the M16 in those threads and I have read all of them. None of them mention "more likely to maim" as a factor.

doubleg
February 28, 2007, 11:52 AM
Ar-15 all the way.

_N4Z_
February 28, 2007, 07:43 PM
Fair enough BR, no official documentation of said doctrine is readily available. It was though talked up by the drill heads, and in my time was accepted as fact by those I served with in regular line units.

May very well be BS, but as a means of removing enemy combatants from the field of battle, you have to admit it makes much sense.

Art Eatman
February 28, 2007, 11:54 PM
N4Z, I imagine that "wounding" idea worked better for others against us than for us against others. WW I & WW II agaisnt the Germans, maybe, but in Korea the NKs and the Chinese weren't noted for their numbers of Corpsmen.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Mini 30 or AR-15 ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!