Mr. Ruger Quote about Mini coming out a year earlier

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Golden_006

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
285
Mr. Ruger supposedly claimed that if his Mini would've come out a year earlier -- the US army would be shooting Rugers.

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/guns-and-weapons/top-gun-ruger-mini-14-5356mm/

This is the only place I've read this and the only proof that it could be true that this firearm is combat ready, as far I've researched anyway, is the NYPD Special forces anti-terror groups that have trained with the gun for years; but have recently switched to M-4 because the Mini can't be relied upon past 100 yards supposedly. This coming from a police force that's about to melt down a bunch of Mossberg shotguns because they broke one of them target shooting. I already know about Bahamas army who used them because they got a great deal on them or whatever. . .

Does anyone have any actual evidence that the Mini could not handle combat except for the self-fullfilling prophecy that it hasn't been used in combat yet therefore couldn't handle combat?
 
Last edited:
Since the action is based on the Garand principle, I don't know why it wouldn't do the job in the correct caliber. My mini target is surely accurate enough for a semi-auto rifle.
 
Like the article says, "...conjecture." Looks like a comment tossed out as a provocation.

The select-fire version of the Mini reportedly was not as reliable as the Colt proved to be. IOW, who knows what ordnance testing would have shown? Who knows what results might have followed any "de-bugging" of the select-fire version?

This many years later, though, it's merely idle speculation...
 
Who knows what results might have followed any "de-bugging" of the select-fire version?
Click to expand...

True. IMO the Mini-14, if subjected to the demands of military use, could have been refined to the point of being a really, really nice rifle. Note that the M-16 wasn't all that great, either, until it had seen combat and was refined accordingly.

The design itself is quite good, IMO. Little things like refining the gas port, changing the barrel, and a few other tweaks can turn it into a truly great gun. The problem right now is that the only way to get that great Mini is from low-production customizers, so the cost is high.

If the factory made those parts, the price would be marginally higher, but not as much as it is. In fact, Ruger did greatly improve the Mini-14 a few years back, and the price didn't change dramatically, if at all, when they did.
 
I've read in a few places now that Ruger really pushed AC556/Mini 14 sales in South America, and that thousands were purchased and sent there. If this is true, it would be interesting to see what they were used for and in what environment as this would probably be the closest thing we'd see for "combat testing" on those rifles.


Here is a quote from Bart Skelton:
William B. Ruger and his engineers designed the Mini-14 to closely resemble a scaled-down version of the M-14 battle rifle, sans the full-auto switch, at least for the civilian version. (Ruger has produced fully automatic versions of the Mini-14 and sold a boatload of them to various governments around the world for both military and police applications. My dad, Skeeter Skelton, accompanied Ruger executives into South and Central America in the 1970s demonstrating the Mini-14 to government officials.)
Click to expand...
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/rugranch_071807/index.html
 
Elmer Keith wrote, years later, about his first experience with early Garands in 1940, when they were still semi-secret. They fed well, but just like the Mini-14s that people complain about, they wouldn't shoot straight after a few shots, because the barrels heated up and warped.

No rifle, not even a legendary one, is perfect before it's had some real-world testing and refinement.
 
They would have had to make parts interchangeable like AR's. If you break a part on a mini it needs to be hand fitted at the factory. Big fail for a SHTF weapon.
 
If you break a part on a mini it needs to be hand fitted at the factory
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is correct. It wasn't my experience, though the part I broke might not be what you're referring to.

The AR goes together like tinker toys. A few special tools, and you can do anything on an AR. THAT is a big deal for military use, and it's true that the Mini can't match that, as currently built.
 
Don't forget that all the aftermarket stuff for AR's wasn't around when the Army adopted it. The vast majority of that stuff has only come around after the last AWB.

Still, if the quote is accurate, it was just conjecture....but seemingly a safe conjecture given the way the Army has been known to make decisions on new small-arms.

The M14 was only held to a standard of 3-4moa, and the Mini (before recent barrel improvements) was in a similar category....

Additionally, while we're on the subject, Stoner designed the AR with one powder in mind, and the Army used another...slow vs. fast burning (i'm dyslexic so i can't remember which way it went)....and the result was less accuracy in the first few years of deployment, along with the mechanical issues (that were in part caused by the powder, and in part to a lack of cleaning supplies.)
 
Last edited:
I am sure the Mini, with time and development could have made it. Who knows how far it could have gone with gov't money invested in improvements.
I heard many horror stories about M16's when they were first issued, pretty scarey stuff actually. You have to suspect that Rugar Firearms wouldnt have developed many of its weapons past the Mini had it been accepted, most effort would have went in to refinement rather than R&D.
Bill really lost all of my respect though when it came down to the whole issue of High Capacity magazines in his later years.
He made some great guns, I own many of them actually. The mini is sure one of the greats, but I just couldnt understand his position on the HiCap Magazine issue.
I wonder what he would have to say today about the SR-556?
 
I don't believe this is correct. It wasn't my experience, though the part I broke might not be what you're referring to.
Click to expand...

I correct myself, some parts need to be factory fitted. I inquired about a replacement bolt, factory said it must be fitted. The same with a firing pin.

from ruger manual: *Parts designated by an asterisk must be factory fitted. These parts are fitted on
an exchange basis only. We will not return the replaced parts. We will not return
any part that is broken, malfunctioning, badly worn or has been modified. See
“Warning – Parts Purchasers,” above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top