The story behind the Mini-14 ... very interesting!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jski

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
2,291
Location
Florida

Bill Ruger claimed that had Ruger come out with the Mini-14 5 years earlier, the M-16 would never have been. The Army would have adopted the Mini-14

BTW, Jim Sullivan, who lead the group that scaled down the AR-10 to make the M-16, designed the Mini-14.
 
Ruger never intended for the Mini to be a military-grade gun, he had it designed as a cheaper alternative to the AR15 for LE & the civilian market to use the increasingly popular .223/5.56 caliber.
Denis
 
Bill Ruger claimed that (it is covered in a interview in Bill Ruger and his Guns book, p. 146) but realistically he never got much if any foreign military or police sales. The original M1 Garand was always designed as a semi-auto and the Army by using a similar design for the M14 with its select fire capability and heavy recoiling (compared to something like the 5.56 or the 7.62x39) 7.62 round demonstrated that the design was not as good for full auto.

From what I've read, part of the lack of military sales for the full auto version of the Mini is that the durability and reliability were not very good when using repeated auto fire in training.

You see remarkably little about Ruger's promise that the Mini was going to be available in .308. Apparently, they even had barrels made for it and could never quite get the project to work out.

Supposedly among other stories, the original Mini 30 was designed as a way to use these .308 barrels that could not be used otherwise for the dead .308 Mini project.
 
When first introduced, the Mini was restricted LE only, took a few minutes for Ruger to open it up to the civilian market.
It did have some LE appeal, but not enough to keep it LE only.
Denis
 
Based on what I heard in the Forgotten Weapons video, the engineers at Ruger simplified both the design and manufacturing of the M-14. Nothing wrong with that!

As an engineer I know all too well that “no value-added complexity” is the monster we all must fight against. In the end, it’s either value-added or value-subtracted. For the M-14, it appears to have been value-subtracted.
 
Last edited:
"No value added complexity"...sounds like German engineering!

The only large LE agencies I know of off hand who bought a lot of Mini-14's are the Ca Dept of Corrections and the SB County Sheriff's Department. And that was 25+ years ago, long before the AR-15 was found in every patrol car.

Stay safe!
 
Funny how everyone states that the M14 was such and expensive gun to make...

The final (and and highest) contract cost per gun from Winchester, Harrington & Richards, and TRW were $118.82, $113.60 and $101.78 respectively in 1962 dollars. The cost of the first M16 contract in 1963 was $121.84 each, the second M16 contract was for $112 each. The M16 and M14 were similar in price.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article on Chuck Hawk's website about the much maligned accuracy of the Mini-14:
Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle

By Ryan Feeler

ruger_mini14.jpg Illustration courtesy of Sturm Ruger.

I have been intrigued for a while by the Ruger Mini-14 series of rifles for a couple of reasons. My grandfather brought an M1 Carbine back from World War II and they are very similar in design and usefulness to the Mini-14. He also picked up a sporterized M1 Carbine at some point that I carried in the deer woods when I wasn’t big enough to carry much else. In addition, my father is a longtime Ruger fan. As a result, I have spent most of my adult life hunting with one of his extra M77 rifles chambered in .30-06 Springfield.

The only thing that kept me from immediately pulling the trigger on the purchase of a Mini-14 was the rifle’s poor reputation for accuracy. I read several reviews and the consensus was that Mini-14 rifles built from rifle’s introduction in the 1970’s through 2005 typically grouped from 3-6” at 100 yards. Since one of my main purposes for buying this rifle was actually hitting what I was aiming at, that type of accuracy was unacceptable. However, I also read that Ruger had retooled their manufacturing plant in the middle part of the decade and the newer models (with serial numbers starting at 58X-) were much better, reportedly due to improved manufacturing tolerances and a heavier barrel. Those types of claims are common in gun reviews, but I was willing to give Ruger the benefit of the doubt and buy one to see for myself. I settled on a stainless steel ranch rifle with a wooden stock. The rifle specifications are as follows:


  • · Model: 05802 (stainless steel ranch rifle)

    · Catalog #: KMINI-14/5

    · Caliber: .223 Remington

    · Magazine Capacity: 5

    · Action: Garand-style semiautomatic

    · Sights: Ghost ring adjustable rear aperture sight, protected post front sight

    · Scope mounts: Integral to receiver

    · Scope rings: Supplied

    · Weight: 7 lbs

    · Overall Length: 38”

    · Barrel Length: 18.5”

    · Barrel Twist: 1:9” (right-hand)
Two things jumped out at me as I removed the rifle from the box. The first was the overall handiness of the firearm. While 7 pounds is not an ultra-light rifle, the short length and the well-balanced feel truly make the rifle easy to carry. People often debate the definition of a carbine, but this rifle should fit whatever definition people arrive at. The second thing that jumped out at me was the trigger. The factory trigger is a two-stage military type design and the second stage was horribly long and creepy. I knew it would pose serious accuracy problems.

I outfitted the rifle with a Leupold VX-1 2-7x33mm scope after swapping the high rings supplied by Ruger for some of medium height. This rekindled my appreciation for Ruger’s standard process of machining scope bases into the receiver of their rifles and including scope rings in the purchase price. It saves time, money and hassle.

I took the rifle to the range for an initial break-in and some preliminary accuracy testing. I did most of the shooting with factory loaded Hornady 55 grain FMJ ammunition. The first range trip was mainly to get a feel for the rifle, so I didn’t spend a lot of time measuring group sizes, but most of the 3-shot groups fell between 2” and 3” at 100 yards with the scope set at 7x. Similar results were received with factory Hornady 55 grain V-Max ammunition, with a similar (though not identical) point of impact. I was confident that the rifle was capable of far better if I could get the trigger fixed, since it was impossible to hold the crosshairs of the scope on the center of the Shoot-N-See target I was using. I happened to be shooting a couple of deer rifles at the same range session (Browning A-bolts with replacement Timney trigger springs) and the difference in trigger performance was dramatic.

After doing some research, I decided to send my trigger to John Baker of Great West Gunsmithing in Salem, OR to see if he could improve the second stage release. At this point I discovered one of the interesting things about the Mini-14 is that it can be separated into its major components without the use of any specialized tools. Simply stick something (punch, screwdriver, etc.) into a hole in the trigger group and lift forward and the stock, trigger group and action/barrel assembly are separated. I mailed-off the trigger group and awaited its return.

About a week and a half later the trigger group duly arrived with a much better second stage and I returned to the range. The reworked trigger made a world of difference. This time I was able to hold the crosshairs where they were supposed to be through the short, crisp second stage. My first three-shot group with the factory Hornady 55-grain V-Max factory load (my intended coyote hunting load) measured 1.44”. I adjusted the scope to correct for point of impact and fired a second three-shot group that measured 0.77”. While I would not claim that this rifle is a "minute of angle" gun, I am fully confident that it can consistently shoot groups in the 1"-1.5” range, which is more than good enough for southern Missouri coyote hunting. I need to do further testing with various types and weights of ammunition, but for now the rifle is ready to hunt.

If you search the internet you will find people who love the Mini-14 as well as those that despise it. One of the stated drawbacks of the gun (attributed to either the gas block or poor bedding, depending on who is writing) is that the rifle strings shots vertically when hot, with subsequent shots going increasingly lower. I saw some signs of this during my preliminary range session. I guess this is an issue for people who like to blast away at targets all day. However, I am particularly interested in this rifle for hunting purposes and the accuracy it has provided to this point is perfectly acceptable.

In conclusion, I have been pleased with my Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle. It is a handy rifle that I feel will serve me well in my coyote hunting pursuits. Prior to the trigger job the rifle consistently produced three-shot groups in the 2-3” range @ 100 yards. After the trigger job, the first two 100-yard groups were 1.44” and 0.77”, which is fine accuracy for a semi-automatic carbine. If you have been thinking about getting one of these rifles, I think it is worth the $700 or so that you will have to pay for a new one. Just be sure that you have room in your budget for a little trigger work.

Note: Reviews of the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-Thirty All-Weather can be found on the Product Reviews page.

Back to the Rifle Information Page
Copyright 2010, 2013 by Ryan Feeler and/or chuckhawks.com. All rights reserved.
 
Last edited:
Might just be the most popular and widely used Eskimo carry everywhere rifle.
Handy in a boat or on a snowgo, light to carry and a 20 shot clip, and its the carbine to carry.
Get close and they always work, rain, shine, snow and blizzard. Very well known not to be exceedingly accurate, but 150 yards and closer, its a very good semi for most all hunting purposes, for , say, when you are out but not deliberatly hunting...... boating, checking net, picking berrys, getting firewood, etc, like the Northern version of a ''truck rifle''.
Come a deliberate hunt, most up gun because of the wide open Tundra or down size for small game, but you get my jist, I'm sure.
 
Might just be the most popular and widely used Eskimo carry everywhere rifle.
Handy in a boat or on a snowgo, light to carry and a 20 shot clip, and its the carbine to carry.
Get close and they always work, rain, shine, snow and blizzard. Very well known not to be exceedingly accurate, but 150 yards and closer, its a very good semi for most all hunting purposes, for , say, when you are out but not deliberatly hunting...... boating, checking net, picking berrys, getting firewood, etc, like the Northern version of a ''truck rifle''.
Come a deliberate hunt, most up gun because of the wide open Tundra or down size for small game, but you get my jist, I'm sure.
That's high praise from where I come from. A hearty people living in extreme conditions need a hearty rifle that can function in extreme conditions.
 
I believe I posted pictures of the two XGI .308 Ruger rifles I handled on THR some years back.

They did make at least the two rifles I handled. They were the size of M-14s so I can not imagine that the barrels got used for Mini 30s but the tooling might have been.

Ruger was pretty tight lipped about the guns. I noted the magazines looked like cut down M-14 mags and asked and they would not tell me. Being the kind of guy I am I went to the Springfield booth and asked if I might borrow a 20 rounder, they asked why and I told them. They excitedly loaned me a mag to get info on potential competition and I wandered back to the Ruger booth. I again handled the rifles and stuck the M-14 mag in both examined the Ruger mags side by side with the M-14 mag.....the XGI used M-14 magazines.

In later years I spoke to Ruger folks at various shows about the XGI and it was always like digging up something embarrassing and smelly. I was assured repeatedly that the XGI would never be reborn. Once one of them spoke of receiver issues but other than that I never got a straight answer as to why.

Guns and Ammo annual ran an article on the then new Mini-14 using the company proto type with M-1 style rear sights so I was disappointed when the production sight was all I could get. I was even more disappointed with the Ranch rifle sights. Those Tech Sights look pretty decent and If I were not so cheap I would have a set to review.

-kBob
 
The .308 version was called the X-GI from what I remember. I'm surprised Ruger couldn't get it to work unless it was too expensive. Well I like my Mini 14 and 30 for what they are.
I remember well the X-GI project and believe the reality of firing full power 308 in such a small platform is what really derailed the gun. There is no mechanical reason they couldn't get it to function, but physics and recoil can't be worked around and that little carbine would have been a real handful to shoot. Throw in some real thermal issues with small mass rapidly heating up and it's no wonder they canned the project. I do think 7.62x39 is about the maximum caliber for the platform and with proper ammo the Mini-30's have done well.
 
I believe I posted pictures of the two XGI .308 Ruger rifles I handled on THR some years back.

They did make at least the two rifles I handled. They were the size of M-14s so I can not imagine that the barrels got used for Mini 30s but the tooling might have been.

Ruger was pretty tight lipped about the guns. I noted the magazines looked like cut down M-14 mags and asked and they would not tell me. Being the kind of guy I am I went to the Springfield booth and asked if I might borrow a 20 rounder, they asked why and I told them. They excitedly loaned me a mag to get info on potential competition and I wandered back to the Ruger booth. I again handled the rifles and stuck the M-14 mag in both examined the Ruger mags side by side with the M-14 mag.....the XGI used M-14 magazines.

In later years I spoke to Ruger folks at various shows about the XGI and it was always like digging up something embarrassing and smelly. I was assured repeatedly that the XGI would never be reborn. Once one of them spoke of receiver issues but other than that I never got a straight answer as to why.

Guns and Ammo annual ran an article on the then new Mini-14 using the company proto type with M-1 style rear sights so I was disappointed when the production sight was all I could get. I was even more disappointed with the Ranch rifle sights. Those Tech Sights look pretty decent and If I were not so cheap I would have a set to review.

-kBob
Interesting! I'd never seen an X-GI in person nor a size comparison to M-14's....and always assumed they were just slightly enlarged Mini-14's. If they were the size of full M-14's could it be that they didn't want to be in direct competition with the M1-A? If they couldn't downsize to a more handy platform is that why they canned the project?
 
If Bill Ruger had not been so fanatically obsessed with notion that mere civilians should not have para-military weapons, he would have offered the original Mini-14 with 16 inch barrel, folding synthetic stock and 30 round magazines. He well might have cut deeply into the AR-15 market at the start. But he was too bull headed.
 
I'll agree with Caribou that the Mini makes a great all around rifle. I especailly like the way the safety captures the hammer if you are transporting the rifle while loaded.

When I first moved to Texas many years ago, I picked up a Mini for my truck gun. I worked great and never let me down function wise. It always went bang, but was really not all that accurate. When I began to spend more time on a ranch helping the owner, misses were not acceptable. We often had to shoot at coyotes around cattle and you were expected to hit your target. I switched to a Remington 700 in 6mm Rem, which was much better for the task at hand.

Again the Mini is great for a general purpose/truck gun kind of rifle, but I do not see it being any type of front line battle rifle.

As I was once told by a lady of questionable morals, "There is nothing wrong with being happy with what you are good at...."
 
If I lived in a place where local game could eat me I would rely on any .223 to keep them from eating me.

That said maybe a case ejected from my Ranch rifle could put their eye out...

Just changed my gas bushing out. My brass was hammered. Guy next to me said one hit him in the head after bouncing off of a wall. He wasn't anywhere close to me and to my left.
 
If I lived in a place where local game could eat me I would rely on any .223 to keep them from eating me.

That said maybe a case ejected from my Ranch rifle could put their eye out...

I have a chipped tooth from a case ejected from my buddies mini while we were spotlighting.
 
"The inside philosophy has always been that it is a ranch/truck gun for close range (50/75 yard work). A gun you can knock around, let it get dirty and it will still work. It was also intended for urban LE work to replace shotguns and the surplus .30 M1 carbines that the police were using."

"Bill Ruger always said, 'It's not a target rifle, it's a utility gun.'"
"The receiver is much too flexible."
Retired Ruger engineer.
Denis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top