Better Built, Mini 14 VS AR15?

[Welding Rod]

I think the Mini is a well designed gun.

I can't say it is well built though. I would say that about anything made by Ruger. They have some great designs, but as I stated above the built quality of a SR gun, the execution, is a crap shoot.

 

[adelbridge]

One last word from me, the Mini-14 was patterned off the M14 which is mostly obsolete in military use. M14 is a fine weapon and so is the Mini but technology has moved on. FWIW you need a ranch rifle to mount a scope without a non standard adapter.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Both have uses~some overlap. Really not comparable; Mini's just aren't easy to mod. The Ruger is, to my mind, a mid-level rifle in terms of quality that can handle abuse over time fairly well. I've had one since '89 and we still use them at work; they will soldier on with some hickups for decades being tossed around.

From the kaboom aspect, like the M-1 and M-14 a Mini will tend to 'blow' up/down (blow the bolt up, trigger group down) if something like an overcharged load or squib load is encountered. This is a function of how the sub-groups fit together. In this aspect, one might be able to make the case for the relatived strength of the mini but I don't have enough ecidence to make that statement with any authority.

 

[itsa pain]

it seems like an AR has to be built by michaelangelo using parts that have been hardened by master samurai sword makers using a secret process passed down thru the centuries fire quenched in the blood of a female tiger then every molecue of the steel has to be microscopically inspected and presto you have a "reliable" gun lol. not so with the mini

 

[Ash]

"It was never designed or meant to be used as a combat rifle."

Wrong, Ruger sought combat orders. The fact that other nations in the 1970's didn't choose it was the fact that many were still using the FAL, others were trying the AR, and none of them wanted a wooden stock. However, for the first several decades, the Ruger was the rifle of choice for virtually all police forces in America. The AR has largely replaced it but that was due in no way to failings of the Ruger. The AR came as pollice became more militaristic. Even then, that is not the AR's fault, but the Minis in service had been in service for several decades - it is not uncommon to surplus arms in service for 30 years. Even so, the AR that replaced the Mini is NOT the AR that competed against the Mini. Nobody replaced the Mini 14 with an AR design of the same era.

You can't really compare, as there are no Blackthornes making Mini-designs. But the Mini-14 is a solid, well-built rifle regardless of AR aficionados' preferences. Yet, they compare the current AR to the Mini, a design which is 40 years old. Admittedly, Ruger didn't update the Mini 14 and it's current rifles are no longer really geared towards the military markets any more, but when apples and apples, Mini 14 of 1970's to AR of 1970's, and the two rifles are far more comparable. The basic design of the Mini is in no way at fault here.

The m14 is obsolete only as a general issue infantry rifle and even then solely because it was a full-power rifle that arrived on the scene at the dawning of the assault rifle. As a DMR, it still shines. Yet, the M16 is also obsolete as you could do nothing at all with the platform other than shoot it - scoping was a real joke. No major combat force uses the M16 of the same design era as the Mini these days. The original AR upper - the one in use when the Mini came out - could not mount optics worth a crap and the iron sights had limited adjustability. The current AR is not a 50 year adopted rifle as many now claim, as the rifle they carry now bears little affinity with the originals beyond trigger group, bolt, and receiver. You can customize an m16 no better than a Mini-14. You have to replace major parts of the m16 to customize it (IE, completely replace the upper and butt stock in order to achieve nirvana). That is alot of changing. I could do the same level of changing with a Mini and end up with the same level of customization and attachment of accessories. It took significant redesign of major components to get the AR to the state by which all judge it today. Give me the redesign time and effort employed on the AR and I could achieve equal results with the Mini. Heck, apply the same EBR updates to the M14 to the Mini and you could get virtually the same arms.

 

[Pete D.]

Better

Quite different firearms. Hard to compare and probably fruitless to try.
I have owned both. I no longer own the Mini.....gave it to my son.
To repeat what another poster wrote..I really wanted to like the Mini. But it just wasn't acceptably accurate. Now....is accuracy a function of build quality?
The Colt AR that I acquired out performed the Mini in every way. Is that a function of build quality or just one of design? Design, I think.
I really wanted to like that gun. Alas.
Pete

 

[itsa pain]

"It was never designed or meant to be used as a combat rifle."

Wrong, Ruger sought combat orders. The fact that other nations in the 1970's didn't choose it was the fact that many were still using the FAL, others were trying the AR, and none of them wanted a wooden stock. However, for the first several decades, the Ruger was the rifle of choice for virtually all police forces in America. The AR has largely replaced it but that was due in no way to failings of the Ruger. The AR came as pollice became more militaristic. Even then, that is not the AR's fault, but the Minis in service had been in service for several decades - it is not uncommon to surplus arms in service for 30 years. Even so, the AR that replaced the Mini is NOT the AR that competed against the Mini. Nobody replaced the Mini 14 with an AR design of the same era.

You can't really compare, as there are no Blackthornes making Mini-designs. But the Mini-14 is a solid, well-built rifle regardless of AR aficionados' preferences. Yet, they compare the current AR to the Mini, a design which is 40 years old. Admittedly, Ruger didn't update the Mini 14 and it's current rifles are no longer really geared towards the military markets any more, but when apples and apples, Mini 14 of 1970's to AR of 1970's, and the two rifles are far more comparable. The basic design of the Mini is in no way at fault here.

The m14 is obsolete only as a general issue infantry rifle and even then solely because it was a full-power rifle that arrived on the scene at the dawning of the assault rifle. As a DMR, it still shines. Yet, the M16 is also obsolete as you could do nothing at all with the platform other than shoot it - scoping was a real joke. No major combat force uses the M16 of the same design era as the Mini these days. The original AR upper - the one in use when the Mini came out - could not mount optics worth a crap and the iron sights had limited adjustability. The current AR is not a 50 year adopted rifle as many now claim, as the rifle they carry now bears little affinity with the originals beyond trigger group, bolt, and receiver. You can customize an m16 no better than a Mini-14. You have to replace major parts of the m16 to customize it (IE, completely replace the upper and butt stock in order to achieve nirvana). That is alot of changing. I could do the same level of changing with a Mini and end up with the same level of customization and attachment of accessories. It took significant redesign of major components to get the AR to the state by which all judge it today. Give me the redesign time and effort employed on the AR and I could achieve equal results with the Mini. Heck, apply the same EBR updates to the M14 to the Mini and you could get virtually the same.

excellent post ash but you can never change the minds of AR guys. they might think more highly of their rifles then their first born lol

 

[Ash]

Out performed in every way? It is more reliable? Easier to shoot prone? Easier to take through heavy brush? Not easy to snag?

AR guys point to the design as making the AR superior. What of the design makes it superior? Nothing. Only implementation of design can do that. Vulcan or Battle Rifle Company proves that. Were the design the cause of superiority, then nobody could screw one up, yet we know that AR's can be made very badly.

As before, this is a comparison between one rifle and a multitude of rifles with wild exaggerations the norm. The modern AR is the choice of armies across the world and for good reason. Yet comparisons of build quality cannot be made between a single company's product and a whole range of products around a common design.

Were that the case, I could take half-a-dozen different manufacturers and have the Ruger win every time.

 

[Fishbed77]

AR guys point to the design as making the AR superior. What of the design makes it superior? Nothing. Only implementation of design can do that. Vulcan or Battle Rifle Company proves that. Were the design the cause of superiority, then nobody could screw one up, yet we know that AR's can be made very badly.

I think you are confusing design with implementation. Consider my previous quote:

If I were going into a situation where I needed a rugged rifle that was going to take some abuse, and my choice was between a mil-spec AR and a Mini, I sure as heck would not be choosing a Mini.

When I say I find the AR to be a superior design for harsh use, that's exactly what I mean. True, you can have a Hesse or Vulcan or DPMS or Battle Rifle Company come and screw up the execution, but it's pretty hard to blame that on the design. That's why you stick to the names that know how to make a mil-spec AR (Colt, BCM, Daniel Defense, Spikes, PSA). Or you step up to the pricier marques that go beyond mil-spec (Noveske, LRWC, etc.).

 

[Ash]

No, I am not confusing design vs. implementation. I meant exactly what I said. There is nothing in the AR design that makes it superior to the Mini except where I noted modifications to the original design performed on the AR. The design itself is not superior, implementation of the design causes that.

The Mini design, being based on the M1 Garand, is a proven design. And, in the harshest environments the Mini is routinely selected because of reliability.

I can easily take your argument and flip it - If I were going into a situation where I needed a rugged rifle that was going to take some abuse, and my choice was between a DPMS, Olympic, Battle Rifle, Hesse/Vulcan, or commercial-spec AR or a Mini, I sure as heck would not be choosing a a commercial-spec AR. I'd take the commercial-spec Mini.

And, considering I do actually go into rugged, abusive swamps and brackish salt water marshes, I take my Mini 14 GB.

 

[Robert]

Comparing pot metal rifles to the mini is not really fair. A more accurate comparision would be to use a RRA or M&P Sport.

I own and shoot both. I have never thought of my mini as a hard use rifle. My AR on the other hand is used, and somewhat abused, in tactical rifle matches where I routinely subject the rifle to sand, dirt and baby powder like grit. It runs just fine. The only issues I have had with the rifle were user caused. So I would invite you to come to match and let's do a non scientific test. For fun, nothing serious. I do not believe we have ever had a shooter use a mini at the match.

 

[backbencher]

The Mini-14 is a decent implementation of a poor design - due to the location of the piston rod, as I understand it, the bbl is too thin for good accuracy. The latest Ruger "match" rifle apparently gets the Mini-14 down to 1 MOA - but the AR's being doing 1 MOA w/ the right upper & trigger since the '80's.

 

[Fishbed77]

No, I am not confusing design vs. implementation. I meant exactly what I said. There is nothing in the AR design that makes it superior to the Mini except where I noted modifications to the original design performed on the AR. The design itself is not superior, implementation of the design causes that.

Don't know where to even start with this one.

The Mini design, being based on the M1 Garand, is a proven design.

Hold up a Garand next to a Mini. The action is vaguely similar, but the Mini takes a lot of design elements from both the M1 Carbine and M14. The Garand (being designed as a true combat rifle firing 30-06) is considerably beefier. FYI - with over 50 years of military service, the AR has considerably longer service than even the Garand (not to mention the Mini).

And, in the harshest environments the Mini is routinely selected because of reliability.

Routinely by who? The Bermuda Regiment? (FYI - they have replaced these rifles with the G36). The M4 alone is used by over 50 military organizations all over the world.

And, considering I do actually go into rugged, abusive swamps and brackish salt water marshes, I take my Mini 14 GB.

All I can say it that I will take a rifle with a chrome-lined barrel, corrosion-resistant aluminum receiver, and water-resistant polymer furniture into a damp, salty environment long before I take a blued, non-chrome-lined commercial design with wooden furniture.

 

[SwampWolf]

When I say I find the AR to be a superior design for harsh use, that's exactly what I mean.

And when I say I find the Mini to be an equivalent design for harsh use when compared to the AR, that's exactly what I meant.

All I can say it that I will take a rifle with a chrome-lined barrel, corrosion-resistant aluminum receiver, and water-resistant polymer furniture into a damp, salty environment long before I take a blued, non-chrome-lined commercial design with wooden furniture.

You do know that if you fear rust and the wooden stock rotting away while exposed to inclement weather, that the Mini-14 can be had in all s/s and with a composite stock?

 

[itsa pain]

saying the AR M4 is used around the world is silly. the way this country operates we either force the country to take them tying them to other military hardware or like Israel we simply give them away. if the AR was around in stalingrad when it was 40 below in frozen trenches it would have been a walking crutch. the mini would keep working. they are range guns to be used when you could take them home and casually order a part or in the military where you are close to base camp for cleaning and repairs. before they jam or fall apart they call in fire anyway

 

[Ash]

Fish,

I do know where to start, and it is here: I own the M1 Garand, two M14's, an M1 Carbine, and a Mini 14. I have owned three AR's, a Stag, a Rock River, and a pre sell-off Bushmaster (in A1, A2, and removable handle configurations).

The Mini 14 has only the oprod as a sort of kindred relationship to the M1 Carbine, but only vaguely. It is very clearly based on the M14, with all major components based on M14 construction. There are departures from the M14 to be sure, but the Mini-14 is as much M14 as the M14 is Garand.

The M1 Carbine has an utterly different trigger, magazine, and receiver design coupled by the fact that take down is completely different. A man who can field strip an M1 Garand can use the exact same steps to field strip a Mini 14 - ditto for an M14. Indeed, since the AR uses a similar magazine and lock-up as the M1 Carbine and also uses a rotating bolt, it shares just as much relationship with the M1 Carbine as the Mini 14 does. You don't seem to have enough time with a Mini to really understand it.

Now, as to target shooting, everybody and his brother plus my dead aunt would concede the AR is going to be more accurate. The fact that my Danner Mountain Light II boots will never be found on the basketball court, a football field, or the track does not mean they are not excellent boots. Asking why you don't find them in such places is misleading. If competitive shooting is the question, then why stop at the range, why not wonder, why don't you find AR's in Olympic shooting?

The Mini 14 is not a target gun, was never intended to be one. So what. In what I use them for, I can be equally effective with a Mini 14 as I could be with an AR.

By the way, since I actually DO carry in salty-swamps, I think I'm a better judge of where to take a Mini. Mine is a stainless GB model from the MS State Troopers. It hasn't rusted yet. What do you suppose the barrel on an AR would do down there, eh? What about the trigger group? Bolt? An AR is not all that corrosion resistant. In any case, the key is to clean up when you leave - and I have spent days out there before returning home.

 

[Z-Michigan]

High quality AR (Colt, BCM, DD, LMT, Noveske) > Mini-14 = consumer grade AR (DPMS, Bushhamster, Remington, CMMG) > total junk AR (Hesse, Vulcan, illiterates in some guy's garage)

I own a Mini-14 and a couple ARs. Don't think I've shot the Mini in 3+ years. It works fine, and since mine is all stainless I'll keep it for miscellaneous uses (like if I never own a ranch and need to store it behind the seat in a pickup), but don't find it very appealing for target shooting, competitions, or defense, relative to a quality AR15.

As noted above, the Mini-14 is a proprietary design, not simply a miniaturized M14. It looks the same and in some ways feels similar, but it works differently.

Ruger quality is decent. It's not fancy, highly refined, or anything that feels like high precision machinery, but it's basically solid quality. Nothing much tends to break or wear out on the design, and if it does, Ruger will probably fix it for free. On the AR side, various parts do wear out or break, but their expected lives are very well known, all of them are user serviceable with simple tools and moderate skill, and most of them are cheap and readily available (springs, cam pin, bolt, etc.).

Now, if I were in a state/country where the Mini was unrestricted and the AR was banned or heavily restricted, I might not feel too bad buying a Mini instead of the AR.

 

[Roadking Rider]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite different firearms. Hard to compare and probably fruitless to try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But,If people understood this, we might not have these worthless weekly AR vs Mini Posts. ;-)

 

[Pete D.]

Target

stop at the range, why not wonder, why don't you find AR's in Olympic shooting?

Because all Olympic shooting events are .22 rimfire or airgun.

Pete

 

[taliv]

good grief guys

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

I'm a HUGE fan of the Mini-14's action. I also LOVE the M1 and the M1A. That said, I'd still go with the AR-15 over the Mini.

 

[Art Eatman]

One thing I found with my Minis is that the first shot always went within a half-inch or so of where I wanted it to.

One thing I found with my ARs is that the first shot always goes to within a half-inch or so of where I want it to.

One thing I found with all my sub-MOA bolt guns is that the first shots always go to within a half-inch or so of where I want them to.

To me, that's about as accurate as any hunting rifle ever needs to be.

From the standpoint of self-defense as a civilian, I figure that as long as a rifle holds minute of cranium out to around one or maybe two hundred yards, it's as accurate as it needs to be.

Target shooting from a bench rest is a whole 'nother deal.

 

[35 Whelen]

Google search for 'mini 14 kaboom' returns multiple incidents of the rifles failing.

http://rugerforum.net/gun-stories/76442-mini-14-exploded-while-shooting.html

http://www.tallahasseegunforum.com/forum/showthread.php?240-Mini14-Kaboom-at-the-range-today!

I expect numbers in service is the reason why we hear about so many more ARs failing.

BSW

I'm going to call BS on both those threads. Why? Because you can go on almost any firearms forum, anywhere, and find threads along the line of "...I blew up my GlockSIgWessonerby and....." yet in this day and age of 99.9% of the general public owning and cooning a personal communication device, NO ONE ever thinks to snap a picture. I say no one, I remember seeing a picture of a K-31 over at the Cast Boolit website that had blown up.

As we say at my place of employment "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen."

35W

 

[breakingcontact]

I prefer the AR, but anyone considering this debate should know the newer minis are improved over the older models. Mentioned this after someone mentioned the "thin barrels".

 

[iflyem1]

Depends on who's building the AR. I think Ruger is a quality Fire Arms Manufacturer. It is not without problems but all of them are. I have a Colt 6920 and it is rock solid. I have a few Ruger and they are built like tanks. Take your pick.