How important is combat proven? (in a mini)


PDA






Golden_006
January 7, 2010, 10:08 AM
So how much more important is it to you to have a combat proven rifle (assuming it's for combat and not for fun), even if it means going to combat with an old bolt gun with combat experience, rather than a Ruger Mini that of course is semi-auto but is unproven in combat?

You have to suspend reality for minute -- Uncle Sam won't give you an m-16 or m14, and your choices are limited to the above only

When I watch the Military channel do a ranking of top 10 combat rifles or tanks or whatever, combat proven is only one of five things they mention.

If you enjoyed reading about "How important is combat proven? (in a mini)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mcdonl
January 7, 2010, 10:20 AM
I would want to carry whatever the guys to my left and right were carrying.

Golden_006
January 7, 2010, 10:24 AM
The question/poll assumes you were heading into battle not shopping for a new rifle

mljdeckard
January 7, 2010, 10:26 AM
It's a yes and no thing.

There are weapons we trust because they have a track record that spans decades. When you are fighting for your life, you want equipment that has the highest possible likelihood that it will do what it supposed to. If hundreds of other men have watched it do that, you will trust it more than a new prototype that looks really cool, but no one has yet used it outside the lab. You don't want to be the one who discovers the fatal flaw the hard way.

On the other hand, there are a lot of weapons that get undeserved credit because they might be PATTERNED after a proven weapon system, but so many corners have been cut they aren't the same thing at all anymore. Examples that cume to mind are Vulcan/Hesse ARs, Chinese M-14s, etc.

Sam1911
January 7, 2010, 10:27 AM
What are the criteria? Reliability? Accuracy? Weight to carry? Ammo load to carry? "Classic lines" or aesthetics? Political/cutural "liability" due to perceived "evilness" of the design? Energy or penetration provided by the cartridge? Cost?

Are you planning to go to war? By yourself, or with a squad, or with a battalion and lots of heavy weapons support? What will your duties include while you're in combat?

Are you planning to go deer hunting? Are you planning to shoot targets? Are you planning to go on safari? Are you planning to use the weapon to teach gun handling -- or marksmanship? Are you planning to display it on the wall or in a museum? Are you planning to leave it behind the seat of your pickup? Are you planning to count on it as an apreciable investment?

To some of those purposes, "combat proven" is important. To others it would be almost completely irrelevant. To others, applicability to combat use would almost certainly be a detriment.

Can you define some goals you have in mind for this weapon?


-Sam

P.S. --If you are planning on going into combat, Uncle Sam will give you a "combat proven" weapon so you don't even have to worry about it.

NG VI
January 7, 2010, 10:28 AM
Aha. Well I would go with something reliable, however, I'd go with something issued above anything else. Supply, I'd rather my personal weapons not go through the abuse I would view as totally acceptable for a government weapon. Also I am pretty sure that using a non-issued weapon in combat counts as murder, not 100% but I seem to recall reading that sometime ago.

Sam1911
January 7, 2010, 10:35 AM
Another way to look at this is to distill the buzz words "combat proven" -- which really mean very little (heck an M1 Carbine is "combat proven" but I wouldn't pick one for very serious uses, given other reasonable choices) -- into better-defined values.

The most applicable one I infer is reliability.

To that end, ALL guns break. ALL guns wear out. Some a lot, and/or predictably so you get good at changing specific parts as part of regular maintenance. Know your weapon and its weaknesses -- whether you bought it or you were issued it -- and be ready to handle them when it fails.

If I had a Mini-14 that had never failed as long as I cleaned it every 2,000 rds or so, I'd be willing to use that to defend my life.

If I had an AR-15 that still had the packing grease on it and I'd fired one whole mag through it, I might not be so willing.

However, the Mini-14 is not combat proven in any way, and the AR-15 undoubtedly is.

Still...no going into cobat with any personally owned weapon so it is entirely a moot point. Old Uncle Sugar is going to take care of you.

-Sam

sheepdog
January 7, 2010, 10:37 AM
...I would never choose a Ruger Mini-14 to go into combat ...they have well documented accuracy problems after the barrels heat up...as they are likely to do in combat...the fact that the action is designed similarly to the M14 does not insure that it is as robust or reliable....
HAVING SAID THAT...
...the Mini-14 is my choice for HD in rifles...I don't expect to have to heat the barrel up....I won't be taking 200-300 yard shots...
...what's good for one reason might not be good for another...if they ever sent this fat old dog to war...I'd want an M14....that's just my choice...

kanook
January 7, 2010, 11:00 AM
I'm missing something in your questionSo how much more important is it to you than having a Ruger Mini that fires semi-auto if you were in combat?All Ruger Mini's shoot semi-auto

Shadow Man
January 7, 2010, 11:09 AM
Another one of these threads, Golden? :shrugs: Whatever, I'll play ball.

For a serious duty rifle, several things are important: reliability and accuracy being paramount, followed closely by ease of use, handling, and maintenance.

Now, from those criteria, the Mini falls short on...one...two...pretty much all of them, in a combat situation. Mini's are great HD rifles, great plinkers, great light-duty carbines, but I would never, ever take one into combat...unless it came down to a Mini or a pointy stick...and then that stick would be sorely tempting.

desidog
January 7, 2010, 11:22 AM
Every combat-proven rifle type was unproven at some point before it was fielded.

Also, just because it was in combat doesn't mean it is good.

I threw a rock in combat.....

sheepdog
January 7, 2010, 11:22 AM
...didja hit what you threw at???

wlewisiii
January 7, 2010, 11:23 AM
The biggest problem the mini has is that it's not chambered for a real cartridge. Give me a bolt instead of any .223 munchkin.

William

Shadow Man
January 7, 2010, 11:31 AM
The biggest problem the mini has is that it's not chambered for a real cartridge

:cuss::banghead::fire::cuss:

Let's not turn this into a thread about cartridge wars. I'm sorry you don't think the 5.56x45 is a real cartridge...want to go stand out at 200yd's and see what being shot with a "fake" cartridge feels like? :rolleyes:

The Mini also comes in 7.62x39 and 6.8x43...unless those aren't real cartridges either... :uhoh:

GunsBeerFreedom
January 7, 2010, 11:38 AM
Real cartridges start and end with 50 BMG.

Shadow Man
January 7, 2010, 11:42 AM
And...off topic it goes. :rolleyes:

Sam1911
January 7, 2010, 11:52 AM
And...off topic it goes.

What combat proven rifle, in a real cartridge, for BEARS?

And will the Democrats or Republicans take away our combat proven rifles?

And what combat proven rifle would Kthulu want you to shoot?

What's the best combat proven rifle for "Call of Duty?"

;)

-Sam

Justin
January 7, 2010, 12:04 PM
This poll assumes you are going into combat and have one of the choices.

See, here's the thing. If you're an enlisted soldier you don't get a choice. You get what they issue to you.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&d=1128794076


And what combat proven rifle would Kthulu want you to shoot?

No doubt it would be a very effective weapon, but the problem is there's a very real chance you'll go stark raving insane the moment you pull the trigger.

Shadow Man
January 7, 2010, 12:05 PM
And what combat proven rifle would Kthulu want you to shoot?


Who in hellsfire is that??

Question though...Blowback Auto load rifle from WW1...you mean...like a Fedorov Avtomat?

Shhh...Justin, you're going to confuse people with your logic and facts. :D

Mr. T
January 7, 2010, 12:55 PM
One observation is that the mini-14's action is a variant of the M1 Garand, which we all know is quite robust. I've also heard that Ruger has changed it's barrels around in the last year or so, so that they can improve the accuracy of the rifle. I've also heard that the results since that change have been very favorable. I wouldn't be afraid to take one into the field to defend my life.

Quentin
January 7, 2010, 12:57 PM
Well this was a waste of time... :D

MachIVshooter
January 7, 2010, 01:06 PM
At the risk of seeming to dismiss the validity of combat proven, I'll simply say that such a track record does not make the weapon indestructible or gaurantee function.

svaz
January 7, 2010, 01:06 PM
HA! If you would have seen the conditions of our M-16A1/2s (probably Vietnam veterans themselves) prior to Desert Shield a mint Mini would have been a godsend. :D

briansmithwins
January 7, 2010, 01:34 PM
I'd rate the important characteristics of a combat rifle in this order:

1- Reliability. Cartridge and accuracy don't matter if it won't go bang when you pull the trigger. If the rifle is too complex or has little tiny parts that get lost by a grunt working on 72 hours with no sleep, that's a bad thing.

2- Accuracy. If you can't hit a enemy soldier it doesn't matter if you have a phased plasme rifle in the 40MW range. Misses are misses. Of course, combat rifle don't NEED sniper rifle accuracy. Almost all firefights are withing 300m and you need something that can rounds on a man at that range. 0.5MOA is nice but never at the expense of reliability.

3- Cartridge. You want a flat trajectory that delivers enough energy to kill or incapacitate Godzilla when he's hopped up on PCP that weights 2lbs per thousand. Unfortunately, physics says you can't do that. In reality, a 6.5mm/.260 round like the Brits tried to get us to use in the early 1950's would be ideal. Remember a heavy big round like 7.62 NATO means your rifle has to be built heavier and bigger, which is going to increase the grunts load even more.

Everything is a compromise and TANSTAAFL. The perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

I voted for the AK, BTW. It works and it can get hits at 300m on a man. I'd prefer a flatter cartridge than 7.62x39 if I had a choice, but you can't always get what you want.

BSW

Vern Humphrey
January 7, 2010, 01:53 PM
The choices are worded so as to make them "loaded." For example: Very -- I'd go into Combat with a Blowback Auto load rifle from WW1 than a Mini

Everything after the word "very" is superflouous and tends to skew the choice.

In general, no rifle in the last 150 year or more has been perfect when adopted -- all have required re-engineering and modification based on combat experiece. So my answer is, I'd rather have a mature rifle, with plenty of combat experience coupled with a known list of shortcomings and ways to offset them than I would with latest development out of the lab -- no matter how "well-tested" its proponents say it is.

TexasRifleman
January 7, 2010, 01:54 PM
Silliness. The Mini has been used by Law Enforcement for decades. I can't imagine any civilian shooting needs would be any worse than LE have put the weapon through in the last 30 years.

The Mini is rock solid reliable and low cost. Other than magazine availability (which seems to be getting better) I don't even see the point of worrying about 'combat proven'.

Mr. T
January 7, 2010, 04:33 PM
I think that the key thing to remember here is that given different situations in battle some weapons will work out better than others. Heck some of our troops have carried shotguns since WW 1.....is that the ideal weapon for all situations no; but it has its applications or it wouldn't be in the tool box. If I had the choice between nothing and a mini-14 obviously I would choose the "mini" option since it's better than nothing. If I had my choice, would I choose the "mini" over other weapons available...probably not since there are better weapons out there. If I "HAD" to take the mini into combat would I be freaked out because I was "stuck" with the "mini"....no. Would I be scared that I was in combat....YES and anyone who says anything different is either lying or mentally touched somehow. Same thing goes for the shotgun....I'd choose that over nothing also.:)

Golden_006
January 7, 2010, 04:33 PM
I'm missing something in your question
Quote:
So how much more important is it to you than having a Ruger Mini that fires semi-auto if you were in combat?

All Ruger Mini's shoot semi-auto

You're right it was confusing. I edited it.

dagger dog
January 7, 2010, 05:58 PM
A bolt rifle is tough to beat, especially a Mauser, but the WWII German troops were out gunned by the Garand,the Mini, is a 2nd cousin to the Garand and carrys a lot more DNA akin to the MI carbine. Both of those two rifles were well accepted by the troops they were issued.

The Mini is just chambered for a more modern cartridge ( either .223 ,7.62X39 6.8 SPC) which allows the toop to carry more ammo. Accuracy? Thats better left to the bolt guns. But reliability? The Mini and its' grand parents are the top of the list.

And so, my vote is for the Mini!

benEzra
January 7, 2010, 06:50 PM
Mr. T wrote:

One observation is that the mini-14's action is a variant of the M1 Garand, which we all know is quite robust. I've also heard that Ruger has changed it's barrels around in the last year or so, so that they can improve the accuracy of the rifle. I've also heard that the results since that change have been very favorable. I wouldn't be afraid to take one into the field to defend my life.

OK, I nominate this post for the THR Hall of Fame. Not because I am particularly enamored of the mini-14 (they are very reliable and handy, but I sold mine out of frustration with the accuracy and magazine issues), but because we have a post on mini-14's by a user named Mr. T.

That is forum goodness, right there. :)

http://2.0somethings.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/01/ateam.jpg

briansmithwins
January 7, 2010, 07:10 PM
Silliness. The Mini has been used by Law Enforcement for decades. I can't imagine any civilian shooting needs would be any worse than LE have put the weapon through in the last 30 years.

So were .38 S&W wheelguns. Lowest bidder to a PD does not a combat rifle make.

BSW

X - Man
January 7, 2010, 10:15 PM
It's better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees. If a battle comes your way you fight with what you have. Pointy sticks, stone axes, or your bare hands. But, as is taught in SF school; your most important weapon is your mind. It takes more than just a rifle to fight a battle.

The "battlefield" is not a given structure. It has been evolving every decade or so, can continues to do so. The battlefield at Gettysburg is different in character than what happened in SE Asia, different than what happened in Bagdad. This change in the nature of battle impacts on the type of weapon developed to be used.

The Mini can no longer be lumped into a single group; there are differences between the models. The Mini has been around long enough that much has been tried and learned about it. The M1, M14, M16 all share the fact that their refinement took years of R & D, and very large expenditures of funds.

There are more and more Mini owners who are getting satisfactory results from their rifle. True, it takes effort to fine tune the older Mini's as few shot well out of the box. But anything worthwhile is going to take to time to do.

Now to the question, Yes I would use my Mini to defend myself. I am confident in its capabilities and reliability, as well as mine. This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine.......

bshnt2015
January 7, 2010, 10:28 PM
Well this is proven but the mini will work, :)

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/horseplay/IMG_5000.jpg



http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/horseplay/IMG_4988.jpg

happygeek
January 7, 2010, 10:32 PM
X - Man wrote:

This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine.......


You know it's blasphemy to say that about any rifle other than a M14/M1A, and maybe a M16/AR, right?

frankiestoys
January 7, 2010, 10:32 PM
Is this another mini bashing thread? Because if it is some of you guys don't pay attention or only hear what you want to. The mini IS NOT A TARGET GUN but a great little carbine
with the newer series being more accurate and robust. Please check the forum ''RUGR MINI VS AR'' Do we realy need to do this again?
I would not feel un-guned with mine or would i hesitate to take her into battle.

FMJMIKE
January 8, 2010, 10:15 PM
I would trust a Mini-14 more than an AR-15. I sold all my ARs but still have a Mini...............:D

svaz
January 9, 2010, 12:40 AM
The Mini is rock solid reliable and low cost.
I'm not going to bash the Mini - I've always wanted one - but I must take exception to the price being referred to as, "low cost". It has always been my opinion that it was $200-$300 over-priced. If it had the accuracy of the AR, maybe I could see it, but it doesn't and it never will. That's fine by me, I still like 'em, but, to me, the price is unacceptably high.

CA2005
January 9, 2010, 12:51 AM
It sure is a reliable and forgiving platform. I own a couple of older blued LE GB models with full stock that I would trust my life to (mine are exactly like the one pictured a couple posts up only with the black plastic handguard). On a side note...I would love to get my hands on one with the factory folder.

The Mini is just neat, and it works. Accurate enough for defense out to 2-300 yards. The newer ones are even more accurate, from what I read.

scythefwd
January 9, 2010, 03:31 AM
Do I get to take it on a live fire FTX first? If so, I might consider it. If I could "torture" test it in the field before I deployed... then yes I would go into combat with one. If it hasn't been tested in field conditions (your ranch may have a field, but it isn't a field condition)... I'd pick up the first enemy rifle I could get my hands on.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 9, 2010, 07:36 AM
In and of itself, not too important.

What's way more important than "combat-proven" is whether the rifle is "precision unproven" which the Mini is.

JAV8000
January 9, 2010, 11:11 AM
I'd take my 581 tactical anywhere. In stock form it offers accuracy equall to or better than the m1 or m14, while weighing not much more than an m1 carbine.

I went out to shoot mine about two weeks ago. It was around zero degrees outside. I shot some decent fist sized offhand groups at fifty yards. I dont know what it's capable of mechanicaly as I shoot it the way god intended the garand to be shot, with provided peep.

The mini will continue to be one of the handiest, lightest, and most reliable, all steel carbines out there.

An assault rifle, however, it is not.

briansmithwins
January 9, 2010, 11:30 AM
I shot some decent fist sized offhand groups at fifty yards.

So say your fist is 4" at a guess. That would be a 8MOA group....

The mini will continue to be one of the handiest, lightest, and most reliable, all steel carbines out there.

An assault rifle, however, it is not.

Well, actually, the select fire version fulfill all the criteria for an assault rifle: select fire, intermediate cartridge, and high capacity removable magazine.

BSW

happygeek
January 9, 2010, 03:05 PM
I shot some decent fist sized offhand groups at fifty yards.


Yeah, ummm, I've got a 22LR that'll shoot about that at 50 yards. I'd say the question of accuracy is best solved by shooting two rifles you own from the same position, at the same size target at the same distance, one right after the other. I've done this a few times with my NM M1A and my Sig 556 at 200 yards, and a few more times with those two plus my 22LR at 100 yards.

Course, you still have the factor that you might just be more comfortable with one rifle than the other, or that you might be better with the sights on one than on the other.

happygeek
January 9, 2010, 03:14 PM
But on the original topic, I don't think milspec or combat proven is all that important with my privately owned weapons. Now in a rifle I'm carrying in a war zone, a hundred times yes.

The reason I say that about my rifles and pistols is that I'm not dragging them through the mud, dumping sand in them, submerging them in water, kicking them, dropping them, letting them get rained on, or even firing all that many rounds without anally cleaning and re-oiling them. That, and so far the only one that's jammed on me so far has been that 22LR, and it's just a range toy anyway.

But all this is a moot point, since unless you're planning on making it all the way to SFOD-D you're not going to be picking your weapon, and even then it might just be a rumor that they pick theirs (and if they do pick it, it's probably out of a bunch of government owned/approved weapons).

Shadow Man
January 9, 2010, 03:20 PM
The reason I say that about my rifles and pistols is that I'm not dragging them through the mud, dumping sand in them, submerging them in water, kicking them, dropping them, letting them get rained on, or even firing all that many rounds without anally cleaning and re-oiling them.

Then you're not having enough fun with your weapons :D

You're right about the SFOD-D rocks. They can pick their own (I've seen a few tricked out G-3's) but most choose not to, using stock M-4/16A3's, MP5's, etc.

Mags
January 9, 2010, 05:14 PM
I voted Not at All, but I don't agree with the give me a Mini thing. I still want my AR or Garand but it has nothing to do with it's track record in combat.

JAV8000
January 10, 2010, 04:10 PM
I was shooting offhand, standing, in sub zero conditions with heavy gloves and iron sights.......I think my rifle is capable of much better accuracy under more favorable conditions.

You can hate on the old minis for having poor accuracy at distance, but not the 580/581s.

mokin
January 10, 2010, 04:25 PM
Just because I have more experience with Lee-Enfields than a Mini-14 I picked that answer. I like the fact that I can hit a man sized target with iron sights (from a good solid shooting position) out to at least 300 meters with mine. Something about the 174 grain bullets just seem to sound more convincing than the .223 chambered Mini-14s I've shot.

jeff-10
January 10, 2010, 04:55 PM
I would prefer a M4 or M16 but I feel a Mini-14 would be serviceable under certain circumstances.

To me a Mini-14 is a modern day improved version of a M1 Carbine. It is more powerful and has more range than a pistol but it is not capable of long range combat.

Rexster
January 10, 2010, 07:42 PM
I won't be jumping out of airplanes, repelling banzai charges, or such with any of my carbines, so it is likely even sporting-grade weapons will do OK. Moreover, an individual weapon must prove itself to be accurate enough, and supremely reliable, in my hands. I liked my first 580-series Mini well enough to get a second one, which was pre-owned but minty and mounted in a SCAR stock, when it presented itself at a good price.

MOA? I can't see the iron sights that well with my aging eyes. Maybe after I mount a scope. Minute of felon is good enough for now. In my world, 40 yards is a quite long shot. MOA is a luxury, not a necessity.

Cartridge? .223 JSP ammo has been dumping the trash well enough for domestic law enforcement for decades now.

It is taking me a while to get enough ammo through my Minis to really trust them, but so far, they have not let me down. I really shouldn't be using them for shooting people, just yet, anyway, so there is no particular hurry. My chief expects me to use approved weapons off the clock, as well as at work, against human adversaries. The only rifle I am presently certified to carry is an AR15. I do prefer the ergonomics of the Mini, and may get an opportunity to be certified to carry one, before I retire. After I retire, well, I can use the carbine I prefer. Might be a Mini, might be an AR, might be something else. Not likely an M1 Carbine, as its safety is not lefty-friendly.

Edited to add: BTW, the Mini is cosmetically simiiar to an M14, and does have a Garand/M14-style trigger group, but its gas system is more like that of the M1 Carbine.

LEVRLOVR
January 10, 2010, 08:41 PM
BrianSmith, if Jav8000 is shooting 8" groups offhand with open sights at 100yds. that is some damn fine shooting.

With any rifle.

Squidward
January 10, 2010, 08:42 PM
It's not important to me at all.

If, as a citizen, I was put into a 'combat' situation I'd be OK with the mini 14. I'd use the tactics and tools that I possess and "upgrade" from those poor souls who had poorer tactics but better tools.

And, I'd keep the mini.

LEVRLOVR
January 10, 2010, 08:53 PM
Also, I have queried this question before.

If I were to arm any of you with a basic bolt action .22 lr and told you to storm and take your own house where your wife was defending against you with an ak-47, how many of you feel you would be successful.

Tactics, training and marksmanship will trump firepower nearly everytime IMO.

Now of course I would never make it into my own front lawn "unaerated" because my wife is meaner, tougher and a much better shot than I am!:uhoh:

happygeek
January 10, 2010, 10:19 PM
Well, to the Mini's credit, the VPC seems to consider it an "assault weapon". Strangely, this contradicts the VPC's own definition of what an "assault weapon" is, since according to them an "assault weapon" is a semi-auto version of a military automatic weapon. Considering the Mini 14 isn't used by the military ... oh wait, Wikipedia says Bermuda uses it.

Ok then, the Mini 14 meets the VPC's definition of an "assault weapon". It can't be all bad.

On a sidenote, the VPC's first definition of an "assault weapon" was "semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htm).

They later changed their definition, I guess someone clued them in on the fact that their first definition would include such weapons as the 1911 and the M1 Garand.

Hatterasguy
January 10, 2010, 10:30 PM
I don't know why people bash the mini 14, its a great little carbine for what it is. I like mine, its a decent little gun.


Its not a military rifle though, close but not. Still plenty good enough for just about every use you can find for it.

The problem with the Mini 14 and this is just my 2 cents is that its a shrunk M14. I know thats odvious but I think the action is a bit clunky for the little .223 as a result, and the barrel is to thin. Personaly I like my M1 carbine better. It just feels better in my hands and is a bit lighter.

Ruger should put a thicker barrel on it so soak up the heat better, like they do on AR's.

TexasPatriot.308
January 10, 2010, 10:35 PM
it depends. how many of yall have been in combat?? in my day ('72-74) we carried an M-16, every chance we got we picked up an Ak 47 cause we knew it was more reliable, we had a good CO that would get M14s for us for our job, we were Combat Controllers, not the same combat controllers that the Air Force has now, we did not have GPS or any of the new gizmos, we worked differently back then, we were not special ops like they are nowadays, but we operated out of the picture. give me a M14 any day and to this day I love the mini 14s cause they are kind of nostalgic. the new ones are good shooters, but a combat rifle is meant to spray lead, keep the bad guys head down and get the job done and you back home.

CornCod
January 11, 2010, 12:31 AM
I used to own a Mini-14 and still qualify with it annually for the corrections agency that employs me. The Mini-14 is a decent short range rifle for urban warfare. I would prefer to be armed with an AK or AR, but I could live with a Mini. If I were fighting in plains and deserts with lots of long-range shooting, I might prefer my Yugo Mauser or Lee-Enfield Jungle carbine.

Shadow Man
January 11, 2010, 01:05 AM
True enough, it isn't a combat rifle...but it was designed to be. Accordingly, it falls short in my book. It is a great ranch rifle, a fine light duty and home defense weapon, but I wouldn't want to take one into battle. If it works for you, that's great, but it doesn't for me, so I choose not to have one.

Ignition Override
January 11, 2010, 01:43 AM
Did Golden 006 every state whether he means a Mini 14, 30 or 6.8?

CornCod: Just bought my first Mauser today (Yugo 48A) at the 'show'.:)
I'm with you on the LE Jungle Carbine:), and after familiarity, maybe this Mauser or my LE #4 (twice as many magazine rounds).

Over at Perfectunion, one or two guys have just tried out the first Ruger-built 20-rd. mags in Mini 30s, and have experienced misfeeds with the last five rounds or so.

On another note, I found out hours after my first attempt to use this Yugo Mauser, that they have "controlled-round feed", requiring all rounds to feed only from the magazine, and not fed too slowly; otherwise, the bolt will Not close.
The LEs and MNs don't have this type of claw extractor.

MarineOne
January 11, 2010, 01:43 AM
Once in a while I'll pick up a gun magazine from the PX here on my FOB, and a few months back there was an article on an "NRA" version of the Mini-14. I figured why not check it out, so I bought it to see what the author talked about and his impressions about this "new" version.

It was shooting 3 to 4 MOA after the author sighted it in, which he called an issue that a rifle with this kind of price tag shouldn't have. It wasn't cheap, even though the author mentioned that while it was the MSRP and it would probably drop in price from $100 to $200, he mentioned that for a few bucks more you could have an AR that shot better.

Needless to say, I simply won't own one. If a weapon can shoot better than I can, I'll buy it because I know that some range time will fix the shooter ..... but in this case I can shoot at least 3 MOA even on a bad day, and there is no reason why I should spend money on a weapon that can't shoot as well as I do.



Kris

Golden_006
January 11, 2010, 10:24 AM
Well, to the Mini's credit, the VPC seems to consider it an "assault weapon". Strangely, this contradicts the VPC's own definition of what an "assault weapon" is, since according to them an "assault weapon" is a semi-auto version of a military automatic weapon. Considering the Mini 14 isn't used by the military ... oh wait, Wikipedia says Bermuda uses it.

Ok then, the Mini 14 meets the VPC's definition of an "assault weapon". It can't be all bad.

On a sidenote, the VPC's first definition of an "assault weapon" was "semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htm).

They later changed their definition, I guess someone clued them in on the fact that their first definition would include such weapons as the 1911 and the M1 Garand.

I wouldn't place much faith in anything they say about the Mini or otherwise. Their aim is to disarm the public minus a few single shot rifles for deer hunters that would need to be registered. First it's "assault rifles"; then it would be" why do you need a detachable mag for hunting"; then "why would a anyone need semi-auto in a rifle, that's for a miltary gun"; then "why do you need more than 3 shots for hunting" etc.

jeepguy
January 11, 2010, 08:09 PM
i love my mini more then my m1 carbine & way more then my ar15. i am more accurate with my ar15 but i just love my mini. i dont know why but for me its just more fun.

Elm Creek Smith
January 12, 2010, 04:37 AM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/elm_creek_smith/Ruger%20Mini%2014/Dec2009003.jpg
I'm your huckleberry.

I probably need to get Ruger medium rings for the Weaver K2.5, otherwise I'll need a cheek rest extender.

ECS

WVMountainBoy
January 12, 2010, 11:43 AM
I like the old bolts, feel more comfortable with them and have faith in them. I'd feel more steadfast with an enfield than I would with an AR15

Rexster
January 12, 2010, 10:18 PM
WVMountainBoy:

"I like the old bolts, feel more comfortable with them and have faith in them. I'd feel more steadfast with an enfield than I would with an AR15"

I can certainly relate. I do wish that I was right-eyed, instead of left-eye dominant, and that my right shoulder did not have an old chronic injury. Or, that left-hand SMLEs had been made.

I am looking into purchasing a Swiss K31 from a local dealer. Perhaps its straight-pull action will be more lefty-friendly than a right-hand turn-bolt rifle, while giving me military ruggedness.

McBuck
January 14, 2010, 11:28 PM
To Hatteras guy: Ruger did install a beefier bbl on the newer 580 series Mini's It is a more robust gun than it's predecessors, and a much more accurate one as well. 580 Mini owners are reporting sub 3" groups with irons as a rule and not an exception. There are shooters that have reported shot strings as tight as 1.5" with factory peepsight. I am not that good of a shot with peep sights, but I have been able to pull 3" and 4" strings, and much smaller at 50 yards. Even with my issue A1 I was only able to pull a 3 or 4 MOA @ 100m, but I still shot Expert everytime with my issue A1.
I get tickled when I read about an AR being a longer range weapon than a Mini, yet both weapons fire the same round: the same powder, same bullet, and if all things being equal, how can one be mathematically a longer range weapon than the other ?
I would take the Mini as a SHTF weapon with no qualms at all, but the question of using a Mini as a MBR is peculiar at best. The Mini is a civilian carbine and wouldn't really even be in that category.....I guess in a hypothetical situation, then yest I would carry a Mini....580 series....into a combat situation.
It is lightweight, easy to operate, extremely reliable, and it is accurate in the hands of a qualified shooter I would prefer the M14 over the Mini, but I don't remember it being a choice. Was it ?

LeontheProfessional
January 14, 2010, 11:40 PM
I love the mini and would definitely trust it. It has a proven action, based on the ole Garand. It has also been trusted by Police forces for decades.

FMJMIKE
January 15, 2010, 07:54 PM
My Ar-15s couldn't fire 100 rounds without a misfire (Yes, It was clean). My Mini-14s have never misfired and I shoot crappy steel case Russian ammo through it. Never clean it either..................:D
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/mbmphoto/Miniscope.jpg

happygeek
January 15, 2010, 10:35 PM
What brand and model of AR were you using that misfired every 100 rounds?! What kind of ammo?

I'm just curious because I recently put 1200 rounds through a Colt with only one misfeed (which was clearly the mag's fault), gave it a quick wipe down, then fired 1800 rounds through it the 2nd day with zero malfunctions.

Sure I had to spend a couple hours cleaning it the 3rd day, but for that matter I have to scrub the gas plug and piston on my M1A almost every time I fire it. Ditto on my Sig 556.

black_powder_Rob
January 15, 2010, 11:25 PM
wow i think i spend all of 10 minutes cleaning my mini. That is when i do clean it.:)

happygeek
January 16, 2010, 01:01 AM
That was bordering on white glove cleaning, and part of it might just be me. I can easily spend 30 minutes cleaning a Beretta 92 or 1911 after firing 50 or so rounds.

I'm still wondering what POS AR FMJMIKE was using that jammed every 100 rounds.

black_powder_Rob
January 16, 2010, 10:47 AM
ahh so you do it for the love not a requirement. got ya.

Shhh.... :uhoh: I do the same thing with my saa's. :D

FMJMIKE
January 16, 2010, 09:16 PM
My Ar-15s were a Colt and a Rock River Arms............Not exactly junk guns.

happygeek
January 16, 2010, 10:02 PM
Strange. Either you got a crap Colt or I got the one good one. What kind of ammo were you using? The jams weren't the mag's fault were they? I've seen some old crap aluminum STANAGs out there, ended up with a few myself.

McBuck
January 17, 2010, 12:29 AM
I pizz my son off all the time at the range because he has to wait on me to finish shooting my 580 Tactical before I will tear apart and clear out the double feeds, and other jams on his DPMS AR:evil:. I see it all the time a t the range. There are about three or four fellers shooting 580's that come to my local range, and these boys are shooters; never have jams or FTF's, but the AR shooters are always clearing something out of the pipe.:scrutiny:

LeontheProfessional
January 17, 2010, 12:37 AM
A mini is a mini is a mini. They have been known to be inaccurate in the past but as far as reliability goes they are great rifles. Now with that being said, when it comes to referring to the AR 15 manufacturer needs to be specified. Of coarse a DTI of a Model one sales is going to be unreliable but so would a mini if it was not properly head spaced.

Myles
January 17, 2010, 03:16 PM
I've fired tens of thousands of round through my mini, using factory magazines. Extremely reiable.

It has had a failure to extract ONE time, using handloads which I did not full length resize.

God's truth, a friend bragged to me the other day, "I just got back from the range. My new AR-15 is awesome - it's so reliable. But the firing pin broke, and I forgot to bring a spare to the range. I had a spare extractor, but forgot the pin. But, it's a great rifle."


I've never had a part failure, or had to replace a single part on my mini. Ever.

If you enjoyed reading about "How important is combat proven? (in a mini)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!