Gotta get it off my chest AR-15 vs. Mini-14


PDA






stchman
November 6, 2009, 05:40 PM
Ok, so I need to vent here a little bit to the AR-15 elitists.

I get so tired of hearing the AR-15 elitists talk about what an uber rifle the AR-15 is and how bad Mini-14s suck.

For the rest of the thread I am referring to the 580 series.

At 100 yards I cannot tell a big difference in accuracy in a Mini-14. The AR might be a touch more accurate but not much.

Now the one thing the AR has is the ability to buy cheap good mags while the Ruger mags are the only ones that work real good.

- ARs cost significantly more.
- ARs are far pickier about ammo than a Mini-14. Yes I can shoot Wolf, Brown Bear, and the more expensive brass stuff as well.
- The Mini-14 has an action based on the M1 Garand (a very proven action)
- Mini-14s are definitely more durable with the ARs plastic construction.
- Mini-14s can be cleaned and oiled with anything, ARs users fuss over lubricants and solvents
- Mini-14 are gas piston while ARs are the dirtier DI variety, after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.

To all the AR folks, if you wish to spend $500 more on a rifle that is your prerogative. AR folks feel the need to justify their purchase by bashing other peoples rifles.

Another thing, I love how the AR community is pimping the gas piston as some new revalation. The SKS and AK-47 have been using gas piston design for over 50 years. The M1 Garand has had a piston type design for over 70 years.

Just my rant.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gotta get it off my chest AR-15 vs. Mini-14" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jglcolosprgs
November 6, 2009, 05:43 PM
:scrutiny:

R.W.Dale
November 6, 2009, 05:46 PM
- ARs cost significantly more.

I disagree, a new mini is getting into the upper $600 range. You can in fact buy a nice ar for under $200 more

- ARs are far pickier about ammo than a Mini-14. Yes I can shoot Wolf, Brown Bear, and the more expensive brass stuff as well.

Have you actually shot an ar with this ammo? Both my 7.62x39 and my 223 AR's have digested ANYTHING Ive crammed in the mag just fine

- The Mini-14 has an action LOOSELY BASED based on the M1 Garand (a very proven action)

fixed that

- Mini-14s are definitely more durable with the ARs plastic construction.

Yeah because MINI's have been world renound for the past HALF CENTURY as the firearm of choice militaries for the free world. OH WAIT that's the AR. MINIS fail in carbine courses almost without exception. and even if so try buying a bolt for a mini without sending it back to Ruger

- Mini-14s can be cleaned and oiled with anything, ARs users fuss over lubricants and solvents
are you serious

- Mini-14 are gas piston while ARs are the dirtier DI variety, after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.

and yet how many rounds miss a 8' target at 100

To all the mini folks, if you wish to spend $200 less on a rifle that is inferior in every aspect your perrogative. MINI folks feel the need to justify their purchase by bashing other peoples rifles in threads such as this on.
fixed that again

Al Thompson
November 6, 2009, 05:47 PM
True, but until Ruger released their magazines, the AR was cost effective when you included the cost of the magazines.

I'd love to see a 6.8 or 6.5 Mini-14.

cameron.personal
November 6, 2009, 05:53 PM
Sounds like the OP has a little case on AR envy...

Cameron

stchman
November 6, 2009, 05:53 PM
Al I ever hear the AR folks complain that their precious AR will only shoot brass cased ammo while Wolf and Brown Bear jam it up.

Ruger maks a 6.8 SPC Mini-14.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14AllWeatherRanchRifle/specSheets/5814.html


If you look at the price of a piston AR they start at about $1100. DI ARs are in the $800 price range on the low end.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 05:54 PM
No, if I wanted an AR I would have bought an AR. I guess I am just not elitest enough.

Shear_stress
November 6, 2009, 06:00 PM
No, if I wanted an AR I would have bought an AR. I guess I am just not elitest enough.

"Elitest" or not, you add absolutely nothing to the debate by bashing the rifles and the people that own them. You could've taken the high road by acknowledging the merits of the AR and Mini and the disadvantages of both. But, no, you chose to fight a pissing contest with a pissing contest. Well done.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:01 PM
- ARs cost significantly more.

Not all of them, and if you really do compare the pricier AR's that have things like float tubes in them, they are noticeably more accurate. Sure, at 100 yards, both will probably perform well, but how about at 200? 300? 400? 500? 600?

- ARs are far pickier about ammo than a Mini-14. Yes I can shoot Wolf, Brown Bear, and the more expensive brass stuff as well.

A generalization that may or may not be substantiated depending on the make of the AR and the ammunition. I've seen guys run Wolf ammo through AR's without problem.

- The Mini-14 has an action based on the M1 Garand (a very proven action)

The AR action has, at this point, been in service longer than the action for the Garand.

- Mini-14s are definitely more durable with the ARs plastic construction.

I've seen no proof of this, especially given some of the treatment I've dealt out to my AR's.

- Mini-14s can be cleaned and oiled with anything, ARs users fuss over lubricants and solvents

I use whatever I happen to have on hand to lube my AR's. Usually the Brownell's stuff. I don't fuss over it. A number of heavy-duty 3gun shooters I know lube their AR's with 5W30.

- Mini-14 are gas piston while ARs are the dirtier DI variety, after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.

*shrugs* Cleaning an AR is no picnic, but I've not seen proof that the direct impingement system in the AR platform is all that unreliable, and this includes shooting nearly 500 rounds of .223 through an AR (a "target" one no less!) over the course of three days with no cleaning, and in situations that included 30 mph winds whipping up dust, sand and grit. On top of that, I've fired a couple of examples of AR's that have sound suppressors on them, and with all of the crap that got blown back into the action and caked inside of it, the rifles continued to run.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:04 PM
The weapon that has been world renowned over the globe has been the AK-47.

Colonel David Hackworth (RIP) said that the AK-47 is the weapon the US troops should be using in Vietnam not an M-16.

While the M-16 is a far more accurate rifle than an AK-47 it is definitely chosen over the M-16 the world over.

I can see this thread is going to get way of topic.

RUT
November 6, 2009, 06:04 PM
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss192/rut3556/not_this_crap_again.jpg

Robert
November 6, 2009, 06:06 PM
- ARs cost significantly more.
Not so.
http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/?cart=1983810&cat=161&
- ARs are far pickier about ammo than a Mini-14. Yes I can shoot Wolf, Brown Bear, and the more expensive brass stuff as well.
Buddy of mine shoots brown bear at matches in his AR...
- The Mini-14 has an action based on the M1 Garand (a very proven action)
And the AR action is a new and unproven system? I am confused.
- Mini-14s are definitely more durable with the ARs plastic construction.
Care to cite any massive failures with the "plastic" construction? Have any kind of data or papers to support that claim?
- Mini-14s can be cleaned and oiled with anything, ARs users fuss over lubricants and solvents
I know several competitors that use 5w30 to lube their AR... guess they are picky...
Mini-14 are gas piston while ARs are the dirtier DI variety, after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.

I have seen rifles that have had hundreds of rounds fired through them in a short amount of time with no adverse reaction due to the DI system. But then again cleaning my weapon takes so much time, I can't be bothered with that.
AR folks feel the need to justify their purchase by bashing other peoples rifles.
Got a link to a thread or remark that this is the basis of?
Another thing, I love how the AR community is pimping the gas piston as some new revalation.
Not new at all to the overall world of firearms but in the world of AR it is new. Though I personally do not know anyone who has one.

I do not own an AR, in fact I own a Mini 14 and love to shoot it. But the two are very different weapons. Anyway I'd take my FAL over either any day.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:08 PM
I have friends with ARs that won't shoot Wolf or Brown Bear because the rifle jams.

I am going by what the AR folks say.

I have other friends that shoot Minis and they shoot whatever ammo they can find.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:08 PM
The weapon that has been world renowned over the globe has been the AK-47.

Colonel David Hackworth (RIP) said that the AK-47 is the weapon the US troops should be using in Vietnam not an M-16.

While the M-16 is a far more accurate rifle than an AK-47 it is definitely chosen over the M-16 the world over.

I can see this thread is going to get way of topic.

I thought this conversation was about the merits of the Mini-14 vs. the AR-15? What does the AK have to do with this discussion?

Robert
November 6, 2009, 06:10 PM
So wait now this is an AR AK thing? Just because something is mass- produced and forced on a country by a totalitarian regime does not make it the greatest all time weapon. Just makes it fielded by more poor conscripts than any other weapon.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:13 PM
Hey Gus, the link you sent me was for scratch and dent used ARs.

They also have NO WARRANTY.

Lets compare apples to apples please when talking price.

I see there is no rear sight either. I wonder if it even includes a magazine?

For $100 more you get a NEW rifle, Ruger's lifetime warranty, and excellent customer service. Well worth it IMO.

benzy2
November 6, 2009, 06:13 PM
Low end ARs start at $600. I had one and it had one malfunction ever, tossed the mag out for a newer one, and never a hiccup after. I have bought a nicer AR and it has yet to malfunction. Both saw plenty of steel cased ammo as well as brass, handloads and factory, and only one magazine related issue once. People are playing with the gas piston AR, but people are playing with everything AR. I rather the DI as it seems an easier system to make accurate than a piston system. They both have ups and downs and it all depends on what you want from a rifle. With the care mine get DI works just fine. I don't know what the Garand action matters here. Both actions have shown they work and hold up. As for the plastic, are you kidding? The grip handle, the butt stock, and some front handguards are plastic. None of this matters to reliability and I seem to recall a few plastic stocked Mini14s as well. They are just as likely to break from being plastic as the AR. I have never had any issues cleaning or oiling my AR with stuff Walmart or the local shop sell. As I said only one malfunction ever between my two.

The only two issues I have with the Mini are the magazines and that accuracy has been hit or miss over the years. I don't expect it to hold 1/2 MOA but it should hold 2" at 100 yards with a scope and decent ammo from a bench. I have heard a lot of people complain they can't hit a pie plate at 100 yards with a Mini. I know some say the newer rifles are more accurate but I haven't seen any wide spread use results making it sound like more than the occasional rifle getting these better groups. Its cool if thats what you like and it makes you happy, but no need to piss in my cereal about how awful my AR is in comparison. Which wasn't that one of your complaints about AR owners? Hmm

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:17 PM
Stchman, would you care to address any of my rebuttals to your post above? (Well, other than that you have a couple of friends who own AR's that are finnicky.)

Robert
November 6, 2009, 06:19 PM
ARs cost significantly more.
That was all you said. You said nothing about NIB so I went with the rifle that I would be able to afford. No rear sight does not bother me, I have friend with a box full of them. I know a guy with dozens of boxes of AR mags, so again not a problem, if I wanted to go this route. Sorry if the fact that an AR can be had for less than $1000 is upsetting but they are not that hard to find for less than $1200, with a rear sight.

Mags
November 6, 2009, 06:23 PM
Look at these Del-Ton (http://www.del-ton.com/AR_15_Rifles_s/2.htm)rifles. I used a DTI upper reciever kit for my rifle and while people knock DTI I can shoot my rifle accurately out to 500 hundred yards with nothing more than an Aimpoint CompM2. I live in the dusty desert and my rifle has never failed me. As for the AK guys who claim more countries miltary use the AK why don't you look at the countries issuing the AK. They are all third world countries.

Mags
November 6, 2009, 06:24 PM
By the way I haven't seen in person a NIB mini for less than 800 around here.

JimmAr
November 6, 2009, 06:25 PM
Ar wins.. with a simple lower you can have just about any caliber they make that will fit in a 223/556 mag..

Mini is a horrible rifle extremely inaccurate and getting one accurized to anywhere near a quality ar costs 1000's hitting what your aiming at is the biggest battle.. if your shooting at a barn door from 5 yards.. ya mini-14 is awesome.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:27 PM
Ar wins.. with a simple lower you can have just about any caliber they make that will fit in a 223/556 mag..

If the AR15 were a computer operating system, it would be Linux. You can mod them to do anything you want.

Shung
November 6, 2009, 06:27 PM
too many words.. not enough pictures.. ;) (I am not a mini huge fan as you see.. Unless I need to watch the A-team ;) )

http://i84.servimg.com/u/f84/11/94/71/06/patchw11.jpg

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:30 PM
To Justin:

In Vietnam soldiers complained of the M-16s butt stock busting off when they had to go into close quarters.

You are quoting what others do to defend your position, how come I cannot?

The M1 Garand first saw service in 1936 and is still in use in various countries all over the world in some form. The M-16 first saw service in 1964.

I have shot friends ARs and found them to be no more accurate than my Mini.

I also love the AR folks that say they shoot 2" groups at 250 yards with iron sights.

Robert
November 6, 2009, 06:34 PM
In Vietnam soldiers complained of the M-16s butt stock busting off when they had to go into close quarters.
Cite please

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:34 PM
My good friend is dying for a new AR.

Could somebody point him in the direction to get a NIB .223/5.56 AR with front and reasr sights and a mag in the $600 price range.

benzy2
November 6, 2009, 06:35 PM
So you are comparing stories from Vietnam to today's mini? What went wrong with your logic portion of your brain?

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:38 PM
In Vietnam soldiers complained of the M-16s butt stock busting off when they had to go into close quarters.

I'm fairly certain that materials technology has advanced somewhat in the intervening years. As I said, I've not had issues with breaking stocks, nor seen it happen. Not to say they're indestructible, as anything can and will break if abused. But I've yet to have a problem, and I certainly don't baby my guns.

You are quoting what others do to defend your position, how come I cannot?

???

The M1 Garand first saw service in 1936 and is still in use in various countries all over the world in some form. The M-16 first saw service in 1964.

And to what circumstances to you attribute some nations still issuing M1 Garands to their troops? What nations? What troops? What sort of units? What sort of numbers?

I also love the AR folks that say they shoot 2" groups at 250 yards with iron sights.

If AR's are not accurate, why are they overwhelmingly the choice of all of the people who shoot centerfire rifles competitively? From Service Rifle to National Match to 3Gun and other practical shooting sports, the AR15 is the dominant choice of competitors in every competition where the design is allowed to play.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:43 PM
Could somebody point him in the direction to get a NIB .223/5.56 AR with front and reasr sights and a mag in the $600 price range.

AR's cost more than a Mini. If cost is your primary or only concern, then get a Mini. Otherwise, just realize you're going to have to save your pennies for a bit longer to buy an AR.

You get what you pay for.

Robert
November 6, 2009, 06:44 PM
I also love the AR folks that say they shoot 2" groups at 250 yards with iron sights.
I hit the 400 yard plate 5 out of 5 times at the last match I shot using the irons on my FAL, so anything is possible.

1KPerDay
November 6, 2009, 06:47 PM
after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.


Where's the bolt carrier on the Mini?

I have both rifles, love both. I'd bet my life on either one. I wish mini mags were $10 though...

David Wile
November 6, 2009, 06:49 PM
Hey folks,

Let me jump in on this and tick everyone off. I have hated the M-16/AR-15 since the M-16 replaced the M-14. I had no problem with our going from the Garand's 30-06 to the M-14's .308 Winchester, but when they went to the .22 caliber little toy rifle, that tore the rag off the bush for me. I would rather stick with the M-14 any day.

Now having said that, let me admit that I do not have an M-14 (or civilian variant), but I do have two AR-15s that are both heavy barrel target rifles. I bought both of them during the Clinton war on assault rifles. One is the regular sissy .223 caliber, and the other one has a 7.62X39 Russian caliber upper. I much prefer the .30 caliber rifle, but I had to buy the .223 also just to miff the Clinton folks.

I have been to some hi power shooting events where those heavy target barrel ARs obviously are capable of some fine accuracy. Certainly far better than I am able to do with mine, but my eyes are old, and I never was the best of shooters.

While I do not have a Mini 14, I do have a Ruger Mini 30 in stainless, and I like it just fine. It was a lot less expensive thant the ARs I bought, and while I cannot shoot groups with it as small as the groups from my heavy barrel target ARs, it works just fine for me. And besides, it has a "real" wood stock instead of that Matel plastic stuff on the ARs. I suspect that I am a bit like Stchman in that I just don't like the whole black plastic gun mentality.

I would advise Stchman that I bought a bunch of both plastic and steel magazines for my Mini 30 that work perfectly. I bought them maybe fifteen years ago, and I forget the brand names without looking at them. I also bought a bunch of big magazines for the two ARs at the same time, and they also work perfectly.

I also have several Russian SKS rifles to add to the 7.62X39 mix. Did I mention I like the .30 caliber cartridge? As much as I like the Mini 30, if I had to choose just one of all these rifles, I guess it might be the .30 caliber AR.

I would not, however, argue with the Stchman from MO that the Mini is not a great gun in its own right. For the AR folks who look down on the Ruger Mini, I could remind them there are a lot of other folks with Bushmasters and the like who think Colt ARs are beneath them.

Since I bought the ugly black Colt ARs, I guess I have to like them too, but I still like the brown wood stocked Mini 30, and I still like those Russian rifles.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

benzy2
November 6, 2009, 06:50 PM
Could somebody point him in the direction to get a NIB .223/5.56 AR with front and reasr sights and a mag in the $600 price range.
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145862471

And in case the iron sights aren't your thing

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145831559

Both NIB. A little over $600 but things have gone up since Fearless Leader was elected, but that crosses all firearms.

JimmAr
November 6, 2009, 06:50 PM
I also love the AR folks that say they shoot 2" groups at 250 yards with iron sights.

...... That's actually very possible good reloads, actually there were upper brands that were tested with silver state ammo over at ar15.com...

Noveske
MSTN
WOA
ASI(wssm)
Dtech(wssm)

All of which out to 650 yard could shoot 7-8 inches.. and they were only 16" barrels. Within 350 yards most were sub moa not even reloads.. either. Some varmint uppers will shoot 2" groups at 300 yard..

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 06:54 PM
the AR15 is the dominant choice of competitors in every competition where the design is allowed to play.

Only where semiauto is a necessity or an advantage. The AR can be extremely accurate for a semiauto. It also has extensive parts availability, and it's unique among semiautos in the ease with which the barrel can be floated, with no moving stuff running along the barrel.

The DI design is great for accuracy as well as maintenance, since it's the closest thing to a bolt action that isn't a bolt action.

Anyone who says an AR isn't accurate either can't shoot or has a lemon for a rifle.

The magazines are readily available, and it's easy to get good ones for cheap.

That said, from personal experience, I trust the Mini-14 action to go bang, eject, and feed, particularly when neglected, over the AR. The bullet may only go in the general direction the barrel is pointing, but it will go...:D

That assumes good magazines, and of course that's a BIG fudge...

I guess now Ruger sells mags of various capacities, and I have some, but until recently, I got as many bad-to-mediocre Mini magazines as good ones. Meanwhile, every AR mag I have stuck in the thing has worked perfectly. Unless Ruger gets a big military contract, the Mini won't be able to compete for price, availability and reliability of magazines.

And the way the Ruger mags insert really sucks compared to the STANAG magwell -- another reason for competitive use of the AR. Who wants to fool with the Ruger system under stress?

Competition guns aren't always the best measure of a rifle's field-worthiness either way, though. On the one hand, competitors are seldom far from their range boxes full of tools and lube. On the other, match guns sometimes sacrifice all-out reliability for accuracy, so match guns can be more finicky than their utilitarian counterparts.

One more thing... I think the AR will beat the Mini pretty handily when it comes to longevity. Put 10,000 rounds of 5.56 through both, and I'm betting the AR will be the gun that still works without repairs (as long as it's lubed).:)

I like my Mini for what it does well (handles like a real carbine, points naturally and goes bang even when neglected). But I sure wouldn't want the US military to be issued the things in Iraq or anything. I like my AR for what it does well: hit the target with accuracy sufficient to make shooting it fun, not overheat in 5 rounds, and offer infinite configuration options, should I want them.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 06:56 PM
David, if you prefer a particular rifle just because it's what appeals to you, that's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, where stchman went wrong is in making a bunch of claims about the AR platform that are demonstrably false, or at least generalities that are blown completely out of proportion.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 06:59 PM
Here are a couple of videos showing accurate Mini-14s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z89nJ5zA4bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pKCC371TtE&feature=video_response

Granted the one video they replaced the barrel ,but the target version has the adjustable balancer.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 07:02 PM
On the one hand, competitors are seldom far from their range boxes full of tools and lube.

I didn't do any maintenance to my rifle at Rocky Mountain 3 Gun this year, and anyone who was there knows there was a lot of wind whipping up a ridiculous amount of fine-grain grit. My rifle had no jams.

On the other, match guns sometimes sacrifice all-out reliability for accuracy, so match guns can be more finicky than their utilitarian counterparts.

This is a broad-based generalization. Match guns may not run all forms of ammo as reliably, but it's disingenuous to claim that they have less reliability, at least with their given load. While some forms of competition offer alibi strings to make up for malfunctions, it's a truism that most competitors will not shoot an alibi string as well as a regular string. It's in the competitor's best interest to have a weapon that is completely reliable.

Other forms of competition do not even offer the option of an alibi. At a lot of 3Gun type matches, if your gun breaks, you either fix it on the clock or walk off the line with the stage incomplete and the penalties that go along with it.

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 07:03 PM
If you prefer a particular rifle just because it's what appeals to you, that's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that.

If I could get a Mini-14 that took STANAG magazines, was as accurate as a basic AR, and that I thought would last through tens of thousands of rounds, I'd like it.

As it stands, I can't like it much.:)

All I was saying is that the Mini actually does have its merits. AR fanatics may not acknowledge that fact. The problem is that the whole package is lacking. The AR has its flaws, but the whole package adds up to a very desirable rifle.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 07:04 PM
Here are a couple of videos showing accurate Mini-14s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z89nJ5zA4bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pKCC...video_response

Granted the one video they replaced the barrel ,but the target version has the adjustable balancer.

And I can guarantee you that you cannot buy the "target" variant of the Mini-14 for $600.

Also, your second link doesn't work.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 07:07 PM
All I was saying is that the Mini actually does have its merits. AR fanatics may not acknowledge that fact. The problem is that the whole package is lacking. The AR has its flaws, but the whole package adds up to a very desirable rifle.

If the Mini-14 does what you need it to do, then what else can you ask for?

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 07:07 PM
it's disingenuous to claim that they have less reliability, at least with their given load.

I wasn't claiming that at all. That wasn't my point.

That was just a warning to those who might judge a gun by trying someone's competition piece...

I shoot pistol matches. I can grab one of the High Masters' custom-built 1911s, put standard ammo in it and it might not feed worth crap. Some people think that means the gun is unreliable, but you and I know that it just means that the gun is built for accuracy first, and precisely tailored to work with someone's match load.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 07:09 PM
The only reason I made this thread was the fact that there are a lot of folks out there that make factless, baseless, highly generalized claims about the Mini-14.

I have actually had people at the range asking me why I didn't buy an AR because ARs are so much cooler. Whatever they spent more $$$ to fire .223 ammo.

As far as a previous poster after 10,000 rounds we are talking ORIGINAL parts? I mean AR folks swap out parts like babies need diaper changes.

JimmAr
November 6, 2009, 07:09 PM
Here are a couple of videos showing accurate Mini-14s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z89nJ5zA4bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pKCC371TtE&feature=video_response

Granted the one video they replaced the barrel ,but the target version has the adjustable balancer.
first vide the target mini-14.. ill give that one props for being a useful opposed to the others.

2nd vid in the Dream308 commented exactly how I feel about that "system" they sell.

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 07:09 PM
If the Mini-14 does what you need it to do, then what else can you ask for?


It really doesn't. .223 is a varmint round. I doubt I could trust the Mini-14 to hit a coyote past 75 yards.:D

That's why I haven't shot the thing in a long time, but the ARs get rounds through them.:)

I just can't bring myself to sell the Mini, because there are some things about it that are appealing...

1KPerDay
November 6, 2009, 07:20 PM
That's actually very possible good reloads, actually there were upper brands that were tested with silver state ammo over at ar15.com...

Noveske
MSTN
WOA
ASI(wssm)
Dtech(wssm)

All of which out to 650 yard could shoot 7-8 inches.. and they were only 16" barrels. Within 350 yards most were sub moa not even reloads.. either. Some varmint uppers will shoot 2" groups at 300 yard..

With open sights?

mljdeckard
November 6, 2009, 07:23 PM
An AR CAN shoot 2" groups at 250 yards with iron sights. Just because YOU can't do it doesn't mean that ARs can't. I'm going to say it out loud. You aren't a good enough shot to make the most of EITHER rifle. A Garand can do it. An M-14 can do it. Your Mini wasn't manufactured with the INTENT to have that kind of accuracy.

You are basing all of your assertions on things you have read and heard. Those of us Who have actually DONE it aren't going to believe you.

One afternoon I cranked through 500 straight rounds of Wolf in a Bushmaster M-4gery. The whole rifle was almost too hot to touch, I was wearing gloves. No failures. I have NEVER seen a Mini that could do that. And if it were up to those who designed the Mini, you would have to do it 4 rounds at a time.

I grew up with Minis. All the ranchers had them in their racks for general pest control. None of them use them anymore. They have all dropped them for ARs, because they're better, or SKSs, because they're cheaper and just as good.

A fellow soldier recently came to me for advice on customizing his mini to make it do everything his M-16 did. I went online with him and looked for rails, optics, accessories, and he just couldn't make it the same. I asked him why he got a Mini if he wanted it to be an AR. He said he really liked the Mini. I said, if you like it so much, why are you working so hard to change it? I gave him my Brownell's AR catalog, and the next week he sold his Mini. He said it was just too limited. With an AR, he could do anything with it, especially with multiple uppers.

The idea that the Mini is so superior means that all of the police and military agencies that use it are just stupid. They didn't do their homework when they picked the AR for their rifle, because if they had tried the Mini, they would have picked it. Or perhaps they saw the limitations of the platform, and the ease of use of the AR and decided to use the rifle that more personnel can easily use and learn quickly, which, by the way, has been the service rifle for the U.S. military longer than ANY other rifle in its history.

Perhaps you are right, and ALL of them are wrong. What you are REALLY saying is, that YOU LIKE the Mini more. You have absolutely no idea which rifle is better. You don't have the skill or training to know how to use either rifle correctly. You are basing your assertions on what your friends and uncles have told you.

Robert
November 6, 2009, 07:23 PM
The only reason I made this thread was the fact that there are a lot of folks out there that make factless, baseless, highly generalized claims about the
Insert almost any weapon ever made. How many times have I been told that the FAL is a horribly inaccurate rifle even though my rifle has proven to be very accurate time and time again. That the FAL is this, that or other thing that makes it worse than a M1A or AR10. If the Mini works for you then that is great. Like I said I have a lot of fun with mine, but do not try to paint all AR owners with the same brush. And again I am not an AR owner. I like my FAL just fine thanks.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 6, 2009, 07:33 PM
If the Mini was $300-$350, you'd have a point. But now they're twice that.

R.W.Dale
November 6, 2009, 07:33 PM
hobout a challange for our mini fans


2.5" at 250 is impossible with an AR

ok how's this for all you mini owners. I'll give the first mini owner a box of monarch .223 Ammo that makes the following requirment

two targets at 100yds
two 5 shot groups
all 10 rdsmust be fired in under 3 minutes
iron sights
average for both groups must be under 2.5"

Justin
November 6, 2009, 07:34 PM
As far as a previous poster after 10,000 rounds we are talking ORIGINAL parts? I mean AR folks swap out parts like babies need diaper changes.

The rifle I've used for Service Rifle matches (and the first AR I ever purchased) has around 10K rounds through it. It's probably due for a barrel change. Other than that, the only modification made to it was to have White Oak Precision install a float tube in it.

Oh, and I put a leather shooting sling on it.

My 3Gun rifle has had around 4K rounds put through it this year, and about 1K rounds through it by the previous owner. I have yet to change any parts on it.

With open sights?

High Power shooters are not allowed to use scopes, and they shoot out to 600 yards. I was lucky enough to be present when Julia Watson broke the then-current record at 600 yards a few years ago. IIRC, her score was something like 200-17x. Looking up the diameter of the ten ring on a 600-yard High Power target might yield some interesting information...

The only reason I made this thread was the fact that there are a lot of folks out there that make factless, baseless, highly generalized claims about the Mini-14.

Pot, kettle.

stchman
November 6, 2009, 07:43 PM
In all this I never once bashed the AR-15. I still believe it is way overpriced and too finicky a platform.

I was bashing the OWNERS of ARs, yep they still are elitist.

This thread just re-enforces what I know to be true of AR owners.

So after this thread I guess the posters GUARANTEE that if I purchase an AR it will shoot ANY make of .223 or 5.56 ammo? I can also lube it with 5W-30 Quaker State as well.

As far as the poster no trusting his Mini to shoot a coyote at 75 yards you need more practice. At 100 yards I am very proficient with my Mini.

benzy2
November 6, 2009, 07:47 PM
What brand of .223 or 5.56 wouldn't work? If you go with something too heavy for the twist rate it may keyhole but that isn't a function thing. I have never had a single brand of ammo not cycle my two ARs, be it brass or steel cased. I would be willing to try any brand you shipped me and I will video tape it running the box(s) of ammo you shipped.

Mags
November 6, 2009, 07:51 PM
looks like another poster typing about something they know nothing about. I will not knock the Mini 14 I have never shot one. But from the OPs posts here it seems that his knowledge of the AR platform is very limited. And yes this AR owner is somewhat elitists when it comes to the AR style rifle. The M4 defends my unit daily.

knights_armorer
November 6, 2009, 07:52 PM
if im not mistaken "the A team" used mini14's almost exclusively, and also if im not mistaken, in thousands of rounds fired, not a single enemy combatant was even hit center mass.

now, that was a joke of course, but on a more serious note, and i hope you can take something from this:

This thread just re-enforces what I know to be true of AR owners.

this statement is incredibly narrow minded and very low road.

General Geoff
November 6, 2009, 07:54 PM
AR-15: 99.990% reliable
Mini-14:99.995% reliable


Given these two guesstimates (on reliability of the rifle with perfect ammo and good mags), even though the Ruger could be considered "twice as reliable" (one malfunction for every two in the AR), they're both extremely reliable to the point where a malfunction is not likely to happen at all.

EagleClaw
November 6, 2009, 07:59 PM
Carried the M16 and its various upgraded counterparts for 21 years in the U.S. Army. It's an excellent rifle. However, it just wasnt something I have a strong desire to own as a civilian. What I did years ago was purchase a used 182 series mini and made it a project. I bedded the stock myself (minimal expense), had my gunsmith do a trigger job and slapped a barrell strut/stabilizer (Har-Bar) on it. I consistantly get 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards with Federal 55 grain ammo. Thats plenty good enough for me. I have shot thousands of rounds thru this rifle (steel and brass) and it just keeps on going. I am not comparing my Mini to an AR, just saying you can make them accurate and not break the bank. I guess I just like the wood stocked rifles. Besides if the SHTF I'm not grabbing the Mini or an AR - that duty goes to my Yugo M70ab2 underfolder or the Saiga 7.62!

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 08:01 PM
As far as the poster no trusting his Mini to shoot a coyote at 75 yards you need more practice. At 100 yards I am very proficient with my Mini.

Iron sight rifle match, any time, bud.:rolleyes:

But not with my Mini-14. You are welcome to shoot it if you want, though.

(You forget BTW that I'm about the only person here who has something GOOD to say about the Mini-14.)

HGUNHNTR
November 6, 2009, 08:03 PM
Good Lord stchman, please understand that you are coming across as being incredibly bigoted. Saying that all who choose the AR platform are elitist is about the same as saying anyone who chooses the Mini platform is a beer belly, nascar watching hick.

Come on man, what are you trying to contribute here. Several folks have tried to have a logical discussion, and you just want to turn it into an "elitist" thing. :barf:

Ed Ames
November 6, 2009, 08:48 PM
I've fired both types about equally. Here's my take:

The mini is a smaller and handier package. Maybe not lighter (didn't weigh them) but it is less of an awkward lump. That's partly materials (aluminum will always be bulkier) and partly style (pistol grips, high sight plane, long mags, accessory rails, etc).

The AR is an open standards based, multi-vendor platform with limitless aftermarket/spares availability vs. Minis which are single-source solutions. Not that Ruger is going to go out of business but mini owners are far more dependent on a single entity and that's a bad thing in principle.

Either will run wolf ammo but why would you want to? I purchased a few hundred rds of wolf a while ago and so far have seen a bunch of duds (1 in 25ish) including two blown out primers which fortunately also failed to fire the powder but still dumped hot gas into the action.

In a perfect world I'd like a combination of the two... the AR's openness coupled with the mini's compactness.

In this world, both are fun so be happy with whichever you choose.

frankiestoys
November 6, 2009, 09:43 PM
I dont own a AR but have fired lots of them they are fantastic weapons.
They are NOT perfect , sorry guys. My friend has a Smith & Wesson and it jams all the time! And another guy i know has a DPMS & he has no issue's.
Well i do own a 580 series Mini 14 and have done some mod's on it . It
shoots 1 1/2 inche groups all day at 50 yards. I will be heading to the range soon for some 100 yrd groups and will post them to prove my point.
The new mini is much improved over the older series, is it a tack driver ?
NO, but it is a good rifle and can fill many roles.
We can go on forever( thats why theres another thread ):banghead:
Lets agree guys that there both fine weapons and to each his own.
(yes the other guns a Hi point)

DougW
November 6, 2009, 09:56 PM
My first .223 was a Mini14. I really loved it, and it was totally reliable, but accuracy was not so good. I sold it when I built my second AR, because the AR's were so much more accurate. Used the money to build the third rifle. Haven't looked back since.

Mini's are good rifles, and now that the barrels are better, they apear to be much closer to an AR in the accuracy dept. But, they cost close to what an AR costs.

benzy2
November 6, 2009, 10:12 PM
I don't think anyone here has really been hating on the mini 14, just that they aren't what a lot of AR owners were looking for. I think they are fine rifles, just not as accurate as I would prefer for the price, which is why I went with the AR. Different strokes type thing. Its just the attack at all AR owners which was a bit abrasive to say the least.

AndyJ
November 6, 2009, 10:30 PM
You know, back in the day I used to love keeping up with the 'latest and greatest' and I would get whatever the flavor of the week was just to see what all the fuss was about.

Nowadays, it just sorta makes me tired to think about keeping up with all this ummmm .. stuff. I got too old and fat and lazy to do much serious hunting. Anything out past 100 yds is pretty much lost to my bad eyes and the blasted tri focals. Optics are more complication and they don't survive well behind the seat of my truck anyway.

So nowadays, it is mostly ranch critters that catch my interest. Rattlers and coyotes, those damned hogs and such as that. I had 2 Minis over the years. Actually owned both of them at the same time for a bit. One of them lived behind the seat of my truck for a good while. Yes it did. I never did a danged thing to it except buy some factory mags and top them off once in awhile. It slipped out of the two gun sheath hanging behind my seats real slick with just iron sights and it always, always went bang. I dispatched plenty of critters with it.

My boy is military service for many years now and he is a big AR fan. He got me to try one of them and you know it was everything it was supposed to be. I shot it infrequently but never put it in the truck. I just never did warm up to it for some reason. I sorta like the real wood thing more and more as the years pass. Maybe that was it. I can't fault it at all, I just didn't care for it and that is purely personal taste.

The Mini's and the AR are gone now. I sorta keep an eye on the trends at Gunbroker and noticed a year or so ago both of these models were going used at auction for silly money. I hate to be a profiteer but I do enjoy our free market economy. All 3 guns were listed in no reserve auctions starting at a penny and sure enough they brought silly money. I figured if somebody wanted them bad enough to pay that much for them, they really needed them alot worse than I did. I haven't missed any of them.

Texas is a wonderful environment for gun owners and nobody really pays much attention to a beat up old ranch truck going back and forth to town. I have a Colt Government in the center console and an old Wingmaster 12 behind the seat in one of the pockets. The other pocket has a Remington 7615 with a 20 round AR mag. I like those pumps. Simple and easy to clean and they really go bang every time. Sorta hard not to function properly as simple as they are. I guess an auto loader would let me shoot faster but like I said I am sorta old and slow these days. I can shuck that slide pretty fast if I need to and by the time I get a coupla shots off that usually does the trick. Either the varmint is ventilated or it has run off in the brush.

To me it is not which is better or worse, it is what works for me. I do enjoy a good hubbub like this thread though. :)

Y'all take care and shoot straight.

Flintknapper
November 6, 2009, 10:46 PM
The mini-14 is a very mediocre rifle.

End of story.

Pony Express
November 6, 2009, 10:48 PM
I have shot friends ARs and found them to be no more accurate than my Mini.

sounds like you have a magical mini 14 or you need more practice with an AR

Omaha-BeenGlockin
November 6, 2009, 10:52 PM
Own both--the only thing the Mini clearly does better is the buttstroke---wouldn't dare do that with an AR--lol.

I do prefer a scoped Mini to a scoped AR---and the steel mags vs the aluminium ones.

Otherwise--tit for tat.

husker
November 6, 2009, 11:00 PM
My AR is better than your MINI na na na-nana!! & my mini is better than your AR.na na na-nana!! & my ford 250 is better than your Chevy. & my nova is better than your mustang. GEEZZZZZZZZZZZ

1KPerDay
November 6, 2009, 11:13 PM
The mini-14 is a very mediocre rifle.

End of story.
Well that settles it.

Justin
November 6, 2009, 11:15 PM
In all this I never once bashed the AR-15.

You may not have bashed the platform, but your repetition of clearly uninformed myths certainly doesn't help, especially when it's coupled with a belief that you're somehow stating the absolute truth.

I still believe it is way overpriced and too finicky a platform.

Believe all you want. Regardless, if the platform could be replaced with something just as effective at a lower cost point, you'd see people who shoot often flocking to that platform. Likewise, if the AR platform were so finicky, you'd see not only competitive shooters moving away from it, but also law enforcement.

I was bashing the OWNERS of ARs, yep they still are elitist.

Elitism has nothing to do with it.

Tell you what, stchman, if you can prove to me that a Mini-14 can do absolutely everything I need it to do, I will immediately cease competing in 3Gun with an AR-platform rifle.

Find me a Mini-14 that can do the following:

-Hold up under circumstances of sustained heavy fire (for the purposes of this discussion, let's say somewhere around 75+ rounds fired in under four minutes)
-Possesses enough inherent accuracy to allow me to engage Half-size IPSC targets from point blank range to 150 yards, and 10-inch steel targets from 150 yards to 425 yards
-Possess enough inherent accuracy to allow me to make repeatable, accurate hits on a full-size IPSC target out to 500 yards
-Not change zero under circumstances of sustained fire
-Not jam under adverse conditions, to include sand, grit, and dirt
-Not have the point of impact change due to using the rifle in improvised field positions
-Do all of the above at a price point of $600-$700 out the door with no required modification thereafter

You find me that Mini-14, and I will immediately switch from shooting AR-pattern guns to Minis. A link to a Gun Broker auction, phone number for an FFL who has the weapon in his possession, or a willingness to sell the one you have will suffice. I'll happily drop the cash right now if you can find a Mini-14 that can meet my needs.

This thread just re-enforces what I know to be true of AR owners.

So you came in here with preconceived notions and ill-informed beliefs, and then got all bent out of shape when people disagreed with you? And that makes them elitist?

Wow.

So after this thread I guess the posters GUARANTEE that if I purchase an AR it will shoot ANY make of .223 or 5.56 ammo?

No one here said that, now you're just setting up a straw-man argument in order to puff yourself up.

I can also lube it with 5W-30 Quaker State as well.

I personally know two competitive 3Gun shooters who place extremely well at large national 3Gun and Multigun matches who lube their AR-15's with 5W30.

R.W.Dale
November 6, 2009, 11:23 PM
Well that settles it.

The ruger mini14 is simply an american made SKS that shoots .223 instead of 7.62x39

The problem with this is you can buy an SKS for $150
which if the mini sold for even twice that would be the best deal going

but at 4x that much it's more of a "are you kidding?" rifle

Chindo18Z
November 6, 2009, 11:37 PM
Bought my first Mini in the '70s and loved it. Light, handy, nice wood, and I've always liked the Garand style safety...

It was every improvement that the M1 .30 Carbine ever needed. Just not as accurate.

A carbine that was only Minute-of-Beer-Can accurate.

A carbine that required expensive (and ultimately low cap) proprietary magazines.

If I'm hunting coyotes, it rocks. For combat...not so much.

BTW: The only recent hand-to-hand buttstock breakage that I'm privy to involved...wait for it...a Garand.

Go figure. :scrutiny:

Avenger29
November 6, 2009, 11:38 PM
So after this thread I guess the posters GUARANTEE that if I purchase an AR it will shoot ANY make of .223 or 5.56 ammo? I can also lube it with 5W-30 Quaker State as well.

So long as it isn't damaged/dirty, I will run any brand of .223 that's good quality through my LMT. I will not run shady brands through any guns at all, though. And yes, there are a few out there. A-Merc for example.

Brown bear, golden bear, silver bear, I can shoot it. When I run steel case, I generally prefer the Wolf stuff, though.

You can't "guarantee" a Mini will run with those brands, either.


The AR's "finickiness", "unreliability", and "fragility" is way overblown. Way overblown. I would have never purchased one if what is commonly screeched about ARs was true.

No weapon is perfect. Realize that, and you'll be much happier.

The Mini 14 tries but falls short...it has potential if Ruger would do some work on it, but I'm guessing reworking it more than they have already might be cost prohibitive and would raise the cost of the Mini even higher.

lobo9er
November 6, 2009, 11:38 PM
i'd imagine ANDYJ looks like the guy that always plays a cowboy in movies lol wyatt earps brother in tombstone.

i like the arguing too. keep it up :) they are both good rifles if they weren't they probably wouldn't have stuck around for so long. I had a smith & wesson m&p15 jam machine sent back to S&W came back better, not perfect so I sold it. That was my only hands on with an AR of my own. shot friends AR'S, good stuff but not looking to buy a new one yet.

lobo9er
November 6, 2009, 11:41 PM
krochus
The problem with this is you can buy an SKS for $150

not anymore, i'm afraid those days are gone. but still cheaper than a mini.

knights_armorer
November 6, 2009, 11:43 PM
i dont think its a bad little rifle. maybe a bit one dimensional, and maybe a tad overpriced.

it is a handsome, reliable little carbine, that points and handles quickly, but thats really where it ends, and thats ok.

the sad truth is that it simply does not lend itself to the accuracy that even budget ar rifles are capable of. the truth is not always what we would like it to be (hence your anguish)

yes, with major work, a new barrel, some trigger work, and maybe a rediculous contraption hanging off the barrel, it is possible to make it shoot ALMOST as straight as a 600 dollar olympic. it would cost twice that to make a mini shoot with one.

this is NOT knock on the mini14. like i said, its a nice little carbine and serves it purpose well, but its purpose is not to shoot sub moa, or maintain a rate of accurate sustained fire anywhere close to even a budget ar.

the mini is designed to shoot for pleasure and it works great for that.

the ar is designed to keep you alive when you have fired 300 rounds in the previous ten minutes at a feverish rate, and you really, REALLY, REALLY, NEED THE NEXT ROUND TO TO HIT.......... POINT OF AIM, POINT OF IMPACT OUT TO 600 YARDS, hot barrel or not.

Redneck with a 40
November 6, 2009, 11:49 PM
I bought my Mini-14 knowing full well that its not an AR and won't shoot 1/4" groups. Fact is, I could care less about that. I've got a .308 that shoot's .6" groups, I don't need a .223 for that. I just wanted a good, reliable, hi-cap 223 to mess around at the range with and I will say, I'm happy with the accuracy of mine, most groups are 2.5", the biggest ones, 3".

I've got nothing against AR shooters, the rifle's just don't do anything for me. I'm fine with the fact that my Mini will never be a match rifle, doesn't matter to me.

rossiscratch
November 6, 2009, 11:50 PM
This was an entertaining thread. haha. Thanks guys. I think the OP has a little inferiority complex going on. He should be happy with his mini though. It suits his purposes for a little less money than the alternative. There's nothing wrong with that. However, as Justin pointed out, pot, meet kettle. Oh you've met before?

lobo9er
November 6, 2009, 11:51 PM
the ar is designed to keep you alive when you have fired 300 rounds in the previous ten minutes at a feverish rate, and you really, REALLY, REALLY, NEED THE NEXT ROUND TO TO HIT.......... POINT OF AIM, POINT OF IMPACT OUT TO 600 YARDS, hot barrel or not.

To be fair some of those budget AR aren't up to this either though. Just because they advertise mil-spec doesn't make it so

Redneck with a 40
November 6, 2009, 11:52 PM
I don't know about you, but I'm not planning on getting involved in a war, lol.:neener:

ArmedBear
November 6, 2009, 11:53 PM
I will say this:

I have often wished my Mini-14 would shoot a legitimate deer cartridge with sufficient accuracy to be a 250-300 yard hunting carbine with a 4X scope on it. It's one wonderful little package, that has the potential of being the modern replacement for the lever gun. I was tempted by the 6.8 version, but not for the money they charge. I don't trust that the gun wouldn't need to go to Accuracy Systems with a check for 800 more bucks, to become a hunting rifle.

I have never had any real desire to take an AR-15 hunting.

I've also wished that the M1A wasn't so heavy and expensive (more or less the same wish as the first one). Again, it LOOKS like a great hunting rifle, but it would have to lose a few pounds to live up to that.

The bottom line? I like the way the Mini points, as knights armorer says. But it falls short.

I don't love the way an AR handles, though it is fun to shoot. But the thing shoots straight, and it doesn't overheat in a half a magazine.]

And I'm often tempted to send the Mini off to Accuracy Systems, but I don't have any real need for another semiauto that shoots a cartridge for which I have no need, and I can see other uses for the cash.:)

lobo9er
November 7, 2009, 12:08 AM
but I don't have any real need for another semiauto that shoots a cartridge for which I have no need

agree, unless theres money to burn. how meny 223's do you need (answers will vary i would bet)

Justin
November 7, 2009, 12:08 AM
it is a handsome, reliable little carbine, that points and handles quickly, but thats really where it ends, and thats ok.

Indeed. I certainly won't demean those who choose to shoot a Mini-14. If it's a gun that works for you, then that's certainly all you need.

Where I have a problem is with the making of claims that the Mini-14 is something that it is not, or that people who choose to go with the AR platform are somehow snobs. Such claims are flat-out wrong; just as wrong as if I were to claim that an AR-15 could fill the same niche as, say, a long-range precision bolt gun.

rich636
November 7, 2009, 12:08 AM
Edit: to the OP

If you're not going to battle, which most of us aren't, they're both great guns. No reason to bag on one just because you don't prefer it.

knights_armorer
November 7, 2009, 01:29 AM
Where I have a problem is with the making of claims that the Mini-14 is something that it is not, or that people who choose to go with the AR platform are somehow snobs.

absolutely.

the o.p. has in one post attempted to cite the shortcomings of the ar platform, and in another post say its not about the rifle, but its owners.

sometimes ive seen members question the closing of threads. i dont think this one would be missed, as last I observed it was taking up space between two very nice threads that just seem to fit here more appropriately ("whats the difference between the 338lapua and the 338 winchester" and "picking my first lever rifle")

does an unsolicited personal rant belong between those two?

RP88
November 7, 2009, 02:34 AM
I get so tired of hearing the AR-15 elitists talk about what an uber rifle the AR-15 is and how bad Mini-14s suck.

A lot of it isn't elitism as much as it is wanting a higher-precision rifle, which the Mini is definitely not. It is what it is: a ranch gun. It works like an American AK-47. It isn't made nor known for superb accuracy.

At 100 yards I cannot tell a big difference in accuracy in a Mini-14. The AR might be a touch more accurate but not much.

Post groups and elaborate on what you consider "a touch more" or "not much". A 1/2" difference is usually considered a big difference. For example, I hear that the average Ruger group is around 3-4 inches. I hear of M4gery carbine owners getting a typical 1.5-2" out-of-box or so if they do their part. Big difference, especially if the degree of accuracy holds consistent at longer ranges, where it is comparing a 3-4" group to a 6-8" group.

- ARs cost significantly more.

You can find them for $550-750; thats around the cost of a Mini. If you want a high-end precision rifle or something strong enough to go out into middleofthefreakingharshdesertistan or use as a bullet hose in a carbine class, then sure: you'll end up spending around $1100-2600

- ARs are far pickier about ammo than a Mini-14. Yes I can shoot Wolf, Brown Bear, and the more expensive brass stuff as well.

So can my AR. It just smells bad, takes longer to clean, and MAY wear out a $3 piece after awhile. I generally don't shoot it because it sucks for accuracy, though.

- The Mini-14 has an action based on the M1 Garand (a very proven action)

Direct Impingement has been the way our standard issue weapons operates for nearly fifty years. It seems to be very proven as well - if not even more proven.

- Mini-14s are definitely more durable with the ARs plastic construction.

Sure, the Ruger can survive a jettison across a ravine much better than an AR. The AR may crack a plastic handguard, bust the grip, or crack the buffer tube. But my question here is: do you like to jettison your firearms into and over ravines? Do you think that your Ruger is subjected to and tolerates more beating and use than an AR can take? The AR does not break if you simply drop it or if the wind hits it the wrong way.

- Mini-14s can be cleaned and oiled with anything, ARs users fuss over lubricants and solvents

an AR can be cleaned by anything as well. It's just that it is generally valued for its precision, and therefore it makes more sense to use better lubricants. I however have an AR I built in accordance to the milspec chart/TDP standards, and I just use cheapo CLP for it. It works fine.

- Mini-14 are gas piston while ARs are the dirtier DI variety, after I fire 100 rounds in my Mini the bolt and bolt carrier are still clean.

...so? ARs aren't as finicky as you think. I haven't cleaned mine in about 400 rounds. No problems, no permanent damage, no worries of it bursting into flames, etc.

Seriously, logistics and modernization aside, do you think our military would have kept the platform around if it didn't work?

To all the AR folks, if you wish to spend $500 more on a rifle that is your prerogative. AR folks feel the need to justify their purchase by bashing other peoples rifles.

We don't bash the Ruger for being a bad rifle; we bash it for being a bad rifle for our needs or purpose. A lot of it isn't bashing as much as it is telling the truth. I personally do not like the Ruger because I can get a more accurate gun for the same price to suit my shooting wants and needs. Sorry if we offended you or the Mini.

MarineOne
November 7, 2009, 02:37 AM
I was always under the assumption (whether wrong or not) that the Mini-14 didn't have a 5.56 chamber, and the higher chamber pressures created by the 5.56 mil-surplus ammo would damage the .223 chamber in the Mini.

I switch back and forth between .223 and mil-surp ammo. When one is cheaper than the other, I keep the good stuff and shoot the cheap stuff .... and I suppose there are a lot of folks like that here as well.

This, along with the higher cost of Mini-14 magazines, was the reason I went with the AR. There was a time I could get AR mags for less than 10 bucks a pop, and sometimes for free because they simply needed a new spring and/or follower. I'm probably sitting on well over 50 mags for my AR, not because I might need that many but because I was in the right place at the right time.



Kris

General Geoff
November 7, 2009, 02:50 AM
I'm fairly certain the Mini-14 has a 5.56mm chamber.

Ed Ames
November 7, 2009, 02:51 AM
The ruger manual is very clear that the chamber is 5.56x45 (mil spec).


We don't bash the Ruger for being a bad rifle, we bash it for being a bad rifle for our needs or purpose.

You know that's not true. People bash the mini because they want to feel superior, not because it doesn't fit their needs. If it was a matter of needs they wouldn't bash, they'd just say, "not what I'm looking for." Besides, there are a lot of mini-bashers who never have, and never will, used their olympic arms (or name your brand) AR carbine anywhere but a range....and some of them can barely hold minute-of-backstop. I've seen them at the range, and the loudest mouths typically go with the guys who can barely keep all their shots on paper.

wcoats
November 7, 2009, 03:10 AM
Ok, so ARs win in the accuracy department, and AKs win in the reliability and cost department.

Where does that leave the mini 14? .....mediocracy, who wants that.

p.s. I could be wrong about this, but based on my limited expiriance i feel like mini 14s heat up faster than eather an AK or an AR. last time I tried to blow throw a 100 pack of .223 on a friends mini 14 I had to stop before finishing because it was getting to hot, while my other friends shooting ARs and a .223 saiga finished thier 100 pack of ammo much faster, without taking a break...... just me .2 cents

bill larry
November 7, 2009, 03:21 AM
The ruger mini14 is simply an american made SKS that shoots .223 instead of 7.62x39

Lets leave the SKS out of this. The Mini-14 doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the SKS. :neener:

1KPerDay
November 7, 2009, 03:26 AM
Where does that leave the mini 14? .....mediocracy, who wants that. Nobody, since it isn't a word.

/grammar Nazi

Wyo_F-A
November 7, 2009, 03:47 AM
The OP obviously had some personal experiences dealing with elitist AR shooters and felt he could get it off his chest here at the THR. I have dealt with those persons at the range as well, but decided that my Mini (3-14's and 2-30's) serve my purposes, and I generally like them, better. I have carried /used the AR, but still like the way the Mini feels in my hands much better than the AR.
If I wanted to shoot competitively, I would buy an AR (although my new Mini Target is pretty damn good). However, for my needs (hunting, varmint, defense, fun) the mini serves me just fine. I hunt antelope and TX whitetail with the 7.62 and do not require that the rifle be able to shoot 5 rounds through a quarter at 100yds, I just need it to hit a target the size of a grapefruit/orange at 100-200yds.
I will admit that the older mini's did have a overheating problem, but with the newer barrels I have not run into that issue.
As for elitist snobs, they are they main reason I stayed away from the 1911 platform (until recently). I just had to admit to myself that there will always be a**hats out there who think their stuff is better for one reason or another and there is nothing I can do....other than ignore it and continue on about my business.
If there was a SHTF situation, I would not balk at carrying either the AR or mini, but my personal preference is the Mini.

AirborneNCO
November 7, 2009, 04:23 AM
Here's a token that, if nothing else, can give the AR some props. I've spent 24 months in Iraq in two deployments, 7 years on active duty and 4 years in the reserves, all in the U.S. Army. I've been assigned to one M16A2, one M16A2 w/M203, one M16A4, and one M4 w/M203. They were reliable, accurate, and I came to know and love it through a direct personal relationship through hundreds of hours of intense, high impact, dirty training all over the world, to include sub-arctic regions and the fine dusts of Iraq, and plenty of time at the zero range and qualifications range on dozens of long days. That's why I went and bought an AR when I got out. This one, although not a Colt, has been great for my needs.

After all that history, there's a peculiar feeling I get when I see people saying certain things on here about that weapon in general. Things like "I just never really liked the AR that much or got another one because the first one I got jammed on me a bunch", or "ARs are finicky and their plastic parts are flimsy"; those statements kinda make me concerned about how some people judge weapon designs and make statistical assessments in general. If stch (the original poster) walked up to me on the range and verbally said to me what he did in his OP, I'd just kind of look at him funny and try to change the subject. Attitudes like that lead straight into an argument you can't win - the guy made it clear what he's all about and you just sort of walk away and hope he doesn't bother you too much.

Dr.Rob
November 7, 2009, 04:28 AM
I can say this with confidence. I never met a rifle that verticalliy strings like the Mini 14 (180 series stainless, wooden handguard and stock) as it gets hot.

It's plenty accurate for varmints at 100 yards, but after 3 or 5 shots, kiss your accuracy goodbye. I know newer Ruger rifles addressed this, but seriously, it's an issue for using that rifle for something like 3 gun.

My AR doesn't seem to string bullets at all, maybe if I was dumping magazine after magazine.

C-grunt
November 7, 2009, 04:48 AM
I think we got a case of pot calling the kettle black here!

The mini 14 is a great rifle but its not known for its accuracy. Thats cool if it works for you.

Me... I love ARs. I used the M16 in the Army and trust them with my life. The fact is that rifle has saved my but more than once. The only time I can remember having a malfunction was with blanks.

Also the M16 works fine for butt strokes. Ive seen it. Thats with a standard A2/4 stock, not a carbine stock.

Also for the people who dont like plastic, you know they make wood parts for the rifle now. I think its ugly as sin, but thats just me.

clarence222
November 7, 2009, 04:55 AM
let me first say I have both a mini 14 and a mini 30,a s well as a dozen or more AR style rifles. I enjoy owning and shooting all of them. You might could say I like the AR platform better and that might be true, but then again it might not be. I like the mini becuase of the A Team, I always watched that show. I like the AR because its an AR.


Not so.
http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/...83810&cat=161&

GusMcrae, you posted this link earlier in the thread about an inexpensive AR, if you do some more looking around on that site you will find this ammunition warning. I'm no trying to call you out or anything like. I just thought that this was interesting since part of this thread was about ammo. I shoot the steel case in my AR's and haven't had any problems. But sure would hate to have my warranty voided because I shot Wolf or any other steel cased ammo

With the growing popularity of the AR-15/M16 family of rifles the demand for ammunition has risen sharply. Unfortunately, this has made quality ammunition hard to find. CMMG recommends using only domestic, commercially manufactured ammunition or high quality surplus NATO specification ammunition.

Using any reloaded ammunition, any steel cased ammunition or Wolf Ammunition VOIDS your Limited Lifetime Warranty.

Thats not the entire warning but I think you will see the relevance on what types of ammo to use. Here is the link so you can read it for yourself.

http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/?cart=1985023&cat=159&

scythefwd
November 7, 2009, 05:00 AM
My plastic hand guards and butt stock on my A2 rifle were extremely tough. Then again, this was a military rifle.. not the civilian equivalent. I don't know how those hold up or if they can handle a butt stroke.

BMF500
November 7, 2009, 05:11 AM
I have a Bushmaster M-4, it's pretty good for an auto-loader. But if I'm looking for dead-nuts accuracy, I reach for Weatherby.....

cottonmouth
November 7, 2009, 05:49 AM
I have 3 GB Mini 14's and two AR's and I am building a third. These are two diffrent rifles, just because they both shoot .223 doesn't put them into the exact same catagory........... aww to hell with it!:D I love 'em both!

J.B.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/cottonmouth_/HPIM2556.jpg

armsmaster270
November 7, 2009, 06:36 AM
You want sticker shock, price the new Ruger AR variant.

frankiestoys
November 7, 2009, 09:05 AM
Ive been watching this thread since yesterday. Some boys play nice some don't ,all this name calling :cuss:
I own a newer mini (see my post), again if the AR fans believe that this gun has not been improved, please go shoot one.
It's still not an AR but a much needed improved carbine.
Im glad to see that Ruger now has there own AR ,see it's not so bad.

lobo9er
November 7, 2009, 09:48 AM
I think where people get annoyed with "AR" guy on the forum (not all AR owners are AR guy) is when talking about any other type of rifle they chime in with something like "should just buy an AR" or "you own a mini sorry for ya" its like you can't ask about any other rifle with someone bring out he owns an AR. Same goes for shotguns with "870 guy"

SalchaketJoe
November 7, 2009, 10:00 AM
Have had two mini-14s. Niether of them could group any better then 3 or 4 inches at 100 yards. The mags at pricy and sort of a pain to get in and out of the rifle. The little flip up sight they had sucked. I was stuck with the ruger scope mount system.

Now, with some of the newer ones, better sights, more accurate, more mounting options. The one with the AR type collapsable buttstock looks stupid though. Same mag problem. If they would redesign it to take AR mags, make it just as accurate and do all that and keep the price low, I would go to a mini IN ADDITION to my AR.

wcwhitey
November 7, 2009, 10:34 AM
A couple of points. Any new Mini around my AO is at least $800. Entry level AR's are less than that now. Magazines are still 3X what good quality AR magazines go for. That said I am not bashing the Mini, I have owned two. I thought they were good rifles for the $300 price tags. At that time my first AR was $550. Once the AWB came and prices went crazy I just could not see laying down $600 for a Mini. Now new and improved and with a price of $800 I just cannot see it, not worth it, period.

Again not bashing the Mini as a weapon, I think it is a good utilitarian rifle. They are reliable and I found their accuracy to be acceptable, not great but decent for the intended usage. I just don't see them as a great value unless you get a good price on a used one. And as my last point they really shouldn't be constantly compared to AR's. Apples to Oranges IMHO. Bill

Bartholomew Roberts
November 7, 2009, 10:54 AM
My only gripe with the Mini-14 is that because it is a .223 semi-automatic rifle, people think it fills the same niche as the AR15. It doesn't - and it doesn't rate the same price as one. Most people don't understand that because most people don't shoot either rifle enough to appreciate the differences.

Plinking along the local creek/ravine/garbage dump? You'll never notice a difference between the two rifles. Firing a five round group at the local range to confirm sights before heading off into the woods for coyote, pigs, bambi, etc? Again, probably never notice a difference.

Paid $1,200 for a five day carbine course at Gunsite? You are probably going to be unhappy with that Mini-14 before day 5.

Dr.Rob
November 7, 2009, 03:10 PM
I don't doubt I can hit popper at 200 yards with a mini, but after a few shots its not a question of precision, even with optics at longer range.

It's still a decent rifle, it's just not designed for that sort of work. I like shooting them both, just have more confidence in the AR.

JWF III
November 7, 2009, 03:52 PM
After 4 1/2 pages, it's still nothing more than a pissing contest. I had an Ar for several years. Guess what, even it had magazine problems. In the last few years this has been addressed with different followers and springs. When I had my AR, the only reliable mags were 20 round Colts.

DI vs. piston. They both work. One is thought to be more accurate. One is thought to be more reliable. But to get a few things straight. Direct Impingement is not an older design than the Garand design. Direct impingement is not 50 years old. Direct impingement was first used in a battle rifle in 1942. It was the Ljundmann AG-42 of Swedish design. The Garand was patented in 1934 and put into production in 36. The Ljundmann was designed in 1941 and put into production in 42.

Both guns do what they were intended to do, and they do them very well. Accuracy is just fine for both in real world (battle type) conditions. I'm not talking target range here. Any body that doesn't think the Mini is accurate enough, would you be willing to stand out at 300 yards with someone firing a Mini at you? I didn't think so. Each of mine (and every other one I've shot) will shoot minute of chest past 300 yards.

As for the heating up issue, if you can't do what you need to do in 300 rounds, in 10 minutes, you may be better off throwing that last cartridge at your enemy. I've put 100 rounds through my Mini in 1 1/2 to 2 minutes before. Yes it was hot (hot enough to melt a hole in my plastic bedliner), but I wasn't scared to shoot it anymore. I would've been willing to put another couple hundred through it without stopping to take a break. But then again, any of my shooting friends can attest to the fact that I'm extremely rough of my tools. Fine antiques and collectibles I take care of. Hammers, axes, and hunting/defense guns, not so much

For the record, I got rid of my AR for two reasons. #1 I made a couple hundred dollars on it the short time I had it. #2 I absolutely hated it. It had horrid ergonomics to me. That's when I figured out I like wood more than plastic, and traditional more than "new fangled". I got a Mini 180 series to replace it. I got the Mini with what I made on the AR, and still had the cost of the AR to play with. I since have gotten two more Minis. None of which are the 580 series. And none of which I payed more than $350 for.

So AR vs. Mini. Two good rifles, built for different purposes in mind.

Next topic, comparing the .223 Remington cartridge to the .460 Weatherby, or maybe "Will my Old Timer work in a gun fight?":banghead::D

Wyman

Joe Demko
November 7, 2009, 05:15 PM
What I'm willing to have someone shoot at me with at any range is a poor criterion for the worth of a rifle. I am loathe to be shot and am unwilling to take the chance of getting hit even by a (un)lucky shot.

Mags
November 7, 2009, 05:50 PM
Do you think he was serious about getting shot at? He was just making a point.

gunnutery
November 7, 2009, 05:56 PM
After 4 1/2 pages, it's still nothing more than a pissing contest.

I fully agree, as soon as I saw the title a couple days ago I knew it would be as such. For the record I own one mini 14 and love it. I'm not a big fan of the AR, however I realize it's merits and advantages over the mini 14. My only rant to add to the pissing match is that I'd like to see gun magazines diversify from using AR pics on the covers so much. That's all I've got to say 'bout that.

Art Eatman
November 7, 2009, 05:58 PM
I've always figured the Mini was a good little hunting rifle. The first shot or three always went to the same point of aim as happened last week or last month. I've also found that when I hit Ol' Wily on the first shot, group size is irrelevant. Tough luck, Wily; another tail to nail up on the porch...

I've had four each of Minis and ARs over the last thirty or so years. Don't have a Mini, right now; I have a pretty nice Colt AR plus an extra flat-top upper. Outside of ergonomics, they're about the same for general utility. Howsomever, I'm much more of a hunter than I am a bangitty-bangitty sort of shooter, so I figure the AR will work as a decent truck gun.

I never have understood all the excitement about ARs/AKs/Minis/Whatevers.

wally
November 7, 2009, 06:16 PM
I've seen guys run Wolf ammo through AR's without problem.


All my ARs run Wolf ammo, the one that didn't I fixed (replaced) the extractor and spring.


I've love all three the AR, the Mini, and the AK. My experience is:

Accuracy: AR > Mini > AK
But for practical accuracy (i.e. not off a bench rest, using cheap ammo) I find no significant difference when exploding 2-liter bottle or knocking down steel plates.


Ergnomics:
Mini > AR >> AK

The Mini and AR are so good I won't argue if you think the AR is better here, but I have to shift my grip to use the AR safety, the Mini is perfect.


Rounds shot before failure from lack of cleaning:
AK > Mini >> AR.

But for practical shooting, all will easily go through more ammo than I can carry along with the rifle without cleaning. Although I rarely clean my AKs and Mini just wiping them off before putting them back in the safe for next outing, which is why I generally shoot them more often.


I have a Norinco MAK 90 with thumbhole stock that I bought ~1995 that I never cleaned until I converted it back to pistol grip config while having extra time off after Hurricane Ike and it has never failed, until I tried a ProMag in it :)

Magazine expense is the biggest negative for the Mini, but its may favorite overall.

--wally.

RP88
November 7, 2009, 11:03 PM
You know that's not true. People bash the mini because they want to feel superior, not because it doesn't fit their needs. If it was a matter of needs they wouldn't bash, they'd just say, "not what I'm looking for." Besides, there are a lot of mini-bashers who never have, and never will, used their olympic arms (or name your brand) AR carbine anywhere but a range....and some of them can barely hold minute-of-backstop. I've seen them at the range, and the loudest mouths typically go with the guys who can barely keep all their shots on paper.

It's true with me. My AR is a better do-all rifle for me.

But if you want the ugly truth: why pay 600-700 for the Ruger when I can get an AK or SKS(would make a nicer range gun to me) for half that, or pay a little more and walk off with a nice AR? For less money I get cheaper ammo and about-the-same accuracy, and for more money I get a gun that will do literally whatever I want depending on what I want to build it for.

If there is only one bad thing to say about the Mini, I would say that it needs to be either more competitively priced for what is is, or be more of what it should be for what it costs.

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 12:14 AM
I think you missed my point. I'll try again.

People don't bash because they want something different. They bash to try to make themselves feel better by making someone else feel worse. Making a different choice doesn't mean you must bash other people's choices.

I have no use for a .223. A few years ago someone gave me a .222 (very similar to the .223). I fired it a total of 10 times, enough to know it worked, and put it aside. Those cartridges are not practical for anything I do. If I am going to hunt, it will be for food animals and I'll use something with either a lot less, or a lot more, oomph. If I am going to fight, it will be as an individual without another 7+ infantrymen to back me up. If I'm going to target shoot, it will be either at short ranges where .223 is overkill or long ranges where it's inappropriate.

All of that said, I don't bash them. I've fired both the mini and the AR. Both were nice. Both were worthy of ownership pride. Neither is especially cost effective in my world. I would consider an AR in something other than .223... I haven't looked at it in depth, but the 6.8 SPC might do fine and in that case the mini would be a reasonable choice too. The main thing that would sway me is the multi-vendor parts availability issue, and that really has nothing to do with the quality of the rifle itself.

rizbunk77
November 8, 2009, 01:28 AM
fellas, fellas, fellas....
Does it really matter enough to go point by point?
Several have it right here, but you do get what you pay for. Mini's might be fine but they do not benefit from 40 years worth of devoted military improvement in design and material. This might not be all the difference either. The gas block design on the mini has been shown to be problematic, as it is the first thing accurizers try to fix. There might be a way to adapt the garand system to a smaller rifle that is better than the mini, but if so no one has developed it yet to my knowledge. Any way if I am a rancher out checking cattle and I see a coyote some 200 yds out what would I rather have in the truck? Well to me the accuracy of the mini is the biggest factor, and I don't think the finicky nature of the ar is bad enough. Advantage AR15.
BTW this thread seems to have devolved to a discussion of psychology rather than long arms

scythefwd
November 8, 2009, 02:37 AM
Direct impingement is not 50 years old. Direct impingement was first used in a battle rifle in 1942

Just one nit to pick. That would mean that DI is over 50 years old..67 to be exact. Please continue your regularly scheduled pissing contest now :)

General Geoff
November 8, 2009, 02:46 AM
I think that was his point.

KAK
November 8, 2009, 03:00 AM
This isnt a comparison thread its a bash thread. Dont feel bad that everyone else has better gun than you. Hahaha Im a college student making $310 dollars every 2 weeks and I bought an AR. Anyone can afford one if I can. So dont be a prick and call AR owners elitist. You should have bought a better rifle.

BTW thew are very different guns apart from being 223/556 and are semi-auto. NO military would ever want to carry a mini 14 its WAY heavier.

MistWolf
November 8, 2009, 03:22 AM
When I started reading the first page, I marshaled my thoughts for a clear and concise post regarding this subject. By the time I finished page 1, I realized it was a waste of time. We've been Mall Ninjaed by a Glock45 copycat.

Good prank stchman. You sure knew which buzzwords would get folks going. I've got to admit, it was entertaining and well worth a bag of popcorn

KAK
November 8, 2009, 03:30 AM
BTW I fired 500 rounds of monarch lacquered steel cased garbage ammo in one range trip with my AR. NEVER JAMMED ONCE!!!

Quentin
November 8, 2009, 03:41 AM
I carried the M14 most of the time from 1966-69 except 3 months in Nam when they handed us the M16. Liked them both but the 14 was pretty heavy to lug around. Must say I liked the new rifle.

After I got out I was very interested in the Mini-14 but the accuracy stories turned me off. Did like the rifle otherwise though. And love Ruger, have three of their handguns.

Well I had other rifles so didn't get any 223/5.56 over the years until recently. And it was an AR, M4 style. Main reason was I could build it myself and it turned out real good. Also prices have come back to earth so now's a good time to buy an AR before the next panic.

I still like the Mini-14 and it's not as intimidating looking as the M4 but sometimes you like intimidating! ;) The AR was the right choice for me. Get whichever one you like best, no big deal, get the one you like and who cares what anyone else thinks.

Handgunner
November 8, 2009, 07:20 AM
If you're not going to battle, which most of us aren't, they're both great guns. No reason to bag on one just because you don't prefer it.

This is probably the best response I've seen when it comes to these types of threads. :cool:

strambo
November 8, 2009, 08:55 AM
So after this thread I guess the posters GUARANTEE that if I purchase an AR it will shoot ANY make of .223 or 5.56 ammo? I can also lube it with 5W-30 Quaker State as well.Of course not...which AR, make, model, configuration? There can be no direct comparison in any meaningful way with a Ruger Mini-14 (an exact model and brand) and a generic "AR".

What kind of "AR, in what configuration and made by whom? Might as well say "my Ruger P93 always goes bang and everyone with a 1911 says it jams." 1911's are made by nearly every firearms manufacturer in all different sizes and configurations.

Compare your Ruger Mini 14 to a specific brand and model AR that you think is comparable/representative of what you think an "AR" is.

Can't go by looks either as there is a lot going on under the hood of a brand "X" AR vs. a brand "Y" that could adversely effect reliability in one and not the other.

What about an AR with a chrome chamber in 5.56 vs a .223 non-chrome line chamber? Might a difference like that effect reliability with certain ammo and not others? What do your friends have?

A good baseline "AR" carbine to compare to the mini IMO would be the Colt 6920, current street price $995-$1200 (unless you get suckered into paying election prices still). This is as close to the issue M4 as it gets in a civilian AR. Costs about 2X what the mini does...worth it? Who knows, but at least a debate about a Colt 6920 vs a Ruger mini-14 wouldn't bring the price, feature and reliability variance of every AR known to man including home-built ones into play vs the one specific rifle on the other side.

61chalk
November 8, 2009, 11:21 AM
This Thread was just a contest to see which Post would be the best....an the winner is...
Post #11

Robert
November 8, 2009, 12:08 PM
Clarence222,
I know you are not calling me out. Many rifle makers stipulate what types of ammo are "safe" in their rifles. The biggest problem with Wolf is the lacquer begins to coat the chamber and will at some point cause a failure. DSA is very clear about what types of ammo not to use in my FAL. However, I use my hand loads more often than factory. A risk I am willing to take. I was just trying to point out that an AR does not have to cost $1000 or more. Even if it does not have a rear sight.

Mags
November 8, 2009, 01:59 PM
Where are NIB minis going for 400-600 dollars? I see em sell for 800 all day long.

will919
November 8, 2009, 02:29 PM
Resent being called "Elitist" because I own a superior weapon...LOL JK
These debates get a bit tiresome, particularly when it gets personal.
Bill

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 02:57 PM
Where are NIB minis going for 400-600 dollars? I see em sell for 800 all day long.

Bud's has them for $622. They have 9 in stock for less than $700.

However... where are NIB complete (ready to shoot) ARs from a major US brand (or, better yet, manufacturer) w/ a service policy like Ruger's for under about $950? Colt wants $982. Remington is in the $980 range too. S&W is $950ish. All of those are at Bud's for in stock weapons today.

At the bottom end, the mini is a solid $300 (or about 33%) less expensive

At the top end, the fanciest mini (again, from Bud's) is under $800 ($781 for a laminated stainless target model w/ fancy pistol grip stock) while the fanciest S&W runs $1404, the fanciest Colt runs $1399, the fanciest Bushmaster is $1487. The mini is $620/45% less expensive at the high end.

All of those are today's prices from Bud's Gun Shop for in-stock items.

R.W.Dale
November 8, 2009, 03:02 PM
But when you factor in the coat diffrence for even as few as 4 30rd mags this price diffrence all but dissapears into the vaguries of local market diffrences

the DPMS sportical is a no frills but quality AR that sells for right at the same price as a new mini

chauncey
November 8, 2009, 03:11 PM
haha i have owned, and hate them both, the AR and the mini.

if i worked on a ranch i would buy a mini.

if i wanted to win at camp perry i would use an AR

there is very little in the way of crossover attributes between them, other than the 5.56/.223 round and a ZERO-SUM FAN BASE

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 03:22 PM
But when you factor in the coat diffrence for even as few as 4 30rd mags this price diffrence all but dissapears into the vaguries of local market diffrences


Not sure how your math works out.

30rd Ruger-brand mini mags will run you $50 at retail (Midway puts them at $35/ea for dealers).

I was at the local Academy earlier and they had P-Mags for $30/ea.

50-30=20
20*4=80

$80 is significantly less than $300, and even more significantly less than $620.

That's not even getting into the fact that you can buy 20rd mini mags for closer to $10 and 20rd is arguably a better size for the mini.


the DPMS sportical is a no frills but quality AR that sells for right at the same price as a new mini

Not a good comparison. DPMS gives a 3 year warranty and the buyer is responsible for shipping to/from DPMS for repair. http://www.dpmsinc.com/support/warranty.aspx

MrCleanOK
November 8, 2009, 03:33 PM
PMags are going for their usual $15 bucks ballpark for non-window varieties these days.

50-15 = $35
$35*2 = $70
$35*4 = $140
$35*6 = $210

I'll stop at 6. The Mini crowd doesn't seem like the "I need 30 magazines stashed away just in case" type.

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 03:34 PM
Someone tell Academy that.

And even then... $140 is still a lot less than $300, so you really haven't argued against my disproof of krochus's assertion.

But if we want to complete the comparison... How much does Colt charge for Colt-brand magazines? It's only fair to compare factory to factory.

jerkface11
November 8, 2009, 04:22 PM
The mini is in fact so much better than the AR that Ruger doesn't even bother to make one.

MrCleanOK
November 8, 2009, 04:26 PM
I laugh on the inside everytime I see PMags at Academy still wearing a $30 price tag.

The cost difference in magazines is a valid point to raise, but its value is solely up to the individual. If you intend to buy more than eight or nine magazines, the "cost" scale tips the other way. That said, not everybody needs/wants that many mags.

A quick google search found 30-round aluminum magazines with green followers branded "Colt" for $27 each. A Brownell's 30 round magazine with a grey follower can be found for $10. The third-party magazine is the higher quality magazine, at a lower cost.

Averaging the rated magazines on the first page of search results for "mini-14 magazine" at midway gives 2.5 stars. It would seem that less expensive third party magazines are not consistently an equal or greater quality replacement for a factory Ruger magazine.

MrCleanOK
November 8, 2009, 04:38 PM
Quote:
the DPMS sportical is a no frills but quality AR that sells for right at the same price as a new mini

Not a good comparison. DPMS gives a 3 year warranty and the buyer is responsible for shipping to/from DPMS for repair. http://www.dpmsinc.com/support/warranty.aspx

If Ruger will give you a lifetime warranty and pay to ship your rifle back, the DPMS is probably more rifle for the money. The cost of warranty issues gets worked into the price of the product, you ARE paying for it. A 3 year warranty period is more than long enough to find a manufacturer's defect, and having the customer pay to ship it in probably weeds out a lot of the piddly stuff that would drive the cost of a warranty program up.

R.W.Dale
November 8, 2009, 05:02 PM
Someone tell Academy that.

And even then... $140 is still a lot less than $300, so you really haven't argued against my disproof of krochus's assertion.



Reading comprehension is FUNdamental

But when you factor in the cost difference for even as few as 4 30rd mags this price difference all but dissapears into the vagaries of local market differences

the DPMS sportical is a no frills but quality AR that sells for right at the same price as a new mini


Not a good comparison. DPMS gives a 3 year warranty and the buyer is responsible for shipping to/from DPMS for repair. http://www.dpmsinc.com/support/warranty.aspx

How you figure? Just because with the ruger any issue REQUIRES a trip back to the factory doesn't mean the same applies to the DPMS.

Barring a catastrophic structural failure that'll 99.999999% of the time pop up in the first range trip. I'm not going to even bother boxing up an AR to send in for service for dinky non issues that will take ruger specialists to fix with a mini. Extractors, gas tubes, firing pins, gas rings trigger problems you name it any number of potential issues can be fixed in 20 minutes for less than $30

Not that Ive EVER had any such issues, and besides after three years of ownership who in the world would still have a 100% stock AR



30rd Ruger-brand mini mags will run you $50 at retail (Midway puts them at $35/ea for dealers).

I was at the local Academy earlier and they had P-Mags for $30/ea.

What you omit is the figure of $50 stands as a representation of the absolute cheapest 30 rd Mini mag that can be expected to actually work. And $30 represents one of the biggest examples of overpricing for a 30rd AR mag

BTW the last 30rd colt mag I bought cost me $18 and that was mid panic.

dom1104
November 8, 2009, 05:03 PM
hmm. I only have two things to say.

A rifle that is not accurate is not a "decent rifle" it is useless.

It is 2009. You can easily get accuracy reliability and durability in a weapon. Its time to evolve past the old standards of mere function. A rifle should be, and at this point there is no reason for it NOT to be, an accurate tool.

The second thing is the amount of money talked about here is irrelevant. Wether something costs a few hundred dollars more is truly not an issue for the average american. Get a minimum wage job, and wait a few more weeks. You will be spending a LOT more on ammunition, and if you cant afford that.... then you need to rethink owning and becoming proficient in a gun use.

Nobody said it was going to be cheap.


Edit: Oh and, yeah I buy DH brand mags with magpul anti-tilt followers for 9 bucks, and Pmags for 14. so not sure where these super high AR mag prices come from.

Do I feel good about having plenty of mags to prepare for future hi-cap bans? yessir I do.

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 05:04 PM
Reading comprehension is FUNdamental


But reality comprehension is more fun.

You have a real world local market price. $622. Local variation is in transfer fees - $10 to $50. $50 (worst case) is a lot less than $160-220 (price difference minus mag price difference for 4 mags).


What you omit is the figure of $50 stands as a representation of the absolute cheapest 30 rd Mini mag that can be expected to actually work. And $30 represents one of the biggest examples of overpricing for a 30rd AR mag

No, both stand for exactly what you can expect to pay if you go to a local retail store.

In reality, most stores will have ProMag 20rd mini mags for far less than $50 and they supposedly work fine.



If Ruger will give you a lifetime warranty and pay to ship your rifle back, the DPMS is probably more rifle for the money. The cost of warranty issues gets worked into the price of the product, you ARE paying for it. A 3 year warranty period is more than long enough to find a manufacturer's defect, and having the customer pay to ship it in probably weeds out a lot of the piddly stuff that would drive the cost of a warranty program up.

That can cut both ways... the less likely warranty work is, the cheaper it is for a manufacturer to offer long term support....and the better support is part of the value you are buying.

The other problem with the premise is that, according to all I have read, ARs are far from equal. I have heard many people say that cheap ARs lack many things (correct feed ramps, staked fasteners, chrome linings, etc) that are necessary if you want an AR that can survive the carbine courses that mini-critics say are the proof minis aren't reliable enough. So in effect the claim is, "A $1300 AR can take a pounding, the $630 mini can't. A $700 AR looks a lot like the $1300 AR, therefore the $700 AR is a better value than the mini." By that logic, a $100 airsoft ACOG is more reliable than a $500 EOTech because it looks like a $900 scope. Beyond that, Krochus misstated the price of the Sportical by no small amount. They run close to $700 without sights, which is far from "right at the same price" as $630 ready to roll...so you are paying more for an off-brand that only LOOKS like the gun that earns the reliability accolades. Might as well get one of the .22LR versions... they are another $400 cheaper and they look a lot more like an AR than the mini does. :rolleyes:

As for magazines... seems as though 20rd is the standard size for a mini (it's what Ruger ships, last I checked) and aftermarket 20rd mags work well as a rule and cost less than many AR mags. Seems like the 30rd comparison is sort of like comparing a Glock and 1911 on the basis that 15rd magazines for the glock are cheaper.

And $30 represents one of the biggest examples of overpricing for a 30rd AR mag

Dealer price for an HK AR-15 30rd magazine from Midway is $49.99.

Mags
November 8, 2009, 05:57 PM
No, both stand for exactly what you can expect to pay if you go to a local retail store. Ok you can quote online gun price but not online mag prices? (double standard) Locally here you can get a Mini 14 for 800 dollars and a Rock River AR for 850. Pmags go for 15 bucks at the local gun shops here by the way. Plus ARs are flooding the market since the panic buyin has subsided.

Ed Ames
November 8, 2009, 06:10 PM
Naw, I went along with whatever price was quoted by the other poster ($15) and it still proved my point. No double standard.

Re: accuracy being necessary for decency... accuracy is always relative. From what I've read the minis mentioned at the start of the thread (580? Something like that) are decently accurate by real world standards.

My own experience with minis is limited to an older model (right down to the wooden handguard) and it would be fine for CNS shots inside 100M and COM until the lack of any practical bullet drop compensation adjustment for the rear sight became an issue.

chuwee81
November 8, 2009, 06:48 PM
jerkface11: you do know that ruger has the piston AR now right ?

Haven't shot the mini and got no money lying around so can't really add plus or minusses in the discussion. I almost nabbed one when i saw one here for sale though. Anyway...

I have shot my friend's AR. He's not a "gunny" type, i.e: do not like to clean his guns. It was cruddy, dirty but still works. I have gathered here that AR likes to be cleaned meticulously. After shooting his, that is not the case. It felt sluggish at one point but still works. So one day i offered to take it home with me and clean it. The more i see the feautres, the more i find that it's a very interesting system with great user serviceability. Like Krochus mentioned, if anything broke down, it's most likely an easy fix. DSG arms has 10 pack of magpul pmags with window for 99 shipped (sales tax if you're in TX) and received my shipment in last Wednesday.

I think what appeals most about the AR is that it's a tinkerer's gun. You can have it in any flavor you want. You can build all the way, you can build the lower first and get a complete upper, it's up to you. The accesories are endless and easy to add on. I have been tinkering with paintball guns when i was younger so when i found out about an AR and that you can build it from the ground up, I'm sold. I have just completed putting all the parts in my lower last Monday and was surprised on how easy and FUN it was (upper is being built - no idea when they'll ship). The BEST part, since my pocket isn't deep, you can build it part by part as you save up money, but that's just me.

Overall, shoot and buy what you like. If it works for you, then great. If you want to prove the other person otherwise, then by all means i think Krochus has posted a (fun and friendly - i hope) challenge here. Should be interesting to see the results. Me? i don't care if one is more accurate than the other, all i know i'll have fun burning ammo at the range. They both have their niches. I don't think i want to put my "custom" AR in the back of my car/truck and drive it around all day :). That's probably what the mini is for (when i can afford one).

disclaimer: custom is a blue collar word for frankengun because i'm too poor to get a complete one :).

Mags
November 8, 2009, 06:58 PM
He was being sarcastic by suggesting since the Mini is just as good as an AR why would Ruger make an AR.

chuwee81
November 8, 2009, 07:24 PM
oops, i thought about that for a second but didn't see any sarcastic or roll eyes smiley. My bad.

benzy2
November 9, 2009, 12:21 AM
Naw, I went along with whatever price was quoted by the other poster ($15) and it still proved my point. No double standard.But there is a double standard. You are only picking rifles for sale at budsgunshop as examples of what low end ARs cost. That isn't realistic. Olympic Arms has for a long time sold some of the least expensive ARs you can get. Del-ton is a bit newer but in the same boat. A lot of the internet stores are out of Olyarms ARs right now but they can be had through gunbroker NIB from dealers for under $700 before transfer. You can get a Del-ton AR from aimsurplus.com for under $700 as well. Olyarms has a lifetime warranty, not sure on Del-ton. Budsgunshop isn't the be all end all you want to make it. If you want to consider internet shops as local market value then you have to consider all of the internet and not just the one site, as good as it may be. Add in the mag cost difference and things get a lot closer than you make it out to be.

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 12:40 AM
You are only picking rifles for sale at budsgunshop as examples of what low end ARs cost.

Nope. I was picking name brand rifles from major brands or, by preference, manufacturers. I picked the low end of major brands because that's the only fair comparison to the low end of another major brand rifle. I then picked high ends of those same brands to compare against the high end of the other major brand rifle. I didn't include off brands. You can get an Olympic Arms gun from Bud's (they are in stock, $750 for one with sights...$120 more than the mini) but in what universe is Olympic or Del-Ton equivalent to Ruger? Even if you dislike Ruger, you've got to admit comparing one of the major premium brands to a generic isn't exactly apples to apples. I debated including Stag but even they are an off brand in comparison.

It's not that Bud's are the end-all either. CDNN sells the mini for under $600. However, they are visible and nobody has to take my word about the prices...very handy for an online discussion. Gunbroker, as an auction site, can give a very misleading snapshot of prices. Especially if you pick auctions which haven't ended yet, as some people are wont to do.

knights_armorer
November 9, 2009, 12:52 AM
but in what universe is Olympic or Del-Ton equivalent to Ruger?

actually, that would be this universe, right here in the good ole milky way.

the base model del-ton will out shoot a base model mini14, every time. not to mention be capable of being upgraded into a premium level ar15 just as fast or slow as its owner feels like it.

but it will definitly out shoot a mini in the same price range, right out of the box.

benzy2
November 9, 2009, 12:53 AM
What makes them Olympic an off brand? They have been around since 1956, not quite a short history. What makes them less comparable to a mini than a S&W AR? I have a stag model 1 and if you didn't look at the roll marks on the lower you wouldn't be able to tell a S&W, Remington, or whatever "name brand" you want to include. This debate has been AR's compared to the Mini, not name brand AR's compared to the mini. Its a double standard any way you look at it.

Compare them how you like. You try to argue that AR mags run $30 a piece and that only certain ARs are good enough to be compared to the mini. I had a Del-ton Carbine length rifle before and had only the one jam which was resolved by a new magazine. It shot handloads from 1"-1.5" though it tended to stick closer to 1.5" at 100 yards. My Stag has held very similar accuracy though with different loads and has be hovering right under the 1.5" mark as well and it has yet to have any malfunction of any kind. I don't know what quality, both from reliability and accuracy, that you are looking for but even the budget ARs hold good results.

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 12:58 AM
You can get an Olympic Arms gun from Bud's (they are in stock, $750 for one with sights...$120 more than the mini) but in what universe is Olympic or Del-Ton equivalent to Ruger?

This one with regards to the Mini

Even if you dislike Ruger, you've got to admit comparing one of the major premium brands to a generic isn't exactly apples to apples.

Ruger can make a premium rifle. The MINI isn't one of them. I like ruger particularly the M77, but actually paying money for a name is just silly

I was picking the low end of major brands because that's the only fair comparison. You can get an Olympic Arms gun from Bud's (they are in stock, $750 for one with sights...$120 more than the mini)

Or equal money with the purchase of 4 mags......of course we already went through this

ery handy for an online discussion. Gunbroker, as an auction site, can give a very misleading snapshot of prices. Especially if you pick auctions which haven't ended yet, as some people are wont to do.

Cite an example of a GB auction represented for this discussion that isn't a Buy It NOW


Representing the mini as some a tightwad .223 lovers panacea is complete hogwash. For all intensive purposes prices are within 10% of one another (unless you're the dumbest shopper in the world) and even less factoring in the magazine price difference.

So let's compare

With the mini you'll save about $100 for a rifle that

isn't as accurate
has only a token aftermarket
mags cost 3x as much and only come from ONE source if you want em to work
But by god it has RUGER stamped on the BBL:rolleyes:


You know since it appears to all be about cost to you and if you're going to settle for the above deficiencies to save $100 why not save $300 and skip the mini all together and go with a Saiga or similar. At that way you'll have at least some aftermarket support.

Avenger29
November 9, 2009, 12:59 AM
Oh, and for the AR...while I vastly prefer PMAGs, you can also buy new aluminum mags, quality, for $10 a mag. So that's even more so in favor of the AR.

Plus, when you add in the capability of the AR, wide parts availability, simplicity, etc. there is no comparison. You can start with a $600 CMMG "bargain bin" rifle (available most of the time) and upgrade as you go if you feel the need. I'd still trust a $600 CMMG AR over the Mini-14. And, I know there are a couple of cheap or no cost upgrades I can throw in to help it even more, and I can do them in 10 minutes, plus for $60 I can buy a properly tested bolt.

knights_armorer
November 9, 2009, 01:00 AM
agree with benzy (i just used the del-ton because that way i only had to type one of the ones he listed)

but yes, i couldnt agree more. there are many fantastic deals to be had in the ar15 type rifles, and in my opinion (and ya, ive owned a mini, but i dont any more) they are all better for my needs than the mini (accuracy, verstility, ergos, and pretty much every other category, but mainly accuracy and versatility)

knights_armorer
November 9, 2009, 01:13 AM
after those last few posts it is my opinion that krochus is winning the thread in the fourth quarter with the following phrases, which i would compare to field goals.

Ruger can make a premium rifle. The MINI isn't one of them.
You know since it appears to all be about cost to you and if you're going to settle for the above deficiencies to save $100 why not save $300 and skip the mini all together and go with a Saiga or similar. At that way you'll have at least some aftermarket support.

and this one, which i think was not only a touchdown, but also a 2 point conversion.
Representing the mini as some a tightwad .223 lovers panacea is complete hogwash. For all intensive purposes prices are within 10% of one another (unless you're the dumbest shopper in the world)

the others and i are trailing slightly but there is still time to pull it out.

(and i would have to say after going through all the posts, the mini running out of the money)

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 01:23 AM
You know since it appears to all be about cost to you and if you're going to settle for the above deficiencies to save $100 why not save $300 and skip the mini all together and go with a Saiga or similar. At that way you'll have at least some aftermarket support.


LOL... no. How about I skip all of them? As I said before, I have no desire to eat coyotes or play amateur infantryman...and even less desire to play 3rd world cannon fodder. As for "representing the mini as some sort of tightwad .223 lover's ...", let's see what I actually said:

"The mini is a smaller and handier package. Maybe not lighter (didn't weigh them) but it is less of an awkward lump. That's partly materials (aluminum will always be bulkier) and partly style (pistol grips, high sight plane, long mags, accessory rails, etc).

"The AR is an open standards based, multi-vendor platform with limitless aftermarket/spares availability vs. Minis which are single-source solutions. Not that Ruger is going to go out of business but mini owners are far more dependent on a single entity and that's a bad thing in principle."

I think your reading comprehension is seriously lacking if you got "tightwad .223 lover's panacea" from that.

However, we have a couple of people who are claiming 1.5MOA for their cheap ARs. I just did a quick search, and a lot of people claim the 580 series mini (which was the gun the original poster specifically wanted to discuss) is a 1.5MOA rifle. So the accuracy claim seems a wash, at least for how the people use their guns.


Oh, and for the AR...while I vastly prefer PMAGs, you can also buy new aluminum mags, quality, for $10 a mag. So that's even more so in favor of the AR.

The mini I fired was running 20rd pro-mags. You can pick them up for $11. The difference between $10 and $11 isn't that significant to me.

As for the rest... I agree that the token aftermarket support is the big downside to the Ruger. OTOH, a lot of people flat don't care. I know people who purchased their rifle decades ago and have never even purchased a second magazine. So you can't really say it matters to everyone, or is a universal negative, even if it's really important to you. Personally I kinda go along with adding a few magazines because I like having them, but it's really not universally true. Rugers come with a couple of magazines and many people will stop there.

Brands and warranties matter. Example: Olympic's warranty is limited to the original owner. Ruger's policy is to support all Ruger-manufactured firearms regardless of when they were made or who originally bought them. That means I can sell a Ruger and the buyer is fairly likely to understand that the gun will be supported, no hassles. Ruger wins.

Oh, and I'm not sure anyone actually directly linked to a GB auction in this thread. Did they?

gunnutery
November 9, 2009, 01:26 AM
I would say that no one is winning (myself included as I posted to this thread earlier as well) because we're all just beating a very dead horse.

knights_armorer
November 9, 2009, 01:32 AM
I would say that no one is winning (myself included as I posted to this thread earlier as well) because we're all just beating a very dead horse.

actually krochus is winning, i know because im keeping score. scores are awarded by various points that have been made, a highly advanced system is being used, very comparable to the bcs college ranking system.

extra scores are also added by the varying validity and level of accuracy of opinions that happen to agree with my own.

its really quite complicated, and yet very simple at the same time.

trust me.

(by the way, points are deducted for failing to successfully recognise humor)

benzy2
November 9, 2009, 01:38 AM
However, we have a couple of people who are claiming 1.5MOA for their cheap ARs. I just did a quick search, and a lot of people claim the 580 series mini (which was the gun the original poster specifically wanted to discuss) is a 1.5MOA rifle. So the accuracy claim seems a wash, at least for how the people use their guns.When I search here for mini 14 580 accuracy I get this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3811

Seems only 37% have 580 series rifles that hold that 1.5MOA and none consistently under 1 MOA. Maybe the rifle I had was in a 37% of Del-tons that shoot that well as well, don't know. That poll only has 40 some votes but its still at least a glimpse into what owners are getting.

Meh, it doesn't matter. This is going nowhere real fast. I like the mini, I really do. I just don't think it justifies the price being asked.

Nematocyst
November 9, 2009, 01:39 AM
No, no, no.

I'm winning, because I haven't posted in this relatively inane argument.

Oh, wait ... so much for that. I just lost. :(

(See sig line for my preferences.)

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 01:40 AM
"The mini is a smaller and handier package. OPINION Maybe not lighter (didn't weigh them) FACT but it is less of an awkward lump.OPINION That's partly materials (aluminum will always be bulkier) THAN WOOD? and partly style (pistol grips, high sight plane, long mags, accessory rails, etc).



However, we have a couple of people who are claiming 1.5MOA for their cheap ARs. I just did a quick search, and a lot of people claim the 580 series mini (which was the gun the original poster specifically wanted to discuss) is a 1.5MOA rifle. So the accuracy claim seems a wash, at least for how the people use their guns.


We shall see. I have 2 boxes of Monarch riding on the fact that this is NOT the case. What do you have riding on this


The mini I fired was running 20rd pro-mags. You can pick them up for $11. The difference between $10 and $11 isn't that significant to me.

read for yourself at how the POS $10 proMags rate.

I purchased four of these for my series 186 and none would feed. In fact, I could not even get the bolt to close with a loaded magazine without a lot of effort. I finally gave up and returned them and ordered the Promag steel version. They fit and function perfectly.

Bought 2, both would not let rounds chamber. All 20 rounds jammed. Not worth the saving over steel.

Looks good attached to the gun, however similar problem with the round getting stuck on the inside face of the mag. Will not allow the bolt to close/chamber. Purchase the steel mags.

These mags are horrible, I purchased 2, and they both jam like crazy. I mean like every other round. Also the magazines are very difficult to remove from your mini-14. I am sending them back to Promag, hopefully to be replaced with a couple steel mags.

The mag seemed to fit ok, but it would not hold the rounds. The problem seems to be flex in the plastic. I will be returning this mag and getting a steel one instead.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=171938


and the steel 20rd promags that actually halfway work cost $25

RockyMtnTactical
November 9, 2009, 01:42 AM
I don't know a lot of AR15 fans who are pimping the gas piston. It's mostly non AR15 fans who are jumping on the bandwagon for the piston...

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 01:47 AM
I think your reading comprehension is seriously lacking if you got "tightwad .223 lover's panacea" from that.


possibly because of

Bud's has them for $622. They have 9 in stock for less than $700.

However... where are NIB complete (ready to shoot) ARs from a major US brand (or, better yet, manufacturer) w/ a service policy like Ruger's for under about $950? Colt wants $982. Remington is in the $980 range too. S&W is $950ish. All of those are at Bud's for in stock weapons today.

At the bottom end, the mini is a solid $300 (or about 33%) less expensive

At the top end, the fanciest mini (again, from Bud's) is under $800 ($781 for a laminated stainless target model w/ fancy pistol grip stock) while the fanciest S&W runs $1404, the fanciest Colt runs $1399, the fanciest Bushmaster is $1487. The mini is $620/45% less expensive at the high end.

All of those are today's prices from Bud's Gun Shop for in-stock items.

So we go from only Colts can be used for comparison and "look to how much more expensive they are"

to "Price isn't important and I never argued as such"

in less than 12hrs:rolleyes::rolleyes::neener:

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 02:02 AM
Price isn't especially important, but someone was arguing that the prices were the same and they clearly aren't. I gave a specific example of how, if you compare name brand guns, the mini is between 33% and 45% less expensive because someone falsely claimed that the prices were no different.

You can't say, "you argued against someone else's claim therefore you are focused on price." They brought the price up, I pointed out that they were wrong.


"The mini is a smaller and handier package. OPINION Maybe not lighter (didn't weigh them) FACT but it is less of an awkward lump.OPINION That's partly materials (aluminum will always be bulkier) THAN WOOD? and partly style (pistol grips, high sight plane, long mags, accessory rails, etc).

You say opinion as though that's a bad thing. However... I'm not sure how you can say that 38"x7"x2" (max dimensions for a mini-14 as normally configured, as best as I can research) anything but smaller and more compact than 32-36"x11"x2.5" (max dimensions for an AR-15 as normally configured, again within the limits of my research) is just opinion.

Aluminum is bulkier than steel. The AR is made of aluminum, the mini is made of steel.

Yeah, you have two boxes of monarch riding... but you specifically designed the contest to exclude the minis that are sold for accuracy. I don't have anything riding because I've specifically said that, having shot both, neither gun is particularly useful for anything I do, and I don't think anyone can go to a range and do something with either one to prove me wrong.

As for the magazines... again, shrug. My very limited experience was with some steel magazines and they worked fine. The guy had a 30rd from the same maker that was a total POS and beyond. Midway's dealer price on the 20rd steel promags is $15.69 and the price difference fades to insignificance compared to getting the weapon you want.

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 02:47 AM
Price isn't especially important, but someone was arguing that the prices were the same and they clearly aren't. I gave a specific example of how, if you compare name brand guns, the mini is between 33% and 45% less expensive because someone falsely claimed that the prices were no different.

and we then proceed to blow this argument completely out of the water with comparisons to NAME BRAND AR's that sell for the same or cheaper money than the mini. It's not our fault if you only know of gun manufacturers mentioned in the history channels "Tales Of the Gun" series


Yeah, you have two boxes of monarch riding... but you specifically designed the contest to exclude the minis that are sold for accuracy

so what you're really saying is you doubt 2.5" at 100 in 3minutes isn't possible with a mini without resorting to the "target model"


I rest my case your honor

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 03:16 AM
And we then proceed to blow this argument completely out of the water with comparisons to NAME BRAND AR's that sell for the same or cheaper money than the mini.


Not really. You made the claim that Olympic Arms, a company that started out making gun PARTS and did such a wonderful job building a reputation that they wanted to change their name in the 1980s, was comparable to Ruger as a brand. I think you know how silly that is. If you don't.... shrug. Olympic isn't even as much of a brand as Kel-tec. It's like people arguing between Honda, Toyota, VW, etc. and having someone pop up with Kia or Tata. It may be a great product, but it's not in the same class, won't have the same support, won't have the same resale, and so on.

So what you're really saying is you doubt 2.5" at 100 in 3minutes isn't possible with a mini without resorting to the "target model".


How would I know? As I've said, I don't own or regularly shoot one. The one I have shot was old enough to have a wooden handguard, which means it definitely wasn't one of the 580s from this thread. I just find it amusing that you specified iron sights when the type of sighting system has nothing to do with inherent accuracy, but it just happens to exclude the minis most likely to be purchased by people who care about accuracy/think they can shoot accurately.

I'll expand on that...

It's the indian not the arrow... or however that's supposed to go. I shoot around the DFW area, where there are a lot of ARs at the ranges, and frankly most people put holes all over the paper. Lots of 10" groups even at the 50 yard range. That doesn't mean the AR is inaccurate. It means most of those people can't shoot. At the same ranges there are guys with .22LR rifles that put bullet after bullet through ragged little holes at 50 yards. That doesn't mean that the .22LR is the pinnacle of accuracy, it doesn't even mean the .22LR is more accurate than the .223 AR. It means that some guys work really hard to get the accuracy they want.

What accuracy does the average mini shooter running iron sights shoot for? If they are really interested in accuracy, are they going to run a gun with no scope? Are they even going to buy a gun with a reputation for combat accuracy when there are other models of the same gun that are more accurate?

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 03:33 AM
It's like people arguing between Honda, Toyota, VW, etc. and having someone pop up with Kia or

right there shows how much you keep up with the market place. VW is one of the absolute WORST automakers in terms of reliability and cost of ownership fAR FAR behind Kia motors.

Not really. You made the claim that Olympic Arms, a company that started out making gun PARTS and did such a wonderful job building a reputation that they wanted to change their name in the 1980s, was comparable to Ruger as a brand. I think you know how silly that is. If you don't..


I completely reject this argument as this thread is about today not 30yrs ago and today Olympic makes a quality rifle. you also fail to address DPMS and the OTHER manufacturers who sell an AR for the same price as a mini. Are you going to try to tell me that DPMS isn't a "name brand" whatever the hell that means?




I like Ruger but trust me they're not above churning out some real turds too, Mini, 77/22H hell Ive gotten a brand new in box 30 carbine blackhawk missing a the cylinder latch so the cylinder would freewheel even when cocked.

I also would like to point out that whatever firearm category you choose RUGER is the off brand with the only exclusions being single action revolvers and autoloading rimfire.
RUGER
Bolt Action Rifles - the off brand
Autoloading Centerfire rifle - the off brand
autoloading handgun - the off brand
DA revolver - the off brand
Muzzle Loader - the off brand
Shotguns - the off brand
Lever Actions -hyper the off brand



but it just happens to exclude the minis most likely to be purchased by people who care about accuracy/think they can shoot accurately.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



I get what you're saying though. That the mini is a great rifle for folks who are poor shots

gyvel
November 9, 2009, 03:34 AM
I love it when somebody gets a controversial thread going...:D:evil:

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 03:41 AM
right there shows how much you keep up with the market place. VW is one of the absolute WORST automakers in terms of reliability and cost of ownership fAR FAR behind Kia motors.

Umm... yeah, I don't keep up with cars, but I know who Tata is. :rolleyes:

I see the problem, though. You keep talking about the product, I'm talking about the brand. The fact that VW cars are unreliable and costly compared to Kia doesn't mean that the VW brand is behind Kia. You probably think a WRX is better than a 911 because it's cheaper. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of people see things differently. Wrong or right, a lot of people will pay a higher percentage of new price for a used 911 than for a used WRX.

I never made any comment about the quality of Olympic firearms. They could be every bit as good as a Noveske at half the price, and a wonderful deal. Doesn't change my point.

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 03:47 AM
I see the problem, though. You keep talking about the product, I'm talking about the brand. The fact that VW cars are unreliable and costly compared to Kia doesn't mean that the VW brand is behind Kia.

It does if you don't OWN the company and merely own the product. We consumers purchase PRODUCTS not brands.

I think I can speak for the majority of THR'ers in saying that the BRAND you own impresses us not in the least and that performance is everything

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 03:57 AM
Yeah, the brand doesn't matter unless you own the company... and, because the Hyundai Genesis compares favorably to some BMWs, they'll have the same resale value as a BMW. :rolleyes:

You are safe in assuming the brands I own wouldn't impress anyone here. I tend to buy value products. I like good quality at low prices. I shop at Costco. The main brand I own in the military-style rifle domain is Mauser, and that only because there are so many nice surplus Mausers in the world. I don't expect anyone to be impressed by the Mauser name...I don't think many people these days even know the name. I'm not at all representative of the gun buying public. Most people buy Coke, not Generic Cola, and would even if you could prove they were bottled at the same plant.

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2009, 04:12 AM
Yeah, the brand doesn't matter unless you own the company... and, because the Hyundai Genesis compares favorably to some BMWs, they'll have the same resale value as a BMW.

REsale means what to a person who buys a product and intends to keep it for their lifetime?

ON the subject of GUN resale

I'll guarantee you that between a 5yr old mini and a 5 yr old DPMS Sportical that the sportical will be easier to move and sell for a rather significant amount more than the Ruger every day of the week and twice on Sunday

C-grunt
November 9, 2009, 06:07 AM
Umm... yeah, I don't keep up with cars, but I know who Tata is. :rolleyes:

I see the problem, though. You keep talking about the product, I'm talking about the brand. The fact that VW cars are unreliable and costly compared to Kia doesn't mean that the VW brand is behind Kia. You probably think a WRX is better than a 911 because it's cheaper. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of people see things differently. Wrong or right, a lot of people will pay a higher percentage of new price for a used 911 than for a used WRX.

I never made any comment about the quality of Olympic firearms. They could be every bit as good as a Noveske at half the price, and a wonderful deal. Doesn't change my point.
Hey dont bring my beloved REX into this. She did nothing wrong!

On a side note, I wouldnt call DA Ruger revolvers the "off brand". The GP100 is probably the 686 and all full size S&Ws biggest competition.

Also STAG is a big name in ARs. They make a very nice AR for a good price.

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 10:22 AM
I'll guarantee you that...

So if that turns out not to be the case you will make up the difference, everywhere, for all time. Sweet!

Sorry, it's just that "I'll guarantee" about an opinion sounds like you are trying to sell discount suits or something. Which I guess you are.

If you want an AR, why not get a properly built AR? It'll cost you a little more up front but is far more likely to survive the "real world" ... aka multi-day carbine courses.

Mags
November 9, 2009, 12:59 PM
Ed you are forgetting the best part of the AR world let me fix this quote for you.
If you want an AR, why not BUILD a properly built AR? It'll will be cheaper in the long run but is far more likely to survive the "real world" ... aka multi-day carbine courses.

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 01:07 PM
Building is good too...

But the cheaper claim is probably pure wishful thinking. I would bet the average person who would build a rifle ends up spending a LOT more than someone happy with an off-the-shelf model.

It's like computers... you can build up a really nice PC w/ motherboards, video cards, and so on all chosen for optimum performance... and you will spend less than if you bought the exact same machine from someone else... but it's always cheaper to go buy an off the shelf desktop.

cacop
November 9, 2009, 01:47 PM
I went to a multi day patrol rifle instructor school a year ago. Many kinds of ARs with all kinds of variations on gear, make, model, etc. One person ran an SU-16 and another ran a Mini-14. All finished the class with no problems. The Ruger shooter was running about average for the class. He was doing it with irons while most of the class had some sort of red dot on top.

That eperience alone taught me that it is the indian not the arrow.

Would I prefer a GOOD AR-15 over a Mini 14? Of course.

If limited to a Mini 14 would I be less well armed? No.

My 580 series mini with iron sights will not be the limiting factor in me being able to use it to defend myself under circumstances I am likely to face. I am the limiting factor. Even if TEOTWAWKI were to come it would do just fine. Would I feel more secure with a GOOD AR-15? Yes, but that is a feeling, not a fact. Most of us will rarely ever shoot our guns to their theoretical maximum. Sory if that bothers you but it is true. YOU are the weak like in just about every gun.

Other issues such as mags not being interchangable are interesting in an internet debate but they do not hold up well in real life. Let's be honest how many of us actually only own one handgun? How about one make and caliber of handgun? I thought so. Buy enough mags so you are set for life. I have 10 mags for my G17. I only use a few in a given year. I have 20+ mags for my 1911s. They don't work in my G17. That's why I have enough for each gun. I have more than enough AR and mini mags for my purposes. So unless you are going to dump every centerfire rifle that is not a .223 AR-15 the "mini 14 mags aren't compatible with AR-15" is bogus. Even if you do what about your trusty pistol? Are you going to dump everything that does not fit into a G17?

One thing that would impress me with a Mini 14 vs. AR-15 debate would be to comapre the older style skinny barrel ARs versus the Mini. One of these days maybe I'll pick up an old skinny barrel AR because I think those two are closer than the M4ish barreled guns that are popular.

chuwee81
November 9, 2009, 02:13 PM
Ed, I'd have to put in my 2 cents about your statement there. My first build put me at $690.00. That's also with Daniel Defense full auto BCG (complete). I could save another 20 bux if i go Tapco 6 position but i went with Command Arms buttstock since it has a storage compartment. Would i be happy buying a complete AR ? yes i would, but then again i couldn't afford it all at once and I'd feel much better equipped with the DD BCG.

Ed Ames
November 9, 2009, 02:25 PM
That sounds about right.

At the same time there are plenty of people with over $200 in the trigger, another $150 in the iron sights, another $190 in the mount for the scope... Brownells has a pretty nifty AR "barbi closet" web app where you can pick and choose components for your own AR build. It's easy to pass $1000 and not hard to pass $2000.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2009, 02:33 PM
So unless you are going to dump every centerfire rifle that is not a .223 AR-15 the "mini 14 mags aren't compatible with AR-15" is bogus.

Why would you have to dump non-AR-15 rifles? ALL the other rifles in the class use the AR magazine.

Kel-Tec, Beretta, Remington, Robinson Arms, FN, even Ruger's other .223 semiauto...

While I like some aspects of my Mini-14 a lot, the proprietary magazine is not an idle complaint.

The problem with Mini-14 magazines is that they are not realistically a multivendor item. Most of them don't work.

AR-15 magazines are multivendor, and because they're Mil Spec, they all work in the gun. This also makes a good one about half the price of a Mini-14 magazine that works.

SSN Vet
November 9, 2009, 04:06 PM
I'm going to toss my pebble into the water and then turn tail and beat feet b4 I get dragged in....

FWIW...

1.) I assembled a Del-Ton middy kit w/ an A2 upper, onto an Anvil Arms lower for $600, including two 30 round mil. spec mags with PMAG followers (b4 the Obomination). It's 16" HBAR, so a little front heavy, but is both handy, accurate and very easy to shoot accurately. It's a great rifle and has been 100% reliable.

2.) Though I won't forgive Bill Ruger for selling out to the Demoncrats, I long admired the mini from afar (the internet) as a handy little rifle. That is untill I actually handled a couple of them. The mini lost it's allure. Not light at all.

got to go now.... see ya!

gyvel
November 10, 2009, 05:08 AM
I know I'll get ripped for this, but here goes anyway:

I would personally rather have an AR simply because there are a heck of a lot more parts that are readily available for it than the Mini 14. In general, the AR seems to be a bit more versatile.

Other than that, I would guess that they are more or less equal. (Except for the Mini 14s that were having problems with cracked receivers in the '80s.)

flynlr
November 10, 2009, 06:08 AM
while I did watch the A team in the early 80's and was amazed that the mini 14 could spit out a billion rounds of ammo and not hurt anyone . I am certain that you can not use an Mini like this,.

http://www.njrod.com/images/bohica20.jpg

strambo
November 10, 2009, 06:44 AM
flynlr...you should have gotten the long barrel to maximize velocity! :what: What manf. is that? is the barrel longer than 30"? and how does she shoot?

scythefwd
November 10, 2009, 04:14 PM
flynlr - you can't use that very well either without sights :) That a .50 bmg upper? How do you load that... do you shotgun the receiver and drop the round in that way?

Kindrox
November 10, 2009, 04:16 PM
Bud's has them for $622. They have 9 in stock for less than $700.

However... where are NIB complete (ready to shoot) ARs from a major US brand (or, better yet, manufacturer) w/ a service policy like Ruger's for under about $950? Colt wants $982. Remington is in the $980 range too. S&W is $950ish. All of those are at Bud's for in stock weapons today.


I purchased adjustable stock CMMG lowers with RRA two-stage triggers for $250, and complete uppers (Bushmaster 4150 pencil profile barrels, RRA bolts, forged charging handles) for ~$500 each.

Name brand ARs for $750, although this was about a year pre-Obama. That puts my ARS at about $125 over a stock Mini.

Avenger29
November 10, 2009, 05:07 PM
That a .50 bmg upper? How do you load that... do you shotgun the receiver and drop the round in that way?

Single shot bolt action- you draw the bolt back and drop the round in from the side. Notice the gigantic bolt handle hanging down forward of the magwell.

Pretty dang awesome- I need to get one just cause, but don't have $1K laying around...nor can I afford the ammunition!

I do wish someone would make a single shot .308 upper in the same way. That could be pretty cool.

Sheepdog1968
November 10, 2009, 05:33 PM
I had a first hand eye opening experience recently. I took a "carbine" class over the weekend. There were six ARs, 1 mini-14, 1 M1A. About 300 rounds were used over the two day class. 5 of the 7 ARs at some point during the class had issues and didn't go bang when the trigger was pulled. Three of these would have been not been able to be fixed in real time self defense. The M1A and mini-14 performed flawlessly for the class and both owners claimed to have never had a single round not fire. The ARs were in good shape and not junk. I asked the instructor, who does training as a full time job, if this result was typical of the two weapon systems (AR and mini) and he said yes. Based on what I saw and the instructor's general experience, I think the mini-14 is a more reliable system platform. In fact to the point where I would NOT choose an AR over a mini-14. Toss in the fact that the AR sights are 2.5" above the barrel and you need to modify your point of aim for close in shots (don't on M1A or mini), to me I very much prefer the mini-14 over the AR. Again, all my opinion.

kwelz
November 10, 2009, 06:03 PM
What brand were the ARs. Lower Quality ARs are known to break in these classes.

I have never been impressed with the Mini design. It's general lack of accuracy, aftermarket/spare parts, and high cost for what you get are all turnoffs to me.

Avenger29
November 10, 2009, 06:09 PM
What brand were the ARs. Lower Quality ARs are known to break in these classes.

I have never been impressed with the Mini design. It's general lack of accuracy, aftermarket/spare parts, and high cost for what you get are all turnoffs to me.

More importantly, how were they run? Wet, little lubricant, or bone dry?

Some still teach bone dry or small amount of lube, which will cause an AR to choke after several hundred rounds. Run it wet, run it hard!

cacop
November 10, 2009, 09:02 PM
Why would you have to dump non-AR-15 rifles? ALL the other rifles in the class use the AR magazine.

Kel-Tec, Beretta, Remington, Robinson Arms, FN, even Ruger's other .223 semiauto...

While I like some aspects of my Mini-14 a lot, the proprietary magazine is not an idle complaint.

The problem with Mini-14 magazines is that they are not realistically a multivendor item. Most of them don't work.

AR-15 magazines are multivendor, and because they're Mil Spec, they all work in the gun. This also makes a good one about half the price of a Mini-14 magazine that works.
What I am getting at is that unless your centerfire rifles only consist an AR-15 mag fed weapon you will have to buy magazines other than AR-15 magazines.

That means no AK, FAL, M1A, etc. Otherwise you run into the problem of having non AR-15 pattern mags.

Now if all you ever run is AR-15 magazines through weapons that will take them then you can complain about the proprietary magazine issue.

The AR-15 is essentially the rifle equivalent of the 1911. Many different manufacturers and modifications to the original design. Different quality of manufacturing on guns and magazines. They all take the same magazine. Not all weapons function with all magazines.

I think with what Ruger has done with the Mini recently is to cut into the bottom end of the AR market. That is people looking for a .223 plinker that can double for self defense. I think they intend to capture the higher end AR market with their piston AR-15. If they were to try for that market with the Mini they would have to redo the gas block and the barrel so much they would essentially have a new gun.

Essentially the Mini is for what most people use their AR-15s for: plinking with possibilites for more. If you really want accuracy you are better off going another route. Think bolt actions with scopes.

flynlr
November 11, 2009, 03:48 AM
flynlr...you should have gotten the long barrel to maximize velocity! What manf. is that? is the barrel longer than 30"? and how does she shoot?
It is a Bohica MKIII 36" the Glass is arriving next week Then I will know how it shoots.
.
flynlr - you can't use that very well either without sights That a .50 bmg upper? How do you load that... do you shotgun the receiver and drop the round in that way?

Single shot Bolt action as noted above,, I wish the ammo wasnt 3-5 dollars a round but
it will make a nice varmit rifle. depending on what you define as varmits.

dom1104
November 11, 2009, 08:44 AM
I had a first hand eye opening experience recently. I took a "carbine" class over the weekend. There were six ARs, 1 mini-14, 1 M1A. About 300 rounds were used over the two day class. 5 of the 7 ARs at some point during the class had issues and didn't go bang when the trigger was pulled. Three of these would have been not been able to be fixed in real time self defense. The M1A and mini-14 performed flawlessly for the class and both owners claimed to have never had a single round not fire. The ARs were in good shape and not junk. I asked the instructor, who does training as a full time job, if this result was typical of the two weapon systems (AR and mini) and he said yes. Based on what I saw and the instructor's general experience, I think the mini-14 is a more reliable system platform. In fact to the point where I would NOT choose an AR over a mini-14. Toss in the fact that the AR sights are 2.5" above the barrel and you need to modify your point of aim for close in shots (don't on M1A or mini), to me I very much prefer the mini-14 over the AR. Again, all my opinion.


Wow. now this is interesting. 5 out of 7 is truly bad. What class was this if I might ask? I mean if the instructor says he sees failures all the time...

Maybe its time to buy a saiga in .223

Art Eatman
November 11, 2009, 11:29 AM
While it was uncommon for me to ever blast through a full magazine of ammo in either an AR or a Mini, I have done it a few times. In the FWIW department, back in the late 1970s the "high cap" mags for Minis were reasonably priced and functioned quite well. I even bought a 40-rounder. I think I did one blast-off run with it from my bench rest. (Shrug) The Mini functioned as it always did--flawlessly.

Ed Ames
November 11, 2009, 12:07 PM
I've been refraining from sharing this anecdote because it is only that, an anecdote... but I think it illustrates a point.

A few months ago I went shooting at one of the public ranges around here. I think I had my .270 out... anyway, I was shooting a rifle. Ranges around here always have a lot of ARs so I wasn't paying much attention to the group a few lanes down that was sharing a "classic" (non-collapsing stock) AR between them.

What did catch my eye was when someone came out of the range office with a hammer and wooden stake, hefting them and saying something about "specialty M-16 repair tools." He was followed by one of the people from the group, who I assume had gone in to ask for help.

The guy, an employee at the range, proceeded to lay about the AR with the hammer and stake, talking about McNamara how he had to do this "too damned often". The group of who brought the gun watched the process mutely. The hammering was quite methodical actually, but, after several minutes of trying, the hammer-wielder gave up, saying, "it's not coming apart, maybe a gunsmith can get it unjammed."

The group packed up their rifle and left, shooting over for the day.

OK, it was a rubber mallet, not a hammer, but it was still a unique sight in my experience. I've never seen the like with ANY other firearm, ever.

But you can't really draw anything from it. The shooters could've been using bad/incorrect ammo, it may not have been cleaned properly in 20 years, it might be a home-built gun, or built by a corner-cutting discount maker... who knows? That's the problem with judging generic ARs against a single name-brand rifle from a single manufacturer. One AR, properly built, may run flawlessly for 50,000rds. Another AR, which from the outside looks exactly the same as the first, may have critical parts coming loose after 500rds.

People bragging up the AR platform tend to cite the 50,000rd AR for reliability, and what may well end up being a 5,000rd AR for price, but that's another issue.

Mags
November 11, 2009, 01:09 PM
Ed, the AR was not designed to be driven apart, it should have been "pogoed" as designed but alot of people are too scared to slam the butt of their precious AR on the ground to clear a malfunction as designed.

amd6547
November 11, 2009, 01:48 PM
The Mini 14 I owned was a 1980's model which was very inaccurate at 50yds...it couldn't stay on a paper plate at that range. It also suffered from the occasional jam.
My current AR is a retro A1 clone I put together myself using a surplus GI Colt upper.
I can pick off clay pigeons at 100yds using iron sights, and it has been 100% reliable.
Plus, with a cheaply acquired used spare carbine upper, and CAR stock, I can reconfigure my AR into a shorty. I think I have $500 in my basic AR-A1. Since I picked up the parts over the course of a few months, it wasn't a big outlay.
The new Mini's may be better, but I don't have the $$'s to experiment.

zstephens13
November 11, 2009, 04:54 PM
This is certainly getting pretty heated...

X-Rap
November 11, 2009, 05:11 PM
As has been pointed out the AR is to rifles as the 1911 and small block chevy is to pistols and motors. There is no other rifle that has as many parts and accessories available. That in itself does not make it superior but the fact that it and the AK are ubiquitous when it comes to modern semi's as well as military issue gives the platform plenty of credibility.
I'm sure if there were anywhere near the quantity of Mini's out there the failure/accuracy issues would be off the charts compared to AR's. The Mini is simply a sideshow in the semi auto circus and always will be.
The ones I have had were all 70's and 80's production but as other have stated MO paper plate was the consistant level of accuracy and shamefull from an American gun maker. The newer mods may be better but for the reasons stated above I see no need to try one with ample AR's to play with.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 11, 2009, 10:27 PM
Toss in the fact that the AR sights are 2.5" above the barrel and you need to modify your point of aim for close in shots (don't on M1A or mini), to me I very much prefer the mini-14 over the AR. Again, all my opinion.

The reason the AR sights are 2.5" above the barrel is because it uses an inline stock that allows the recoil to come straight back into the stock and the shooter's shoulder, making for the incredibly light recoil on an AR. You can also see this same concept on pretty much every automatic or semi-automatic rifle designed for military use in the last decade.

The Mini, with it's traditional stock design, means that the recoil force is above the stock (and thus your shoulder) and gives it more muzzle flip. Give the same shooter a Mini and an AR and let them fire the same course and they will be faster with the AR on average.

Not to mention that because the AR is so modular, you can mount something like an Aimpoint T1 in a Larue LT-724 mount and have a height over bore comparable to a Mini, while still keeping the inline recoil of the AR.

Ignition Override
November 12, 2009, 01:30 AM
One strange thing about Ruger, which has been posted for many months at "Perfectunion", is that they only

B e g a n selling Ruger factory-made 20-round Mini 14 mags to the civilian public,
A f t e r the presidential election.

And Ruger now sells a 20-rd. magazine with the new Mini-30.

X-Rap
November 12, 2009, 01:48 AM
You can buy 3 AR mags to one Mini.

BlueNoteExpress
November 12, 2009, 03:41 AM
I'm one of the OP's AR owning friends and the place he's probably getting at least some of his anecdotal evidence.

I had a couple of ARs before he got his Mini. Since he's gotten his Mini, we've done a little teasing back and forth about which rifle is "better" or "cooler". From my end anyway, it was never intended to be anything more than good natured teasing between friends. Maybe he's catching legitimate flak from other places though...

Now, then - I own 2 ARs. I bought the first one a few days after the AWB ended. It's a DPMS M4 with a chrome lined barrel. When I first bought it, all I had was Wolf ammo for it, and it ran fine. Later, after running 1,000 - 1,500 rounds of Wolf through it, I started to have problems with Wolf cases getting stuck in the chamber when the rifle got hot. Usually, I was able to knock the stuck cases out with a cleaning rod, but occasionally I'd have to wait for it to cool down before being able to knock the stuck casing out. Around this time, I noticed that I never had those problems with brass cased ammo. For that reason, I started to spend a little more to get better (IMO) brass cased ammo and stopped buying Wolf.

Now, maybe I had those issues because I didn't spend enough time using the chamber brush when cleaning it. I still really don't know why Wolf stopped working reliably seemingly all of a sudden. I've also heard that DPMS ARs are known for having fairly tight chambers so that might contribute too.

In any event, when I got my 2nd AR (a 16" CMMG mid-length), I decided not to even try running Wolf in it since I've had trouble with it before (albeit in my other AR), and I have plenty of brass cased ammo now. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, CMMG's policy is that using Wolf or other steel cased ammo will void the warranty so that's another reason to avoid steel cased ammo if at all possible.

Still, it's possible that the steel cased ammo like Wolf would work fine in my CMMG and maybe in the DPMS again now that I've started using the chamber brush more during cleaning. In any event, it's likely that the OP is stating that ARs are picky about ammo because 1 person he knows had trouble with Wolf ammo in 1 AR. Obviously, that's not a large enough sample size to identify any trends.

I don't hate Mini-14s either. I just own ARs instead because that's what I'd rather have. I think everyone should buy what they like best and/or what works best for them. That's why I tell everyone that asks me what they should buy to try before buying if possible and buy what they like.

I know this was long winded, but hopefully this will clear up a few things a little.

Art Eatman
November 12, 2009, 11:57 AM
Nine pages is enough in this umpteenth iteration of "AR vs. Mini". Good summation, BlueNote.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gotta get it off my chest AR-15 vs. Mini-14" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!