daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
The minis are seeing an increase in following in places that ban cosmetic features like NY.
Last edited:
Mini 14 Ranch Target
- Thread starter Howland937
- Start date
- Status
ApacheCoTodd
member
Yup.
I've a sense that my single greatest problem with the platform may end up being a strength.
That being that they do not take M16 magazines.
Todd.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Yep, my Mini has nice positive ejection as well.....
One day at the range some people parked behind me to the right.
Didn't see them park until I finished the mag I was shooting and went to pick up brass which of course was by the car
, I was a nice guy and moved down 2 bays.
Last edited:
wiscoaster
Member
That's actually the main reason I bought mine: to have a .223/5.56 semi-auto rifle that wasn't likely to be classified as an "assault rifle" just based on its features (and assuming you only load 10-round mags). Hopefully it won't come to that, though, if it does, I'm ready.
Barbaroja
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 1,645
Good luck with that! In Washington my 10/22 is classified as an assault rifle now.That's actually the main reason I bought mine: to have a .223/5.56 semi-auto rifle that wasn't likely to be classified as an "assault rifle" just based on its features (and assuming you only load 10-round mags). Hopefully it won't come to that, though, if it does, I'm ready.
wiscoaster
Member
Off topic: secede and join Idaho!!
BigBlue 94
Member
That's actually the main reason I bought mine: to have a .223/5.56 semi-auto rifle that wasn't likely to be classified as an "assault rifle" just based on its features (and assuming you only load 10-round mags). Hopefully it won't come to that, though, if it does, I'm ready.
I should be good with my mini-14 with a factory 5 round mag (ahem, and some 30s) and a deerfield carbine 44mag with a 10 round mag. Wood stocks are so much less scary!
My 7.62x39 AR pistol even has wood furniture. ...And my high capacity 1873 that holds 17+1 rounds of 32-20.
ApacheCoTodd
member
5 rounds is MORE than enough, isn't it?I should be good with my mini-14 with a factory 5 round mag (ahem, and some 30s) and a deerfield carbine 44mag with a 10 round mag. Wood stocks are so much less scary!
...And my high capacity 1873 that holds 17+1 rounds of 32-20.
I mean, as I hear tell, after 5 or so rounds the barrel turns to macaroni, right? Al dente macaroni!
Todd.
Off topic: secede and join Idaho!!
Request denied, we're full.
entropy
Member
It means there is a slight statistically measureable chance of hitting your target with that model vs. the old pencil barrel ones after the barrel heats up from 5 or more rounds put through it.
Did I mention I'm not fond of Mini-14's? Especially at the prices they've gone up to, even before the panic buying.
The Mini-14 was a great idea on paper, not so much in execution.
BigBlue 94
Member
5 rounds is MORE than enough, isn't it?
I mean, as I hear tell, after 5 or so rounds the barrel turns to macaroni, right? Al dente macaroni!
Todd.
I have never found my 187 ranch mini to be as inaccurate as the internet will have you believe. No, its not an MOA target rifle. Its not a rifle I would use for long range varmint hunting. It is not a rifle meant for mag dumps. It is a great rifle for plinking at 50ft to 50 yds. Its fun to use and very handy for ranch work. Mine recently got treated to an Accuracy Systems vented wood handguard. Need to strip it and oil finish to match.
I have no issues with aftermarket hi cap mags either. Nor has my trigger ever fallen out. I can hit 8" steel at 75 yds. Of course YMMV...
ApacheCoTodd
member
I figure it's very easy to expect too much from a Mini 14. I know I certainly used to.
But really, can one be blamed if the initiation to the platform was "The *A* Team"?
Watching people beating on them, treating them like $79 SKSs and expecting the accuracy of an AR and reliability of an M-14 has always been a bit amusing to me.
Todd.
wbm
Member
LOL. Ya had me with that one. Saved me the trouble of saying it.
Alright, so I expect people are going to bite my head off on this one (they have before), but this is the honest assessment of someone who was a US Army Armorer years ago and actually owned a Ruger Mini-14.
Short Answer:
They're really cool looking cosmetically and it's nice to have something different, but they're not worth the price. You can get a way more performant, accurate, wieldy, and reliable weapon for the price point.
Thorough Answer:
I'm not sure if anyone is going to read this because people online tend to gloss over long posts, but I regret buying my Ruger Mini - 14. I'm glad I sold it.
I really wanted to like this rifle.
It was different from an AR, it drew less attention when I was carrying it, it was still in 5.56, and it was less common.
I'll explain why, but let me address some of these comments first:
As other members are alluding to here, this is precisely the biggest pain point of the Ruger Mini-14. It's just not that damn accurate. People can give me internet anecdotes all day about how their rifle shoots the head off a dragonfly at 90000 yards and there's some big conspiracy against Ruger, but talk is cheap. I'm sure someone is eventually going to post up some sub MOA group and claim it's from their Mini (and therefore, all Minis must be this accurate), but you can generally expect to shoot 2.5 ~ 4 MOA with it (and that's if you have one of the later serials). You can always spend more of your hard earned money to make a weapon more accurate, but that doesn't mean you should when other weapon will be simply way more performant right out of the box.
Speaking of anecdotes, this has not been my experience. I got my Ruger mini-14 specifically to shoot groundhogs so that I'm not on state gameland with a big scary black rifle (yes, the game commission in my state will stop and browbeat you with some Elmer Fudd BS about how "no true sportsman needs an AR-15 to hunt" if you're out there with one). Every time I saw game commission when I had an AR, they stopped and checked my license. When I used anything else (including the Ruger Mini), they didn't do anything other than wave.
Now, like everyone else in my family, I eat what I kill. That said, I'll pose this question :
Have you tried shooting a groundhog with a 3~4 MOA rifle?
The 5.56 cartridge is perfect for whistelpig, but the suboptimal accuracy of the rifle makes taking any shot with this weapon at even 50 meters isn't fair to the animal. Moreover, you cannot guarantee a shot that's going to leave you with a lot of meat to salvage. People always say "it's practical enough for x," but I don't agree. I've blown too many groundhog's feet off with it.
This is my second point. It's 2021. There are literally hundreds of rifles to choose from. You will find many at competitive to superior price points than the Ruger Mini-14 that are demonstrably more performant. A large amount of those are ARs. A Smith & Wesson M&P Sport II will run circles around a Ruger Mini-14 and is literally half the price right now. It also doesn't need special magazines, and they pop in much more easily than the Ruger mini. Which, to my next point:
Not only is the weapon more expensive, but the magazines are as well. Again, you can buy two AR magazines for the price of one Ruger Mini mag -- and the AR mag will be of higher capacity.
Another big problem nobody on this forum seems to want to talk about is, with many wooden stocked Ruger Mini-14s, they have this inconvenient little problem of having the entire trigger assembly fall out when they're rapid fired. I've mentioned this before and was met with a barrage of "WELL THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO ME! I FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR TWO WITH MINE AND IT MADE ME BREAKFAST EVERY MORNING! YOU MUST HAVE REASSEMBLED IT WRONG! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!? I THINK YOU JUST HATE RUGER!"
And yes, someone actually said that last line.
Look it up online. I'm not the only person who has experienced this with the wooden stock. In an earlier thread, It was revealed that many of the folks who found these claims completely unbelievable had synthetic stocks or older Mini-14s.
That said, many later versions of this rifle have had this problem, and it's particular to those with wooden stocks. Again, a simple google search reveals that hundreds of people have reported having this problem with this rifle. Ruger has experienced some quality control problems over the last decade or so, and even long time Ruger fans like Hickok-45 have come out and made videos about it. As an aside, it's not just their minis that have had issues.
Remember, just because the rifle someone else got from Company A was great, doesn't mean your new rifle from Company A will be just as good. You're taking a risk.
There are other points about using this rifle for "defense" or SHTF scenarios. All I will say is if you're trusting your life with a 3ish MOA rifle against people with sub-MOA rifles when you can get the exact same rifle (and magazines) that your enemies have at a cheaper cost, then I question why you ended up with a Ruger Mini-14. I don't care if you're in California or some similar state. There are better options.
Again, I really wanted to like the Mini-14. I got mine brand new, put hundreds of rounds through it, and spent days researching how to improve on the problems it has. Part of the reason is because I was applying for a job that might have taken me to a state where my ARs weren't legal, and I was trying to determine if a Ruger Mini might be my best bet. At the end it wasn't worth it. I sold it for more than I bought it for but I honestly think about all the poor groundhogs I butchered with it and really regret just not using something else.
So what about the Ranch Target?
I've heard many mixed reviews about this weapon. Personally I haven't fired one so I'll keep my mouth shut because I know what I don't know. However, there is an existing thread about that rifle on this forum.
Short Answer:
They're really cool looking cosmetically and it's nice to have something different, but they're not worth the price. You can get a way more performant, accurate, wieldy, and reliable weapon for the price point.
Thorough Answer:
I'm not sure if anyone is going to read this because people online tend to gloss over long posts, but I regret buying my Ruger Mini - 14. I'm glad I sold it.
I really wanted to like this rifle.
It was different from an AR, it drew less attention when I was carrying it, it was still in 5.56, and it was less common.
I'll explain why, but let me address some of these comments first:
I had to smile when I saw Mini 14, Ranch and Target in the same sentence. Don't get me wrong, I love my mini 14 and my mini 30. Both have the struts which does help the accuracy after the barrel warms up. My friend was joking with me at the farm the other month when we were shooting them. He said you might hit the steel plates more often if you aimed perpendicular to the range and just ejected your brass at the steel.
All joking aside, they are fun guns to shoot. I had to just adjust my expectations.
As other members are alluding to here, this is precisely the biggest pain point of the Ruger Mini-14. It's just not that damn accurate. People can give me internet anecdotes all day about how their rifle shoots the head off a dragonfly at 90000 yards and there's some big conspiracy against Ruger, but talk is cheap. I'm sure someone is eventually going to post up some sub MOA group and claim it's from their Mini (and therefore, all Minis must be this accurate), but you can generally expect to shoot 2.5 ~ 4 MOA with it (and that's if you have one of the later serials). You can always spend more of your hard earned money to make a weapon more accurate, but that doesn't mean you should when other weapon will be simply way more performant right out of the box.
Speaking of anecdotes, this has not been my experience. I got my Ruger mini-14 specifically to shoot groundhogs so that I'm not on state gameland with a big scary black rifle (yes, the game commission in my state will stop and browbeat you with some Elmer Fudd BS about how "no true sportsman needs an AR-15 to hunt" if you're out there with one). Every time I saw game commission when I had an AR, they stopped and checked my license. When I used anything else (including the Ruger Mini), they didn't do anything other than wave.
Now, like everyone else in my family, I eat what I kill. That said, I'll pose this question :
Have you tried shooting a groundhog with a 3~4 MOA rifle?
The 5.56 cartridge is perfect for whistelpig, but the suboptimal accuracy of the rifle makes taking any shot with this weapon at even 50 meters isn't fair to the animal. Moreover, you cannot guarantee a shot that's going to leave you with a lot of meat to salvage. People always say "it's practical enough for x," but I don't agree. I've blown too many groundhog's feet off with it.
This is my second point. It's 2021. There are literally hundreds of rifles to choose from. You will find many at competitive to superior price points than the Ruger Mini-14 that are demonstrably more performant. A large amount of those are ARs. A Smith & Wesson M&P Sport II will run circles around a Ruger Mini-14 and is literally half the price right now. It also doesn't need special magazines, and they pop in much more easily than the Ruger mini. Which, to my next point:
Not only is the weapon more expensive, but the magazines are as well. Again, you can buy two AR magazines for the price of one Ruger Mini mag -- and the AR mag will be of higher capacity.
Another big problem nobody on this forum seems to want to talk about is, with many wooden stocked Ruger Mini-14s, they have this inconvenient little problem of having the entire trigger assembly fall out when they're rapid fired. I've mentioned this before and was met with a barrage of "WELL THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO ME! I FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR TWO WITH MINE AND IT MADE ME BREAKFAST EVERY MORNING! YOU MUST HAVE REASSEMBLED IT WRONG! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!? I THINK YOU JUST HATE RUGER!"
And yes, someone actually said that last line.
Look it up online. I'm not the only person who has experienced this with the wooden stock. In an earlier thread, It was revealed that many of the folks who found these claims completely unbelievable had synthetic stocks or older Mini-14s.
That said, many later versions of this rifle have had this problem, and it's particular to those with wooden stocks. Again, a simple google search reveals that hundreds of people have reported having this problem with this rifle. Ruger has experienced some quality control problems over the last decade or so, and even long time Ruger fans like Hickok-45 have come out and made videos about it. As an aside, it's not just their minis that have had issues.
Remember, just because the rifle someone else got from Company A was great, doesn't mean your new rifle from Company A will be just as good. You're taking a risk.
There are other points about using this rifle for "defense" or SHTF scenarios. All I will say is if you're trusting your life with a 3ish MOA rifle against people with sub-MOA rifles when you can get the exact same rifle (and magazines) that your enemies have at a cheaper cost, then I question why you ended up with a Ruger Mini-14. I don't care if you're in California or some similar state. There are better options.
Again, I really wanted to like the Mini-14. I got mine brand new, put hundreds of rounds through it, and spent days researching how to improve on the problems it has. Part of the reason is because I was applying for a job that might have taken me to a state where my ARs weren't legal, and I was trying to determine if a Ruger Mini might be my best bet. At the end it wasn't worth it. I sold it for more than I bought it for but I honestly think about all the poor groundhogs I butchered with it and really regret just not using something else.
So what about the Ranch Target?
I've heard many mixed reviews about this weapon. Personally I haven't fired one so I'll keep my mouth shut because I know what I don't know. However, there is an existing thread about that rifle on this forum.
Last edited:
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
I've said this before in other threads. It is beginning to look like it needs to be said again. Minis shoot best when one takes the time to find a load your individual rifle likes. My first was a 182 series with a 1 in 10 twist barrel. It would shoot 55 grain bullets okay. When loaded with a certain 40 grain varmint load it would shoot one inch three shot groups all day long (if you gave the barrel time to cool between groups). My current Mini is a 188 series with a 1 in 7 twist. It shoots 40 grain bullets in shotgun patterns. 55 grain bullets give 2"ish groups on a good day. Green tip goes to 1.5". BUT it loves Hornady 75 grain TAP, which of course has been discontinued.
Loading a Mini up with cheap white box 55 grain stuff then proclaiming it to be the most inaccurate POS you've ever owned is doing both the rifle and yourself an injustice. No, it may not be cheap or easy to find the right load your mini likes. If you take the effort to do so you may be surprised.
Loading a Mini up with cheap white box 55 grain stuff then proclaiming it to be the most inaccurate POS you've ever owned is doing both the rifle and yourself an injustice. No, it may not be cheap or easy to find the right load your mini likes. If you take the effort to do so you may be surprised.
Speedo66
Member
Incredible accuracy is not all that important to some people. Some just like to plink, some shoot round balls from unrifled barrels, other just enjoy shooting a certain type of gun. Besides, not everyone with a MOA gun can shoot MOA.
The fact that the average Mini may be not be as accurate as the average AR is not a reason to expect everyone to stop buying them.
The fact that the average Mini may be not be as accurate as the average AR is not a reason to expect everyone to stop buying them.
BigBlue 94
Member
So, just because your mini and hundreds of others have had a problem doesnt mean every single one is a piece of junk. Likewise I accept that even though mine has been relatively perfect for 40 years, others have issues. Its just what happens when millions of an item are made. Look at how many airbags Takata has had to recall in the 21st century.
Research what some classic military rifles after the advent of smokeless have for MOA accuracy and what the military contracts specified as acceptable. Some were indeed 4 MOA.
The AR was no where near as reliable, cheap or accurate as it is now, when it was in its younger days. Reliability picked up once they got real world military feedback. Supreme accuracy picked up when the aftermarket decided to make it a target rifle with long heavy barrels. Price dropped when everybody and their brother decided they needed 17 AR rifles and the demand brought supply up. ARs are cheaper to build now than they were 20 years ago, even without accounting for inflation.
Give the mini the same amount of attention the AR has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary rifle. Have a demand for more mini magazines, and price would go down once supply was sustained.
Research what some classic military rifles after the advent of smokeless have for MOA accuracy and what the military contracts specified as acceptable. Some were indeed 4 MOA.
The AR was no where near as reliable, cheap or accurate as it is now, when it was in its younger days. Reliability picked up once they got real world military feedback. Supreme accuracy picked up when the aftermarket decided to make it a target rifle with long heavy barrels. Price dropped when everybody and their brother decided they needed 17 AR rifles and the demand brought supply up. ARs are cheaper to build now than they were 20 years ago, even without accounting for inflation.
Give the mini the same amount of attention the AR has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary rifle. Have a demand for more mini magazines, and price would go down once supply was sustained.
The thing that frustrates me about this conversation is that so many people seem to get their feelings hurt over this, but I (and obviously a lot of other people) aren't convinced because these weapons clearly don't have a very great reputation across the board (and not just on this forum). They've earned their reputation over years of people having problems with them.
For the record, this is the first time I recall reading this, but the fact that you've had to give this lecture apparently multiple times reinforces my original point that a lot of people obviously had a sh!tty experience with this rifle.
That said, if you want to spend 30% more on a rifle and then go spend hundreds more on all sorts of different ammo for weeks in hopes that it might be (at best) able to shoot at twice the error of an AR, that's fine. However, I think that's a pretty crappy argument in favor for this rifle, especially when you can easily find something that is much more performant out of the box at a cheaper cost that you won't have to spend weeks trying to coax it to do what you paid for it to do.
Well let's hold the phone for a minute. When you say "...the average Mini may not be as accurate as the average AR," I hope what you meant to write is "No Mini is nearly as accurate as virtually any AR in production with the exception of maybe some of the budget category or really old models." Suggesting that a Mini-14 is outperforming even a quarter the ARs on the market is something that I'd find highly dubious. The rifle is just not that accurate.
As an aside, I also don't recall writing "everyone should stop buying them." Look, if you want to shoot a Jennings Bryco because you want to, that's fine. It's a free country. I don't recall saying nobody should be allowed to have one or that you're a bad person for liking this rifle.
What I recall was walking into a conversation where people were debating the merits of the Ruger Mini-14 model and the complementary Ranch Target model. I came in to share that I literally owned one of these things and my experience as someone who actually spent a lot of time with it, took it to the range, tried different ammo, literally went to school for firearms in the US military, and actually used it to hunt was that it's not a performant rifle. I also suggested that the OP looked up the existing thread on THR about the Ranch Target Model where it was already debated.
I didn't bring this up in the original post because I anticipated massive butthurt but -- guess what? The thread that already exists is basically the exact same thing - a few people singing the praises of the rifle with basically everyone else saying it's not worth the money -- along with a bunch more bashing the mini.
Moreover, what I also recall writing is that they're more expensive than a ton of other weapons that don't have nearly as many problems -- and I don't recall accuracy being the only problem I listed . For the record, I don't recall ever having an SKS have the trigger assembly fall out when I shoot it, nor do I remember CETME mags being $40 a piece (both of which are legal in California and cheaper than a Ruger Mini).
Again, the Ruger Mini-14 fanboys get so bent out of shape when someone points out flaws in the weapon. I didn't say it was a "piece of junk." I said it's not performant, you can get something that does what it's trying to do way better for cheaper, it's not very accurate, and a lot of people who have bought them have mechanical problems with them.
You're literally talking about military rifles from over 100 years ago. I'm talking about a civilian going into the consumer market and buying a rifle that was made in 1973. Oh, and by the way, that's after they ended up improving that same rifle in 2005 because they originally had an even sh!ttier reputation than they do now. So again, clearly a lot of people have issues with this damn model.
I don't see the point to this? That's true of literally anything. You could say the same thing about literally any crappy product.
"Give the Nokia-N-Gage the same amount of attention the Super NES has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary gaming system. Have a demand for more Nokia Games, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
"Give the Zune the same amount of attention the Ipod has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary music system. Have a demand for more Zune products, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
"Give edible underwear the same amount of attention the Fruit Of The Loom line has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary undergarments brand. Have a demand for more edible underwear, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
Guess what? Basically nobody has heard of Nokia-N-Gage and nobody has a Zune because they both sucked ass sideways so now people are using Ipods and Playing Xbox. The same thing goes for a Mini-14. It's not competitive enough against modern rifles -- even in states where ARs are banned. I (and others in this thread) are literally giving you reasons why that is. If you like that rifle it's great, but pretending that it didn't get a fair shake or something we're not debating it honestly is lousy.
It's like your offended the Ruger Mini has a lousy reputation. For some reason people get really defensive on this topic and I just don't get why.
Look man, I'm an engineer. When I discuss the failures of Ford Pinto, people don't come out of the woodwork defending their Pinto and pretending that the car's tendency to explode is not a big deal. When I say Apple products are engineered to be less performant because they do thermal throttling, people don't accuse me of calling "all Apple products pieces of junk." But mention that even budget ARs outperfom the Mini and people act like you called their grandmother ugly.
Look guys, if you like your Mini-14, you shouldn't give a flaming fook what anyone else thinks. If there's some counterpoints to the millions of criticisms of the rifle, we can debate those points. To the OP's original question, I don't think this model is engineered very well, and the Ranch Target has a LOT of mixed reviews from a pretty wide community of shooters. As I mentioned, some of those reviews are on this forum and it ironically reflects this conversation very closely.
For the record, this is the first time I recall reading this, but the fact that you've had to give this lecture apparently multiple times reinforces my original point that a lot of people obviously had a sh!tty experience with this rifle.
That said, if you want to spend 30% more on a rifle and then go spend hundreds more on all sorts of different ammo for weeks in hopes that it might be (at best) able to shoot at twice the error of an AR, that's fine. However, I think that's a pretty crappy argument in favor for this rifle, especially when you can easily find something that is much more performant out of the box at a cheaper cost that you won't have to spend weeks trying to coax it to do what you paid for it to do.
Well let's hold the phone for a minute. When you say "...the average Mini may not be as accurate as the average AR," I hope what you meant to write is "No Mini is nearly as accurate as virtually any AR in production with the exception of maybe some of the budget category or really old models." Suggesting that a Mini-14 is outperforming even a quarter the ARs on the market is something that I'd find highly dubious. The rifle is just not that accurate.
As an aside, I also don't recall writing "everyone should stop buying them." Look, if you want to shoot a Jennings Bryco because you want to, that's fine. It's a free country. I don't recall saying nobody should be allowed to have one or that you're a bad person for liking this rifle.
What I recall was walking into a conversation where people were debating the merits of the Ruger Mini-14 model and the complementary Ranch Target model. I came in to share that I literally owned one of these things and my experience as someone who actually spent a lot of time with it, took it to the range, tried different ammo, literally went to school for firearms in the US military, and actually used it to hunt was that it's not a performant rifle. I also suggested that the OP looked up the existing thread on THR about the Ranch Target Model where it was already debated.
I didn't bring this up in the original post because I anticipated massive butthurt but -- guess what? The thread that already exists is basically the exact same thing - a few people singing the praises of the rifle with basically everyone else saying it's not worth the money -- along with a bunch more bashing the mini.
Moreover, what I also recall writing is that they're more expensive than a ton of other weapons that don't have nearly as many problems -- and I don't recall accuracy being the only problem I listed . For the record, I don't recall ever having an SKS have the trigger assembly fall out when I shoot it, nor do I remember CETME mags being $40 a piece (both of which are legal in California and cheaper than a Ruger Mini).
Again, the Ruger Mini-14 fanboys get so bent out of shape when someone points out flaws in the weapon. I didn't say it was a "piece of junk." I said it's not performant, you can get something that does what it's trying to do way better for cheaper, it's not very accurate, and a lot of people who have bought them have mechanical problems with them.
You're literally talking about military rifles from over 100 years ago. I'm talking about a civilian going into the consumer market and buying a rifle that was made in 1973. Oh, and by the way, that's after they ended up improving that same rifle in 2005 because they originally had an even sh!ttier reputation than they do now. So again, clearly a lot of people have issues with this damn model.
I don't see the point to this? That's true of literally anything. You could say the same thing about literally any crappy product.
"Give the Nokia-N-Gage the same amount of attention the Super NES has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary gaming system. Have a demand for more Nokia Games, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
"Give the Zune the same amount of attention the Ipod has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary music system. Have a demand for more Zune products, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
"Give edible underwear the same amount of attention the Fruit Of The Loom line has had for the last 30 years, and it too could be a legendary undergarments brand. Have a demand for more edible underwear, and price would go down once supply was sustained"
Guess what? Basically nobody has heard of Nokia-N-Gage and nobody has a Zune because they both sucked ass sideways so now people are using Ipods and Playing Xbox. The same thing goes for a Mini-14. It's not competitive enough against modern rifles -- even in states where ARs are banned. I (and others in this thread) are literally giving you reasons why that is. If you like that rifle it's great, but pretending that it didn't get a fair shake or something we're not debating it honestly is lousy.
It's like your offended the Ruger Mini has a lousy reputation. For some reason people get really defensive on this topic and I just don't get why.
Look man, I'm an engineer. When I discuss the failures of Ford Pinto, people don't come out of the woodwork defending their Pinto and pretending that the car's tendency to explode is not a big deal. When I say Apple products are engineered to be less performant because they do thermal throttling, people don't accuse me of calling "all Apple products pieces of junk." But mention that even budget ARs outperfom the Mini and people act like you called their grandmother ugly.
Look guys, if you like your Mini-14, you shouldn't give a flaming fook what anyone else thinks. If there's some counterpoints to the millions of criticisms of the rifle, we can debate those points. To the OP's original question, I don't think this model is engineered very well, and the Ranch Target has a LOT of mixed reviews from a pretty wide community of shooters. As I mentioned, some of those reviews are on this forum and it ironically reflects this conversation very closely.
Last edited:
gotboostvr
Member
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
I got the second one when Minis were half the price of an AR. It was a replacement for the original that was lost in a fire. That one was a third the price of an AR when it was bought and rode in my patrol car with me when the new chief decreed ARs and 1911s off limits because they were too militaristic for police work and wouldn't approve lever actions because they were too wild west.
They, the ones who rag on the Mini, are the same type who go on the internet and claim the SKS/AK are inaccurate when all they have ever shot in them is steel cased ammo loaded by Vodka fueled Siberian peasants with a cut down shell casing for a powder measure and a rock for a hammer for the Lee type loading kit, or they guy who runs bargain unleaded in his Hellcat Charger and complains about its poor performance. In which ever endeavor one engages one has to put in effort to reap the best performance.
As the old saying goes: It is a poor workman who blames his tools.
You can believe what you want, but acting as if the millions of us who don't agree with your assessment about this one particular rifle simply don't know what we're talking about or "didn't put in effort" is patently inaccurate. If you read my post, you would have read that I spent a year with it trying to get it performant.
Also, you're full of bologna -- I have actually had much better performance from both my SKSes and AKs with steel cased Tula Ammo than I ever had with a Mini-14. It also didn't fall apart when I shot it and I could buy parts for it when they needed replaced instead of sending them to the damn factory.
But I guess I wasn't trying hard enough or whatever.
That said, this continues to prove my original point that some people can't keep their emotions out of this.
Here's a novel concept -- Let's take the high road and keep the discussion on task. If your only response to the litany of aforementioned criticisms of the rifle is literally dismissing them in exchange for name calling, then I don't know why you're on a discussion forum.
Just remember what you write on the internet is forever and, if some of you guys are really as attached to this rifle as you seem to be, you're doing it a disservice when a bunch of people list reasons they don't like it and the response is stuff like this.
Years from now, people are going to google common reviews of this rifle's, the SEO is going to pick up this thread, and they're going to see a bunch of people saying things like "This rifle is not accurate" followed up with things like "OH WELL YOU OBVIOUSLY PUT IN NO EFFORT BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME! I WAS A COP AND I LIKED IT1!1!!!
Just saying, those people probably aren't going to be convinced to buy Mini-14s.
Last edited:
Speedo66
Member
Certain guns, this one included, seem to bring out strong feelings in some people.
So my thought would be, like It would with any Glock, AR, etc that inspire ire, if you don’t like them, don’t buy one.
So my thought would be, like It would with any Glock, AR, etc that inspire ire, if you don’t like them, don’t buy one.
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
I, for one, don’t give a flying ROUS ass about how accurate they are. If I wanted accuracy I’d buy a bolt gun.
I care about fit, ergos and overall look. Given that, my choices are the Mini, the KelTec su16 and the Fightlight Rifle. The latter two are harder to find in my area than the former.
For me that’s where the discussion starts, and ends.
I care about fit, ergos and overall look. Given that, my choices are the Mini, the KelTec su16 and the Fightlight Rifle. The latter two are harder to find in my area than the former.
For me that’s where the discussion starts, and ends.
Eh, seems like we've reached the end on this one. Minis are just one of those things that people get all spun up about...
- Status
