[twoblink]

I'm curious, why isn't there a decent rifle designed following the Garand/M14 chambered for the .223?

PLEASE don't say Mini-14.

I've always thought that it would sell like hotcakes if you had a Garand in .223 that takes M16 magazines...

[BigG]

Hi, Twoblink. I believe the M1 Rifle (Garand) was one of the last old school designed rifles that took a lot of machine time and know-how and some hand work to build. The cost to scale down such a design would be prohibitive in these days of unskilled labor. Especially if you kept the old long gas piston rod and integral magazine. Just my thoughts.

[dfariswheel]

The original Mini-14 was actually pretty close, to the extent that the very early ones had a rear sight that was close to the M1/M14 windage and elevation adjustable design, and the receiver is a derivative of the M1.

The problem is that, as above, the receiver design and required manufacturing process makes such a rifle way too expensive. At the costs required to build such a rifle, sales would be insufficient to sustain the continued production.

You simply can't maintain a gun making company on a product that's so expensive only a small handful of people would buy it, especially since the .223 market is saturated with stiff competition.

Another problem is, this is the day of the modern "assault" rifle, and the M1-M14 is the last of the old school battle rifles.
People don't buy too many "battle rifles", they want the modern concept rifle.

[Mannlicher]

dfarriswheel pretty much sums it up the way I see it.

You can always go the custom route. Money will by your hearts desire.

[Andrew Wyatt]

The mini-14 is a decent rifle.

[SodaPop]

The mini-14 is a decent rifle.

Yes it is.

[Byron Quick]

I believe that the M1A is available in .243...don't know about magazine availability or price.

[Benton]

twoblink, I have always thought that an M-14 scaled to .223 proportions would be great. While it would be an expensive rifle, I think it would sell, though not in huge numbers. Most people shop for price, I'm told. Even so, there are people who are willing to pay for quality, and there are companies that stay in business manufacturing low-demand, high-quality (expensive) rifles.

I remember reading an article around 1990 about a custom gunsmith who took Mini-14s, and with the addition of about $1200 work, turned them into something similar to your concept. There was a nine month turn-around on the work, but the results were quite nice: a sturdier, accurate, and more attractive rifle. How nice it would be if they were available in the gunstore.

[natedog]

Sigh... here we go again....


The Mini-14's main problems are easily addressed.

1) Inavailability of reliable hi-capacity magazines:
10 round Pro-mag brand magazines work great, as do the factory 5 round Ruger magazines.

2) Innacuracy:
Factory Mini-14's usually shoot about 4 MOA out of the box. It can be tuned to shoot accurately for less than $100.

A. Finding the ammunition your Mini-14 likes or working reloads for it.

B. Adding a muzzlebrake. This puts some weight on the muzzle end, improving barrel harmonics. It usually cuts groups in half.

C. Bedding the stock. This will improve group sizes considerably.

3) Other improvements that may or may not improve accuracy

A. Mike Knifong's gas bushing kit: It's a smaller gas port insert that allows less gas to cycle the action, thus reducing recoil and keeping your sights on target.

B. Mike Knifong's trigger job: improves trigger pull. what else do you need to know?


With all of these upgrades, I have seen Mini-14's shoot group sizes under an inch at 100 yards. If you don't want to mess around with all of these upgrades and just want to get instant results, it's going to cost you. Clarks Custom Guns does heavy barrel conversions, as does Accuracy Systems International. They are garunteed to produce 1 MOA or better, but will cost you about $300.

By it's own, the Mini-14 has there merits:

1. Lightweight and handy
2. Good sights on the standard model
3. 'Ranch Model' has nice folding peep sights, and comes with sturdy rings.
4. Good trigger
5. Garand-style safety
6. Reliable
7. Garand-style rotary bolt and gas system
8. Good looks
9. Eregronomic
10. Upgradable

For the record, how many times do you think I will have to post this before people get the message?

[4v50 Gary]

I think there were only 100 Mini 14s with the Garand type rear sight. It was too expensive to make so they went with the current sight. The earlier ones also had a more complicated bolt hold mechanism. If you look at the parts drawing of your Mini-14 Manual, they still show the earlier one. :D Ruger never updated it (but they should).

But like BigG says, expensive to make if you want to keep the clip fed feature and long op rod. A better design would be like the one you wish for Twoblink. A M-14 based Mini-14 capable of taking the M-16 magazine. It would look like a cross between the M-14 and the BAR though because of the magazine release - but I think we could live with it.

[twoblink]

Nate

the problem is, no rifle should be as inaccurate out of the box as an Mini14..

Also, it seems to be a stepped up M1Carbine to my eyes more so than a stepped down M14.

[4v50 Gary]

Miserable barrel. It's OK until it warms up and then it's wet noodle and flings bullets farther than an egg beater. Slow rate of fire helps keep the Mini14 on target. To begin with, it needs a heavier barrel. Consistent lockup was another problem found by Ruger's engineers (pressure on the bolt from the magazine affected the lock-up). I suppose a synthetic stock would help too (less affected by humidity).

[Crimper-D]

That's about as good a description of the Mini-14 as I have seen... the Mini-30 is about as far as that design will go. At one time, Ruger was working on a .308 chamberd selfloader based on the Mini-14 design, even ran ads for it in some of the gunrags - briefly:( Turns out that Ruger couldn't get the bugs out of the prototype = too much cartridge for the action design, rather than tooling up for an entirely new design to duplicate the M-14, the company let the project die.:neener:

[TODD3465]

The XGI's demise had nothing to do with it's action exactly.
They just couldn't get the rifle or in this case carbine to function within a overall length they wanted, due to the barrel length required for it to cycle reliably, so they dropped the whole concept.


I've owned several Mini-14's over the years and only one, which was very used and abused before I bought it, gave poor accuracy for a rifle of this type.
My best accuracy with them has come from the blued 181-series. I understand they buy the barrels from a supplier so this may have something to do with the variances in accuracy over the years.

I also whish they did come with better sights than they do. But it is a carbine after all not a match rifle.
;)

[Benton]

natedog asks, "For the record, how many times do you think I will have to post this before people get the message?"

I'm afraid many re-postings will be required before I get the message that 10-round ProMag and 5-round Ruger magazines are high capacity feeding devices.

The solutions suggested certainly may work, but I cannot begin to think of handloads, bedding the stock, and custom trigger work as easy means to address the Mini-14's inaccuracy. Sending a gun back to the factory for warranty repair is easier. Unfortunately, the pie plate patterns of the Mini14 are up to factory spec.

[Art Eatman]

The thing is, if you regard the Mini-14 as a casual hunting and plinking rifle, it's excellent. It's not common to fire more than one or two shots at an animal when hunting. For tin-can plinking, extreme accuracy isn't really important. For neither of these purposes is a magazine of more than ten rounds worthwhile. The factory ten-round mags readily allow carrying at the balance point.

I really doubt the rifle was ever intended as a military weapon. It strikes me as less than wise to regard it as an example of such or to try to use it in that manner.

:), Art

[benEzra]

The reason the mini-14 doesn't live up to twoblink's specifications is not fundamental limitations of the basic design, but that for whatever reason Ruger & Co. doesn't WANT to improve it. Ruger could take the mini-14 and for probably $100 or so in increased unit cost, address all its faults.

Since the mini is so modular, it would be pretty simple to design a mag well and release that would take AR-15 magazines. (The dimensions are so similar that some magazines, e.g., Ram-Line, function in both AR's and mini's.) Ruger could EASILY offer an "HBAR" version that would eliminate the heat problems, or a higher trim level that would have more attention paid to barrel and stock fit. The design is sound, but the execution is less than ideal.

When does Ruger's patents on the mini's basic design run out? Competing companies could take the design and make it into what Ruger won't.

(BTW, I speak as the satisfied owner of a stainless mini-14 ranch rifle--I like mini's, I just see potential in them that Ruger is refusing to tap.)

[swingset]

I have no problem with the function or accuracy of the Mini-14. It's not very accurate, nor is it meant to be. Fine, no problem.

However, the gun's too much $$ for a rifle that shoots pie-sized groups.

For $100-$150, you're into a nice Yugo or Albanian SKS that will shoot as accurately and reliably.

Until those SKS' dry up and are no more, paying close to $500 for a Mini is out of the question. Their role is filled adequately for vastly less coin, IMHO.

BTW, I do like the mini's ergos and would own one if they were 10/22 priced.

[TODD3465]

benEza-


Yes, it is a fairly good carbine for what it is and on the threshhold of being a great one if they made a some improvements.

[Andrew Wyatt]

As for the barrel heating up and flinging rounds all over the place, it's the fact that it's not stress relieved properly that does it, not the fact that it's thin. The company that makes them is a bit too eager to get them turned to size, and uses too much feed rate. What makes a barrel accurate is the construction of the barrel, not its diameter.

[SodaPop]

What makes a barrel accurate is the construction of the barrel, not its diameter.

Hypothetical question from an amatuer shooter..........................

If a barrel is free floated...... what affects accuracy when it heats up?

Is this only caused by pressure changes do to heat?

[Andrew Wyatt]

Assuming it's perfectly stress relieved, nothing should change much.

The barrel will get fractionally longer, and the inside diameter will change fractionally, and various other things, but that happens in any barrel, and none of that is enough to change anything much.


The Steyr scout rifle has a stupidly thin barrel, and groups don't open up much, if at all when it heats up.

[Erik Jensen]

could an M1 Carbine be re-chambered to .223? what's the OAL of .30carbine compared to 5.56Nato? could you make AR mags fit with a bit of machining of the magwell?

[ChairborneRanger]

The OAL of the 5.56 is too long to 'fit' the .30 Carbine, otherwise, that would be a great adaptation----the handiness of the Carbine with the performance of the .223/5.56!

[Bostonterrier97]

Welll..if the Mini Garand took..M16 Magazines..it would no longer be a Mini Garand but a Mini BM59.

But why restrict yourself to .223?

Why not have a Garand chambered in 270 or 257 Roberts, 6.5x55, or 25-06?

[twoblink]

In terms of semi-auto availability, as well as magazines on the market and in peoples hands; the .223 is the clear winner..

If you adapted the M1Carbine to a .223, you'd have a Mini-14, which isn't that great.

the price to make the receiver does seem to be the barrier..

I'll have to think of how to solve that problem..

[Andrew Wyatt]

what exactly don't you like about the mini-14 anyway? the fact that it shoots four inch 100 yard groups, like rack grade m-1s do?


What exactly do you consider to be "a decent garand type weapon"?


adjustable sights on a .223 aren't necessary(and are, in fact, counter-indicated, since they're not long range weapons, and a 200 yard zero means the bullet will be within a couple inches of the POA out to 300-350 yards. That's farther out than most people can shoot at their range, and adjustable sights will be un adjusted when you don't want them to.

the mini-14 gas system is okay, but it can be improved by making the gas block part of the barrel instead of something that's just clamped on. i think this would improve accuracy, as well.

the mini IS a decent garand type weapon, especially after you do what natedog suggests.

[cordex]

could an M1 Carbine be re-chambered to .223? what's the OAL of .30carbine compared to 5.56Nato? could you make AR mags fit with a bit of machining of the magwell?
Wait a second ...
What if we took the 30 carbine and necked it down to use a .224 bullet? We could call it the ... hmmm ... 5.7mm Johnson or ... hmmm ... maybe the .22 Spitfire?
That'd be really cool. Very original idea too, huh? *grin*

[Monte Harrison]

I really doubt the rifle was ever intended as a military weapon. It strikes me as less than wise to regard it as an example of such or to try to use it in that manner.This may be a misconception of mine, but weren't these only available to LEO's when they first came out?

It would be interesting if the .223WSSM would fit and feed in a carbine. It would blow up of course, but that would be interesting.

[glockten]

I believe that the M1A is available in .243...don't know about magazine availability or price.

Would standard .308 M1A mags work for the .243 version? There is a .03" difference in case length; i'm not sure about average OAL.

Why not have a Garand chambered in 270 or 257 Roberts, 6.5x55, or 25-06?

Springfield offered the M1 in .270 until 1987.

[Jaywalker]

Monte Harrison:This may be a misconception of mine, but weren't these only available to LEO's when they first came out? Yes, they were. I bought the first one (SN 251XX) I saw on a gunshelf for full retail of $200. I always assumed that the first 25,000 were sold to LEOs.

It shot 3-inch groups with the adjustable sights, but as this was before the hugely-available cheap 5.56 ammo, it was all 20-round boxes of really expensive .223. I couldn't afford to shoot it much and sold it to someone who could.

Jaywalker

[Futo Inu]

Great idea. Yeah, nothing new under the sun. Actually, you can buy M1 carbines already chambered in 5.7mm Johnson spitfire (or just the barrel), and LOADED CARTRIDGES in this wildcat, right out of shotgun news! It's a very efficient cartridge, almost to the performance level of a .222 Rem. When I get some $, I'm going to acquire 2 companion guns in this caliber, a carbine and a handgun, by converting an M1 carbine (or buying one) to it, and taking a Taurus Raging Hornet, and reaming the chambers to 5.7 Spitfire, and using the Taurus Raging Thirty moon clips with it.

[twoblink]

I don't remember where, but I seem to recall that there are barrels that are sold for the Garand, in 308, as well as the 243, so you can do that right now already.

Decent rifle?

Basically, a mini 14 with suggested upgrades and smithing, but OUT OF THE BOX.

[BamBam-31]

I dunno. I kinda liked tweaking my Mini-14. It shoots 1" at 50 yds, just about 2" at 100 yds. Did most of what natedog wrote. I'm content.

Then again, sometimes I enjoy fiddling with my toys more than actually shooting them. YMMV.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Basically, a mini 14 with suggested upgrades and smithing, but OUT OF THE BOX.


why not do it yourself? it'll be cheaper, and more likely to happen than ruger turning out a product bettert than "good enough".

[TODD3465]

With Rem/UMC the Mini-14 I currently have is shooting 2" groups with no mods other than a Choate frontsight/flash-hider assembly. And yes it's preban, a 181 series.:D