Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How important is combat proven? (in a mini)

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Golden_006, Jan 7, 2010.

?

How important is combat proven and semi auto to you?

  1. Very -- I'd go into Combat with a Blowback Auto load rifle from WW1 than a Mini

    4 vote(s)
    3.3%
  2. Pretty important -- I'd take a proven bolt gun like a Mauser or Enfield over a Mini

    16 vote(s)
    13.1%
  3. Not at all -- Give me a Mini; it's reliable despite never in combat; and I want semi-auto

    68 vote(s)
    55.7%
  4. All these choices stick & I'd go AWOL if I couldn't have Garand, AR 15, AK 47

    34 vote(s)
    27.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Golden_006

    Golden_006 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  2. mcdonl

    mcdonl Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,228
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    I would want to carry whatever the guys to my left and right were carrying.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2010
  3. Golden_006

    Golden_006 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    The question/poll assumes you were heading into battle not shopping for a new rifle
     
  4. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,665
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,526
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  6. NG VI

    NG VI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,884
    Location:
    Maine
    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.
     
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,526
    Location:
    Central PA
    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
     
  8. sheepdog

    sheepdog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    Duncanville, Tx
    ...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...
     
  9. kanook

    kanook Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,967
    I'm missing something in your question
    All Ruger Mini's shoot semi-auto
     
  10. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    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.
     
  11. desidog

    desidog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,300
    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.....
     
  12. sheepdog

    sheepdog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    Duncanville, Tx
    ...didja hit what you threw at???
     
  13. wlewisiii

    wlewisiii Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,649
    Location:
    Hayward, WI
    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
     
  14. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    :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:
     
  15. GunsBeerFreedom

    GunsBeerFreedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    335
    Real cartridges start and end with 50 BMG.
     
  16. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    And...off topic it goes. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,526
    Location:
    Central PA
    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
     
  18. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,270
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    See, here's the thing. If you're an enlisted soldier you don't get a choice. You get what they issue to you.

    [​IMG]


    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.
     
  19. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    Who in hellsfire is that??

    Question though...
    ...you mean...like a Fedorov Avtomat?

    Shhh...Justin, you're going to confuse people with your logic and facts. :D
     
  20. Mr. T

    Mr. T Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    579
    Location:
    Midwest
    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.
     
  21. Quentin

    Quentin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,826
    Location:
    NorthWest USA
    Well this was a waste of time... :D
     
  22. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,249
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    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.
     
  23. svaz

    svaz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    341
    Location:
    AZ, 30 miles from the Border
    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
     
  24. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,060
    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
     
  25. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,375
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The choices are worded so as to make them "loaded." For example:
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page