Mini-14 vs .30 carbine?

I prefer the Mini-14 over the .30 carbine, I have owned both for more than 20 years. With all things being equal in my eyes function wise, the Mini-14 is just more powerful. The 5.56mm is a better all around cartridge than the .30 carbine. Its faster, shoots flatter and is capable of much longer ranges.

RH

At ranges of less than 100 yards, how much difference would there be between the two, especially if you are shooting hollowpoints through the M1 Carbine?

Within (at least) about 50 yards, they're pretty much the same. I've had both, however, and I traded the carbine for a Mini-14. It's no question for me, the Mini's just better.

The poor ballistics of the .30 carbine round make it less effective than the .223 at all ranges. It lacks the diameter for crushing effect that makes handgun rounds effective, and does no achieve the velocity that causes the massive wounding of rifle rounds.

The two are so different that it is difficult to compare them. The .30 carbine was intended as a CQ weapon for GI's who couldn't master the 1911 pistol, hence it shoots what is essentially a medium power pistol cartridge. The Mini 14 is more like a cowboy version of the AR-15. To really answer your question I would meed more clarification on what you mean by, "...would it hold up as well..."

I've thought about getting an M1 Carbine for a long time, and though I'm well into the double digits in guns, I am still thinking about it. Why? It just doesn't seem like it serves a purpose for me.

The primary drawback to the .30 round is that nobody has bothered to develop decent loads for them. It is about as powerful as a .357 out of a rifle, so it is nothing to scoff at, but bullet design is still pretty rudimentary. Compare that to the 5.56, which has had decades of R&D put into making it a good killer, and you will see that your options are a lot greater on that end.

The upside for the carbine is that it is a very light kicker with little muzzle blast (especially compared to a 16" barrel on a 5.56), it has good sights to start with (Ruger is fixing this with new Minis) and, most of all, reliable hi-cap mags are available readily and on the cheap. 20 rounds is the most a Civilian is going to get from Ruger, and that is at a cost of $40 a piece. You can buy two 30 and two 15 round mags for the .30 for about that much. Also, loading the M1 Carbine is a more strightforwad proposition than the Mini series. It takes a little getting used to rocking the mags appropriately with the Mini.

Anyhow, aftermakret accessories abound for both. I think the .30 has a niche as a defensive rifle for small-framed women but that the Mini is a more potent weapon. The Carbine also has the advantage of being truly battle-tested. The Mini-14, to the best of my knowledge, has seen virtually no use in combat. No, police use is NOT combat.

If it is any indication of utility, the Israeli police still use and prefer the M1 Carbine for patrol duty. Their new rifle even takes the Carbine magazines!

Functionally the weapons are identical, both incorporate the same type bolt, gas system etc.. For durability and reliability in combat I believe that they would have been equal. Had the Mini been a U.S. combat weapon it also would have been made by several manufactures so you can't lay quality blame on a specific maker. Really the only thing left to compare is the cartridge and hands down the 5.56mm is the winner. So to answer your question, IMO, Yes the Mini-14 would hold up in combat as well as the .30 Carbine.

RH

Howdy. Corbon is making a DPX round to help those looking for a good defense load for the M-1 carbine.I own a Mini 14 and think that both carbines have thier uses. If you like what you shoot and it works for you fine.If lasting in combat is the criteria,then put a synthetic stock on the Mini.Carbines by nature have thin barrels . So do some battle rifles.I'll take the .223.

Within 50 yards a 110gr JHP at 2000 fps is lethal as was the FMJ ball as many German and Japanese found out. For it's intended use it is adequate. Take it outside those parameters than you have exceeded it's design.

At 50 yards,the 5.56(M193) is extremly lethal and much further beyond that.The carbine is not consistent for stopping someone instantly at 50 yards. Byron

Ok would the Mini-14 rifle have done as well as the .30 carbine in WW11 or is the .30 carbine rifle made better,stronger,ect? Not comparing the .223 to the .30 carbine bullet just the rifle build ?

Click to expand...

In my honest opinion, the Mini would have been better. Essentially, the Mini is part M14, part M-1 carbine. However, having played more than a half-dozen examples of each, the Mini is more robust and more reliable than the M-1 carbines available today. All of the carbines I have played with experienced multiple jams, and on two of them the bolt handle came out of the gun while firing. The mini's had few if any jams, and none of them came apart on the range.

i own a IAI M888 M1 carbine, and no chit, believe it or not, i hit a full dr. pepper sitting on a stump with it at 500 yards out. only tok me 4 tries but on the 4th round i exploded it. im sure it was an accident, but i had to grin ear to ear.

I guess I shot my third of four Minis more than the others; probably 2,000 rounds through it, maybe more. Never a moment's problem with anything.

Absent rough treatment, IMO it's six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Call me the resident M1 carbine fan.
The Mini14 is a good rifle, and there is no doubt that the 5.56mm is more powerful.
I owned a 1980's Mini14, and it was never very accurate at 100yds. It also had occasional jams. I have heard the the current Mini's are better.
My CMP M1 carbine has been 100% reliable, and is very accurate at 100yds. I feel fully confident in the effectiveness of the 30 carbine soft point load for anti-personnel use.
While I own an AR and an AK, the carbine gets the nod for SD use. I like it's sights, light weight and short length. With a GI mag pouch on the butt-stock, and a mag in place, I have 45 rounds to grab and go.

I'd rate them about the same to 100 yds. Past that the Mini 14 shines.

Lots of Korean war veteran's swear by the M1/M2 carbines. When you got human waves charging at you those extra bullets in the magazine make a difference.

I wonder how the Taylor KO formula compares the two?

M1 carbine = 9.7

mini 14 with 62 grain mil-spec = 5.9

i have to go with ART EATMAN. i have shot 1000 and 1000 and 1000 out of my mini 14s=2 of them. mostly cheap wolf ammo. and they never jam NEVER. some times they go click, but thats a bad primer from wolf.they are the most in accurate guns i own in 5.56. but they dont jam

I did a little bit of comparison between the Mini-14 and M1 Carbine mechanisms in a review of one of the new Mini-14s. When I eventually have an M1 Carbine, it might be fun to do an exhaustive feature-by-feature comparison between the Carbine, M14, and Mini-14.

Did the US GI M-1 carbine use soft lead bullets in WW 2 or Korea?

Or was this already forbidden by the Geneva Convention etc and complied with, even if many soldiers were supposed to risk losing their lives over this?

I just sold my basic Mini 14 today (keeping Mini 30 and SKS etc) for cash, because of the ridiculous price of Wolf/Silver Bear ammo, with no hope for .223 prices returning any where near what they were in March '08 when I bought most of it (still have 2,400 rds.).

"...The poor ballistics of the .30 Carbine..." What poor ballistics would that be? Milsurp ball? Factory? Neither is the same as properly loaded HP's or SP's.
A standard Mini-14 is a way over priced, inaccurate, but reliable rifle. My old Plainfield carbine will shoot circles around any standard Mini-14 with my handloads. Most issue carbines in good condition with good ammo, will too.
The Carbine and its cartridge was design to be combat accurate out to 300 yards. It was not made to be a primary battle rifle. It was made to be issued to troopies who would have been normally issued a .45 pistol. Drivers, rad ops, engineers, etc. Training a non-shooter, as most W.W. II troopies were despite the myth of most U.S. citizens being shooters, to shoot a rifle well is far easier than training them to shoot a pistol.
"...nobody has bothered to develope decent loads for them..." Reload. Factory ammo isn't accurate enough anyway.
"...niche as a defensive rifle for small-framed women..." Rubbish. A shooter's size, male or female, means nothing. Had a 5 foot nothing female, teenaged, Army Cadet who could shoot far better than most of the big strapping guys with either a No. 4 Lee-Enfield or a C1A1. If a small-framed women doesn't shoot regularly, she won't be able to defend herself or anybody else.
"...a GI mag pouch on the butt-stock..." They were not made to be on the stock. Screws up the balance and the mags are not easy to get at. The mag pouch goes on a belt where it was made to go.
"...comparison between the Carbine, M14, and Mini-14..." An M14 isn't comparable. It was a full sized battle rifle that was selected for the U.S. military for political reasons. Mind you, so was the M16.

Fact is, the Mini-14 was intended by Ruger to be a .223 version of the M1 Carbine. It uses largely the same operating mechanism, and looks and otherwise functions just the same. New Mini-14's are also quite accurate; it was the earlier ones with out-of-spec barrels that gave it its poor reputation. The M1 Carbine cartridge slightly exceeds .357 Magnum ballistics and power. However, it is still within the handgun range. The .223 is within the rifle range, and greatly exceeds the power, range, and penetration of the M1 Carbine round. However, at the ranges you are likely to use such a rifle, it typically will not matter; without a scope, your effective range is probably going to be well within both cartridges' effective ranges. Ultimately it depends on what you are intending to use it for. If hunting is on your agenda, go Mini-14.

As for the guns and the design I think the m-1 is a more durable and easier to repair gun. As for the bullets, loosing roughly 1/3 bullet speed for twice the bullet weight and gaining about 1/3 in diameter of bullet. I would say the 30 cal comes out on top for 0-150 yards. Since a lot of gun battles are with in 100 yards(statistically) I would go with the m-1 carbine again. try this go with the power factor formula, speed x bullet weight/1000

m-1 110gr at 2200 fps= 242
223 55gr at 3200 fps= 176

I have shot a bunch of 3 gun matches where 223 would take carful shot placement and multiple hits to knock down steel targets and we all thought we has the right tactical hi-tech rifles and here comes this no gear old slow dude scoring better than us because his old m-1 carbine was knocking down all the targets with 1 hit. Steel to bowling pins. Made me rethink the 223 and its purpose. That was back in 1990. I never really switched to 30 carbine but I did go with 6.8 spc for a while before getting out of the 3 gun games. I did have a 30 carbine that I could make reliable hits out to 200 yards with groups were torso size but I could make reliable hits. Certianly the 223 is far more capable even out of a mini but I dont intent to engage targets in the urban area I frequent much past 100 yards.

"...with out-of-spec barrels..." Out of whose specs? Ruger invented any 'specs' for the Mini. They did nothing to make it shoot better for 30 years because they could sell every one they made.
The .30 Carbine is not and never was intended to be a handgun cartridge. It's a military use inspired cartridge period.
"...without a scope..." A scope does not make any rifle shoot better.
"...If hunting is on your agenda, go Mini-14..." A standard Mini-14 isn't accurate enough to hunt anything but ground hogs at close range.