Should I Get a Mini 14?

[1KPerDay]

My old Plainfield M1 Carbine will shoot circles around any Mini-14.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I've owned Mini's off and on for over 40 years. The one I have now I bought at Wally a few years ago for about the price the OP suggests. I put a cheap shotgun scope on it for distances up 100 yards. It is a dead accurate at the distances I need it for. With varmint loads it will absolutely tear a critter to pieces. It is now my porch gun replacing a .22 auto that did not do a good job on ground hogs and armadillos. I have some hi cap mags for it if SHTF ever occurs.

View attachment 762528

What scope do you have on there? That looks like it would be just about perfect for my CZ 527.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Yup

 

[briansmithwins]

300 yards is not an SD distance.
A Mini-14 is not worth the thousand bucks Ruger thinks they're worth.(MSRP is $999 for a 'Ranch Rifle'. $1069 and up for other models.) Not accurate enough for that kind of money. No more Target models listed by Ruger. They do go bang every time though. And $40 for a 20 round factory mag. My old Plainfield M1 Carbine will shoot circles around any Mini-14.

I'll take that challenge.

What conditions? Prone? Supported or unsupported? Optic to no optic? I can easily shoot at 100, 200, or 300 yards and post a picture of the results.

BSW

 

[flashhole]

You both need a witness but are still on the honor system. A little friendly competition is a good thing. 100 yards seems like a good distance. May I suggest a 3" target. Shoot-N-See is my favorite. I will mail targets to both of you if you agree to compete.

 

[DDDWho]

What scope do you have on there? That looks like it would be just about perfect for my CZ 527.

Its a Simmons shotgun scope, about $60 at Amazon. Mini's are heavy, the scope is light making the rifle manageable. Shotgun scopes are 50 yard scopes however I've zeroed it at 100 yards, works well for my purpose.

 

[Blkhrt13]

I love my mini 30. Only problems is mags are costly comparatively to ar mags. But it balances and carries much easier. Not to mention from a distance looks far more innocent.

 

[Dexter Winslett]

I prefer mine over my AR.

 

[Art Eatman]

Four early Minis; two blued and two stainless. I always used a Weaver K4. Mostly used 55-grain soft-point reloads. Did just fine on jackrabbits and coyotes. Fun plinking, as well. No matter, others' gripes. Mine worked well for me.

Never had to use one for self-defense, but even the world's worst Mini will group minute of cranium inside of fifty yards.

 

[JohnB-40]

No Complaints about my 583 series 5.56 Ranch Rifle. It puts rounds in a 3" circle at 100 yards with a Tech Sight and my old eyes.

 

[CoalTrain49]

My old Plainfield M1 Carbine will shoot circles around any Mini-14.

I've never seen an M1 carbine that could shoot 2 MOA. I've owned several and shot a few others. The USGI carbines were regulated for 4 MOA. If your carbine can shoot 2 MOA you have a very unusual carbine indeed. Like the stock Mini-14, they really aren't known for their ability to shoot tight groups.

The fact that a Mini-14 shoots a bottleneck cartridge would indicate to me that a load could be worked up to improve the precision of the rifle if one were willing to do the work. Also there are match grade barrels available (sub MOA) for the Mini-14 that can take advantage of the 223 cartridge. The straight wall 30 Carbine however has it's limitations. I've messed around with the loads enough to know that.

I wouldn't say any Mini-14 if I were you. There's probably more than one out there that could eat your lunch.

 

[MachIVshooter]

In my experience, minis are generally pretty reliable with good magazines. Accuracy varies, but is typically mediocre to poor.

I don't have a particular dislike of them, actually do appreciate the aesthetics. But the flip-flop of pricing between minis and ARs makes them a non-starter, IMO. When a mini was $400 and ARs started close to $1K, the mini had a place in the market. With minis running $750+ today and $400 ARs all over the place that will out-perform them in every way, they just don't make sense anymore. I'd buy another at ~$350-$400, but for what they want now, they can keep them.

 

[briansmithwins]

I'm going out to shoot rifles tomorrow or Wednesday. I'll take the Mini out and take pics of the resulting targets.

I'm thinking 200 yards, supported, irons only.

Edited to add: 10 round group, none of this 3 round BS.

BSW

 

[bob1285]

I owned one when AR's were $800-900 but now you can get a starter Ar for under $500 Bought one at $700 and sold it for $500 terrible resell $
A mini is still Over $600 the gun itself is a rattle box, it shoots fine at 75-100yrs with 12" targets
Pass on the Mini's and get a AR, just my opinion.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I've never seen an M1 carbine that could shoot 2 MOA. I've owned several and shot a few others. The USGI carbines were regulated for 4 MOA. If your carbine can shoot 2 MOA you have a very unusual carbine indeed. Like the stock Mini-14, they really aren't known for their ability to shoot tight groups.

The fact that a Mini-14 shoots a bottleneck cartridge would indicate to me that a load could be worked up to improve the precision of the rifle if one were willing to do the work. Also there are match grade barrels available (sub MOA) for the Mini-14 that can take advantage of the 223 cartridge. The straight wall 30 Carbine however has it's limitations. I've messed around with the loads enough to know that.

I wouldn't say any Mini-14 if I were you. There's probably more than one out there that could eat your lunch.

Not only have I shot 2-inch 100-yd groups with both my carbines (1944 Inland and a 1st gen Universal), but my 11 yr-old daughter has managed it on occasion as well. Would they do 2 MOA at 2 or 300 yards? Dunno- I'll probably never find out. Would they be able to do it consistently after a few rapid-fire bursts get the barrel red hot? Dunno that either. But, at least in my experience, there is nothing inherently innacurate with the M1 carbine. Your results may differ, of course.

 

[Kame B.]

Thanks, gang.

The fact that the rear sight is not range adjustable just seems cheap to me. Frankly it's kind of a deal breaker. I am used to military rifles such as the M4 carbine that we use at work, and also my old milsurps, that are range increment adjustable usually in 100's of meters or yards.

For a nearly $700 rifle you'd think they would come with such sights.

The sights are adjustable, who said they were not? The ghost ring screws up and down for elevation, and you have to use a tool to adjust windage. But if you are gonna shoot iron sights only I highly recommend tech sights: http://www.tech-sights.com/mini-products/
I also recommend The perfect union forums in the Mini 14 section if you would like to learn true things about the Mini 14: http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/ruger-mini-14-mini-30/

 

[WrongHanded]

The sights are adjustable, who said they were not? The ghost ring screws up and down for elevation, and you have to use a tool to adjust windage.

No one said they weren't adjustable. But a few have said they are not "range adjustable". They have no preset markers for different ranges, nor are they adjustable on the fly. And to my recollection, the windage adjustment is what locks in the elevation adjustment, so they are not isolated from one another. But I only set mine the one time, so I may be mistaken.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Not only have I shot 2-inch 100-yd groups with both my carbines (1944 Inland and a 1st gen Universal), but my 11 yr-old daughter has managed it on occasion as well. Would they do 2 MOA at 2 or 300 yards? Dunno- I'll probably never find out. Would they be able to do it consistently after a few rapid-fire bursts get the barrel red hot? Dunno that either. But, at least in my experience, there is nothing inherently innacurate with the M1 carbine. Your results may differ, of course.

Sounds like you have an exceptional carbine.

The vast majority are 3-4 MOA.

It's really hard to get the precision any better than that because the barrels just weren't manufactured (regulated) to achieve better precision. At the time the carbine was produced the gov't placed almost impossible production goals on the mfg's. A few of them failed miserably and many barrels didn't pass inspection. Those had heated and straightened. A 4 MOA target was used to pass or fail a rifle. It's true that many carbines have replacement barrels but those barrels were produced during the war by the same mfg's to be used as replacement parts. I have an Inland with a lightly used Winchester barrel. It shoots about 3 MOA.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Sounds like you have an exceptional carbine.

The vast majority are 3-4 MOA.

It's really hard to get the precision any better than that because the barrels just weren't manufactured (regulated) to achieve better precision. At the time the carbine was produced the gov't placed almost impossible production goals on the mfg's. A few of them failed miserably and many barrels didn't pass inspection. Those had heated and straightened. A 4 MOA target was used to pass or fail a rifle. It's true that many carbines have replacement barrels but those barrels were produced during the war by the same mfg's to be used as replacement parts. I have an Inland with a lightly used Winchester barrel. It shoots about 3 MOA.

Guess I got lucky with the Inland . As for Universal, they made their own barrel (or had them made) and no complaints here. In fact, the fit, finish, and overall quality of the 1st gen. Yoonie is very impressive. Mine now wears a steel GI trigger housing, but is otherwise all original.
Come to think about it, I've never experienced the dreaded Mini barrel droop issue either, and Ive owned two stainless and one blued early production, thin barrel guns. Guess I never got one hot enough? Those would shoot 2-3 MOA pretty much consistently.
I must be AK lucky too. Had two Norincos, a Yugo, and a Maadi, and all were 2-3 MOA if I did my part.
Guns are fun.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I picked up an older Mini 14 at a LGS for less than the price of the Leupold scope, bi-pod, and other accessories that some optimist hung on it. Functionally, it was a free gun. I liked it as a fun gun, but I'd never pay new price for a mediocre rifle like that. I hung a cheap red dot on it and keep it as a low-light plinker.

 

[Dexter Winslett]

Well, mine is so old it cost $400.00 when I bought it. Slick Willie the Pedophile was elected, but not yet in office, so I bought one. I have taken several deer with .223/.556 Ranch Rifle. I do like it. Accuracy is no problem and it does not rattle. Like everything else, I reckon it was made better back then.

 

[GRIZ22]

Although I'm a fan of the Mini 14 the price of a new one doesn't make it competitive with the price of an AR.

The first Mini 14 I bought back in the 70s cost me $160 brand new. About half the price of an AR at the time. That's why I bought it. The only AR there was was a Colt then. The late 70s brought other AR manufacturers out. Bushmaster was the first I remember. Now everyone makes an AR and that means lower prices. Colt has even lowered their prices over the past few years to stay in the game. No one makes anything like the Mini 14 and as long as people keep buying them Ruger has no incentive to lower the price.

 

[gsbuickman]

I've always wanted a mini 14 Ranch Rifle in the original blonde wood furniture ever since I was a kid growing up watching The A-Team, before I really understood anything about the history of the M14 platform.

Here it is a number of years later and I've had a buttload of firearm since then but I have yet to acquire a mini 14 for my collection as much as I've always wanted one because I'm primarily into milsurps rather than production firearms. It's pretty hard to beat the build quality, strength and battle proven reliability that milsurps have to offer over modern production guns these days.

I just can't justify spending $600 - $900+ on a cheap production Mini-14 just because they come with a bull barrel and cheap Tupperware furniture when I can spend 1/2 as much on a really nice SKS instead and have a far more reliable rifle with much better accuracy anyway. With that being said if I had the opportunity to add a 70's or early 80's Mini-14 Ranch in the original blonde wood furniture to my collection for around $300 I'd jump on it all day long, but they'll be selling ice cubes in Hell before I decide to pay the over-inflated outrageous prices for what they want for them today.

Until then I'll stick to my trusty SKS's for my intermediate cartridge needs. With decent ammo they're 2" moa @ 200 yds & minute of bad guy at 300 yds all day long just like they were designed to do. You can leave them stock or add a Tapco mag adapter, extended mag release and some 20 round Tapco AK mags and you have a pretty sweet setup.

 

[gsbuickman]

On another note, like you I don't own anything in 5.56 or 223, but if there's some steel out there that needs ringing or some ferocious two liter bottles and pop cans that need taught a lesson from a similar cartridge, I'll just grab my Japanese type 99 arisaka that's been rechambered and rebarreled for 22-250, or my Norwegian krag Jorgensen by Steyr or my Swedish 94/14 both of which are in 6.5 Swedish and are ballistically superior to the 5.56 / 223 in every way.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I have had 2. Neither were accurate. One was not reliable. Mags are expensive & hard to find. Get an AR.