View Full Version : Mini-14 reliability...
Some video we shot on the 4th of July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfqZFWpk9s
TLDR version:
Mini-14 would not work dirty no matter the lube used or dry. Adding more oil got it running again.
H
There's a reason that rifle isn't considered for serious work
I agree completely. But try and tell that to some folks...
Over on Perfect Union they are coming up with all kinds of reasons why that test isn't 'fair'.
H
Informative vid.. I only have limited exp with the mini 14, but I thought that they were GTG(non-combat). Have always seen them used as ranch guns, and the design being similar to M14, kinda figured they could walk through the mud with ya. After seeing this and how it handle dirt, meh.. Ranch guns gonna get dirty.
Suwannee Tim
07-11-13, 13:43
There's a reason that rifle isn't considered for serious work
One reason of many.
Moose-Knuckle
07-11-13, 16:47
When I graduated HS I was given a Mini-14 . . . several years later I took it to a gun show and sold it, took those funds and purchased an Arsenal SLR-105 . . . haven't looked back. :cool:
They only looked cool on The A-Team.
If you're going to run a Mini...
domestically manufactured, .223 Rem SAAMI spec ammo
OEM 5rd or 20rd magazines
lube generously, relube often
stock a spare FP and extractor
See previous Mini-14 threads for more on the ins and outs of the above.
Oh the dudes that have Mini's are for sure in love with them, go to the range about a half dozen times a year with a friend that has one( sorry don't know exact model number, but it doesn't matter anyway ) he always has an excuse for his Malf-O-Matic while in that time frame I've had 2 ammo related malfs ( one was a case that expanded and wouldn't extract without a cleaning rod, and the other was a
primer that became unseated and twisted about 45 degrees when the firing pin hit it, both from the same box of Winchester white box ) with any 3 of my AR's.
I agree completely. But try and tell that to some folks...
Over on Perfect Union they are coming up with all kinds of reasons why that test isn't 'fair'.
H
Link them to one of the Daniel Defense torture test vids, doubt that will have an impact on them though. I'm gonna show this vid to my Mini holdout friend and see what he has to say.
I have the most recent incarnation of the platform. It's a nice plinker and critter gitter. Maybe an OK home defender, but by no means is it a serious work gun - even though the company that manufactures it tries to create the perception that it's adequate for that role. I like it for what it is...a fun gun.
The minis worked perfectly on A team!!
But nobody ever died when they were shot with them.:sarcastic:
There's a reason that rifle isn't considered for serious work
you're one of the exceedingly few people that actually has "serious work" to do with a rifle.
i have personally seen many, many AR "malf-o-matics" - enough to conclusively deduce that the AR is an unreliable, overly complicated and incredibly overpriced squirrel gun.
and of course, my evidence-based conclusions are wrong (well, except for the price thing...)
everyone knows that mini's can't hit a barn, AK's will run with the bolt rusted shut, and AR's won't run unless you clean them with a dental pick - right?
i had a mini-14 a long time ago. never had a problem with it.
recently inherited a mini-30. haven't run it much, with the ammo situation, but it goes bang with boring regularity so far.
undoubtedly, the mini has plenty of warts. but for what they cost, none of you would be caught with a similarly priced AR - or you would make all kinds of excuses about it being a cheap AR rather than the basic design itself.
look at all the things that have to be "right" about an AR before it is considered serious...
Tzintzuntzan
07-13-13, 17:42
Aside from the obvious question, why would you ruin a sifter :confused: I think that pretty much answers any "What's wrong with the Mini 14?" complaints.
As far as excuses about why a POS is something that should not be bought... I'm at a loss to why that question is being asked. Jam-o-matics aren't limited to any one type of firearm and frankly anyone whose "experience" finds the AR design to be a POS has limited "experience".
My NRA edition Mini has been great. Just an example of one, of course, but I have had zero problems with it. Since I'm in CA, we have limited choices.
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3086/stex.jpg
Have you guys done this same test with an AK? Your applying an insane amount of dirt to that gun.
Not saying I'm a fan of the Mini14 but do this to an AK and run the same tests. I'm curious how it will pan out.
An AK couldn't possibly live up to the standard set by the Mini-14.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnTdQ0_ejJE
a local PD only recently disposed of their last mini-14 after 20 years of service. They didnt have any complaints and the local gunshop that purchased them sold out in short order.
Those who bought them report nothing but positive feedback. They do seem to prefer Ruger factory magazines. But Colt likes good magazines too, and of the ARs I've seen fail on a range, it's 8 times out of 10 due to someone using an el cheapo aftermarket "magazine" made of cheap components.
Trade out magazines and they finish the course of fire without any further hiccup. Same ammo, same rifle, just different quality feeding device.
Some video we shot on the 4th of July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfqZFWpk9s
TLDR version:
Mini-14 would not work dirty no matter the lube used or dry. Adding more oil got it running again.
H
being only a casual mini-(30) user myself, this video was pretty disturbing. i had always heard that mini's were/are very reliable (with factory mags).
but since the mini design is essentially "a tribute" to the garand & m14, i figured i'd look around and see about problems with those 2 combat-proven rifles.
after some time spent with The Google, it seems like the garand action is dependent on proper lubrication (and proper lubricant) to be "combat reliable."
hmmm - sounds a lot like the AR so far...
and i'm no expert, but i'm pretty sure that video does not demonstrate a properly lubed mini - it sure doesn't seem to show a properly trained mini operator.
before you get your torches out, i'm not at all saying that the mini is as good as a (modern, tier 1) AR.
couple of things though:
one would EXPECT that the AR, which was developed after lessons learned in several wars, would be more robust than a design fielded when hitler was still just a small time dictator.
and let's not forget the reputation the M16 earned when it first went into combat.
and while the AR is undoubtedly more self-contained when it comes to dirt intrusion, it can still be quite unreliable when it comes to mags and lube. and staked parts, and m4 cuts, and MPI/HPT, and chrome lining, teflon coating, etc., etc.
and once that dust cover opens (which it is after the first shot, right? ), there's all kinds of room for crap to foul the works.
anyhow, this video intrigues me enough that i've ordered "a proper" type of lube for the garand action and i'm going to run the same test again - (as soon as i can find some brass cased 7.62).
no idea if the mini will fare better, but it seems appropriate to level the field.
and just in case i'm attacked by a man with a dirt filled baking sifter, i'll keep my AK's by the bed in the meantime. ;)
I had one for a short time. It did need to be kept clean, especially the gas block. I lubed generously and as long as I used good mags it did run. But finding good mags at that time was hard and I learned a few lessons on factory vs aftermarket magazines. Sold it to fund something else.
RogerinTPA
07-17-13, 12:21
I had a folding stock mini-14 for several years in the mid 80's and early 90's. It functioned well but truth be told, it was rarely shot. Today, I only see it in the 'ranch rifle' mode, an emergency battlefield pick-up, or a cheap alternative to more expensive ARs if you are low on coin. The same feeling I have for BM, RRA, or Stag...
CA_Shooter
07-17-13, 21:36
While I have a couple of AR's also being here in CA and having a Mini-14 makes sense. I have a 581-series thats a couple of years old that I have run through a few local carbine classes without issue.
Definetly combat accurate out to 100-200 yards. I only use Ruger OEM mags and keep it lubed with grease. It will feed both steel and brass cased ammo with no issues compared to my AR's which are finicky with steel cased ammo of any type.
Now saying that, the AR would be my first choice always if I needed to reach for a rifle but I wouldn't feel underarmed with the Mini-14 esp here in CA.
TLDR version:
Mini-14 would not work dirty no matter the lube used or dry. Adding more oil got it running again.
i replicated this test yesterday using my own mini-30. i ensured the rifle was greased according to Garand specs, and used factory Ruger mags.
the magazine got so gritty that the follower would not slide, and the rounds literally fell out. didn't even bother to try to run it.
substituted a different and clean magazine, but...
...similar un-reliability was experienced:
rifle was essentially a single-shot, with 2 lockups that required "mortaring" to clear.
the failures were different, though, being mainly failure to extract. i.e., no failure-to-battery malfs as in the original video. but malfs are malfs:
rifle would go bang, but no reset on trigger. so, manually cycle op-rod, empty extracts, fresh round feeds, bang, no click...and repeat, pretty much every round.
so, i guess this is a "city" rifle - likes to party, just doesn't want to get really dirty.
wetidlerjr
07-28-13, 21:48
I have two Mini-14s which are reasonably accurate, reliable and I don't dump excessive amounts of dirt on them. I will keep both but I rely on my ARs for serious business. As always, YMMV and if you don't like Mini-14s then don't buy one.
I doubt you'll ever do that in regular use,even in a battle I have questions of such happening....I personally think all this tossing around about "serious use" on the net is just a load of bull malarkey said by people who want to feel intelligent and smug about themselves.
Is the mini the best there is? no.
Would it do if you're getting shot at and unfriendly folks are trying to KILL you? yep.
Honestly if things are going in the loo and you toss me any gun I'll be pleased as long as it doesn't fly apart after shooting a few rounds.
The mini has served the police well for years and more then a few home owners,I suspect it'll keep doing that.
I have two Mini-14s which are reasonably accurate, reliable and I don't dump excessive amounts of dirt on them. I will keep both but I rely on my ARs for serious business. As always, YMMV and if you don't like Mini-14s then don't buy one.
agree, but this isn't about trashing the mini. it's about repeatable facts. now we have a referenceable, repeatable test that shows the AR will function when the Mini will not.
unlikely? extreme? unfair, even? absolutely.
a chevy malibu is a fine car and does most everything adequately. until you need to drive down an unplowed road, or a flooded street, or down a highway median. then, you better have a silverado if you want to keep going...
all in all, though, i wanted to see if (my own) properly lubed mini would be able to succeed in the test.
it did not - and now i know more about it's operating envelope.
i'm definitely keeping my mini, especially b/c it's a 7.62; i'm just going to keep it reasonably clean, too. ;)
Every weapon has an achilles heel. The Mini-14 is the best worst option for some of us, at least for now.
PA PATRIOT
07-29-13, 14:18
I have been toting a Stainless Mini-14 in a Butler Creek Folding stock as a truck/traveling gun for the past 25 years. Other then running 20rd Ruger Magazines and after 15 years putting a Warner rail and a 30mm speed dot she is a stock gun per say.
The main problem some Mini's have is that owners run them dry and if they do apply lube its not the correct type or in the right locations. Also some use after market magazines which are junk and the ones running Ruger magazines do not take the time to tune them properly. And lastly the older Rugers are .223 cut chambers but owners keep shooting 5.56 out of them which is the reason why the extractors are pulling off the rim as the higher pressures are throwing the cycle timing off.
I use a good synthetic grease in the right areas, tuned Ruger magazines, proper .223 pressure ammunition and a new recoil spring every 3500rds and she works 100% of the time. Now I do have one other small trick I use while the Ruger is traveling with me and that is a small "U" shaped sleeve over the action to prevent dirt and debris from finding their way into the action.
Now I'm not saying a Mini is perfect for everyone but for those who are willing to put the proper maintenance and care they can serve many in specialized roles.
wetidlerjr
07-29-13, 20:15
...but this isn't about trashing the mini...Sure it is. Someone starts a Mini-14 thread and three or four jump in to trash it and three or four jump in to say it's OK within it's limitations.
Either way it doesn't bother me and, as I said, I'm keeping mine. I like 'em.
I have been toting a Stainless Mini-14 in a Butler Creek Folding stock as a truck/traveling gun for the past 25 years. Other then running 20rd Ruger Magazines and after 15 years putting a Warner rail and a 30mm speed dot she is a stock gun per say.
The main problem some Mini's have is that owners run them dry and if they do apply lube its not the correct type or in the right locations. Also some use after market magazines which are junk and the ones running Ruger magazines do not take the time to tune them properly. And lastly the older Rugers are .223 cut chambers but owners keep shooting 5.56 out of them which is the reason why the extractors are pulling off the rim as the higher pressures are throwing the cycle timing off.
I use a good synthetic grease in the right areas, tuned Ruger magazines, proper .223 pressure ammunition and a new recoil spring every 3500rds and she works 100% of the time. Now I do have one other small trick I use while the Ruger is traveling with me and that is a small "U" shaped sleeve over the action to prevent dirt and debris from finding their way into the action.
Now I'm not saying a Mini is perfect for everyone but for those who are willing to put the proper maintenance and care they can serve many in specialized roles.
The rifle not being lubricated wasn't a issue in 2 out of the 3 tests. The reason for repeating the test oiled, greased, and dry was to prevent people from saying that the Mini would have performed perfectly if it was just run (oiled, greased, dry).
The manual says that the 188 series is chambered for 556 NATO. Shooting weaker ammo might have helped with the failures to extract but I don't see how it would have helped with the failures to return to battery.
I do agree that a action cover would have helped the Mini. OTOH, if many Mini fanatics keep claiming that closing the ejection port door on the AR is 'cheating' what would using a action cover on the Mini be?
It was a interesting test to do. Next time I need to borrow a 500 series Mini and repeat the testing, maybe adding water washout and/or mud testing. It did bother me that the Mini I used had FTExtract when clean and greased. I was not expecting that.
H
Sure it is. Someone starts a Mini-14 thread and three or four jump in to trash it and three or four jump in to say it's OK within it's limitations.
Either way it doesn't bother me and, as I said, I'm keeping mine. I like 'em.
no - it's not: i'm a mini OWNER - 2x now that i inherited the mini-30.
when i first saw the video i was skeptical and i vowed to repeat the test with a properly lubed, stock mini.
and guess what? my mini didn't work, either.
so there might be some unsubstantiated sh*t-talking going on, but we've got more tested, and repeatable, information now.
that's the core of the Scientific Method, so truth - not bashing.
what we have, again, is proof that mini's won't run under conditions that the AR literally shakes off.
will i get rid of my mini because it wont run under extreme conditions? no, i'll just use it appropriately. it's a hell of a good travel/woods/truck gun with a chopped barrel and a folding stock.
and since it's .30cal, i don't have to worry about .223's limitations, either.
The manual says that the 188 series is chambered for 556 NATO. Shooting weaker ammo might have helped with the failures to extract but I don't see how it would have helped with the failures to return to battery.
when cleaning mine, there was a LOT of crap in the op rod and bolt channels. i thought those would work themselves clean, but they didn't and i can see how that would be enough to cause repeated FTE's.
interestingly, though, i had zero RtB failures.
It was a interesting test to do. Next time I need to borrow a 500 series Mini and repeat the testing, maybe adding water washout and/or mud testing. It did bother me that the Mini I used had FTExtract when clean and greased. I was not expecting that
mine's a 580. outside of this test, i haven't had an FT-anything yet.
Phillygunguy
07-30-13, 09:11
I own an old Mini GB model bought it before I got an AR, I shot a couple hundred rounds of Wolf 223 and not one malfunction, that's no test I know but just surprised it didn't choke with Wolf ammo anyway It sits in my closet waiting for my lazy ass to sell it I still wouldnt rely on it to save my life
no - it's not: i'm a mini OWNER - 2x now that i inherited the mini-30.
when i first saw the video i was skeptical and i vowed to repeat the test with a properly lubed, stock mini.
and guess what? my mini didn't work, either.
so there might be some unsubstantiated sh*t-talking going on, but we've got more tested, and repeatable, information now.
that's the core of the Scientific Method, so truth - not bashing.
what we have, again, is proof that mini's won't run under conditions that the AR literally shakes off.
will i get rid of my mini because it wont run under extreme conditions? no, i'll just use it appropriately. it's a hell of a good travel/woods/truck gun with a chopped barrel and a folding stock.
and since it's .30cal, i don't have to worry about .223's limitations, either.
To be fair, though. The thread is about the Mini-14, not the Mini-30. The 30 may have issues that are not applicable to the 14. That would be like equating two AR's in different calibers. Not really the best comparison. As for the "science" part.... Definitive conclusions based on examples of one are simply not used in science. In order for it to be scientific, you'd need to show statistical correlations that expand through many guns in order to make blanket conclusions. Just sayin'.
To be fair, though. The thread is about the Mini-14, not the Mini-30. The 30 may have issues that are not applicable to the 14. That would be like equating two AR's in different calibers. Not really the best comparison. As for the "science" part.... Definitive conclusions based on examples of one are simply not used in science. In order for it to be scientific, you'd need to show statistical correlations that expand through many guns in order to make blanket conclusions. Just sayin'.
angels dancing...
you're talking statistics, not scientific method. and sam clemens was right about statistics.
having owned both (and several AR's in diff calibers), the mech differences between mini's in 5.56 and 7.62R aren't all that striking.
the only thing that changes with sample size is confidence - and now we have 2x the sample size from the first test, so our non-definitive confidence is twice as great as before.
and if we run a test 2x under very similar conditions and get the same result, we've at least got a trend.
semantics aside, you want to wager up that the results will change if we increase the sample size to be statistically significant?
angels dancing...
you're talking statistics, not scientific method. and sam clemens was right about statistics.
having owned both (and several AR's in diff calibers), the mech differences between mini's in 5.56 and 7.62R aren't all that striking.
the only thing that changes with sample size is confidence - and now we have 2x the sample size from the first test, so our non-definitive confidence is twice as great as before.
and if we run a test 2x under very similar conditions and get the same result, we've at least got a trend.
semantics aside, you want to wager up that the results will change if we increase the sample size to be statistically significant?
I'm sorry, but do you even know what the scientific method is? You're leaving out some major parts of it. You're confusing your theory with a conclusion. There's a big difference. Not only that, by simply dismissing critical differences between two significantly different systems you negate the utility of your observations. Mini-14's can be sufficiently reliable guns, but they're not for everybody in every situation. Why not leave it up to the person to decide if it fits their needs without making baseless claims and calling them "science"? As for statistics, it's a scientific discipline. It's used in real science to show relationships in data. If you don't want to argue semantics, don't misuse words.
Anyway, there are very significant differences in the weapons. The magazine is completely different, and that's a pretty critical aspect of any gun. Never mind the ballistic differences, which are also important. Apples and oranges.
A hypothetical example -
"All Glock owners who bought "problematic" Gen4 9mm's are simply mistaken because my Gen4 G21 works great!" See how such arguments don't work?
To be fair, though. The thread is about the Mini-14, not the Mini-30. The 30 may have issues that are not applicable to the 14. That would be like equating two AR's in different calibers. Not really the best comparison. As for the "science" part.... Definitive conclusions based on examples of one are simply not used in science. In order for it to be scientific, you'd need to show statistical correlations that expand through many guns in order to make blanket conclusions. Just sayin'.
A sample size of one is clearly lacking. But, each run with the Mini took about an hour to complete. All the cleaning and setup time was edited out.
I'd love to run 10 Mini-14s and see what happens. But I was only able to borrow one. Plus, as it was I burned about $50 in ammo.
Besides, even if I ran 10 Mini-14s there would be naysayers saying that if I'd just (pick one or multiple)
1) Opened the dust cover on the AR.
2) Didn't get the Mini quite that dirty.
3) Used a Mini of the (500, 180 series) right generation.
4) Used some type of miracle lube.
5) Cleaned the dirt off the Mini before shooting it.
then the results would be totally different.
I can never prove that there isn't _a_ Mini-14 that would work when (that specific FrankenBushy) AR rifle would fail.
All I can conclusively say is that, that specific 188 series Mini-14, using NATO spec SS109 ammo, lubricated variously with Royco CLP, graphited Brit Army grease, and stripped of lube, using OEM Ruger mags, failed to function while a AR and AUG, under the same conditions, and lubricated with CLP, did not have _any_ malfunctions.
H
A sample size of one is clearly lacking. But, each run with the Mini took about an hour to complete. All the cleaning and setup time was edited out.
I'd love to run 10 Mini-14s and see what happens. But I was only able to borrow one. Plus, as it was I burned about $50 in ammo.
Besides, even if I ran 10 Mini-14s there would be naysayers saying that if I'd just (pick one or multiple)
1) Opened the dust cover on the AR.
2) Didn't get the Mini quite that dirty.
3) Used a Mini of the (500, 180 series) right generation.
4) Used some type of miracle lube.
5) Cleaned the dirt off the Mini before shooting it.
then the results would be totally different.
I can never prove that there isn't _a_ Mini-14 that would work when (that specific FrankenBushy) AR rifle would fail.
All I can conclusively say is that, that specific 188 series Mini-14, using NATO spec SS109 ammo, lubricated variously with Royco CLP, graphited Brit Army grease, and stripped of lube, using OEM Ruger mags, failed to function while a AR and AUG, under the same conditions, and lubricated with CLP, did not have _any_ malfunctions.
H
And I do not doubt your observations. Lots of people have reported malfunctions with the Mini-14. But, that could be one aspect of their common-ness. They're a very popular gun, and with any large sample size, there's going to be some that don't work very well. I've attended a CA carbine class where AR's were failing often, and not one Mini-14 had an issue. Would I draw from that that the AR is unreliable and the Mini-14 IS? Nah. I have no idea what the other factors were, be they related to wear, lube, filth in the weapons, ammo, etc. No clue. It was a crappy class taught by a crappy instructor, but the round count was fairly high. It did allow me some confidence that my particular rifle was sufficiently reliable for HD use (by my own subjective standards), but that's about all I could really say I learned from the experience. Anyway, if you find the Mini suits a role for you, great. If not, great. Being in CA we don't have the ability to legally use a non-registered "assault weapon" in the HD role. So we're relegated to utilize what options are available to us. In my view, the Mini-14 isn't a bad choice if you like them and have tested the particular rifle you want to use for that purpose. YMMV, as they say. ;)
I'm sorry, but do you even know what the scientific method is? You're leaving out some major parts of it. You're confusing your theory with a conclusion. There's a big difference. Not only that, by simply dismissing critical differences between two significantly different systems you negate the utility of your observations. Mini-14's can be sufficiently reliable guns, but they're not for everybody in every situation. Why not leave it up to the person to decide if it fits their needs without making baseless claims and calling them "science"? As for statistics, it's a scientific discipline. It's used in real science to show relationships in data. If you don't want to argue semantics, don't misuse words.
Anyway, there are very significant differences in the weapons. The magazine is completely different, and that's a pretty critical aspect of any gun. Never mind the ballistic differences, which are also important. Apples and oranges.
A hypothetical example -
"All Glock owners who bought "problematic" Gen4 9mm's are simply mistaken because my Gen4 G21 works great!" See how such arguments don't work?
you're missing the forest for the trees...
we're not comparing different model mini's, we're comparing mini's and AR's. from that perspective the diffs between a mini-30 and a mini-14 are vanishingly small.
a hypo for you:
choose between a chevy malibu, a honda accord or a jeep wrangler to go trail riding...?
and if you have a mini, like i do, step up and add to the sample size - you'll grow it by 50%!
Wow, from some of these writings you would think Mini 14s were just about as usable as a baseball bat. I've had a few Minis in my long shooting life---I can't think of a single one that gave me any issues---yeah, they weren't target rifles, but I seem to be able to hit what I'am aiming at. They all ran fine (and all I used was plain old BreakFree CLP)---I always used factory magazines---just no problems.
I still have three of them and would feel well-armed if I needed to use them...:cray:
I have owned 3 Mini-14's and have fired several thousands (I didn't keep track track of round count on 1st two, but latest has 1200 rds). Using factory mags, I have not had a single malfunction.
The latest version got rid of my main complaint - accuracy. It is not a tack driver, but it will shoot under 3 MOA with iron sights. One of the rifles wouldn't shoot under 4 MOA with a scope on a bench trying a variety of ammo.
Wow, from some of these writings you would think Mini 14s were just about as usable as a baseball bat. I've had a few Minis in my long shooting life---I can't think of a single one that gave me any issues---yeah, they weren't target rifles, but I seem to be able to hit what I'am aiming at. They all ran fine (and all I used was plain old BreakFree CLP)---I always used factory magazines---just no problems.
I still have three of them and would feel well-armed if I needed to use them...:cray:
I've never said the Mini was useless. My only point was that what many people tout as a strength of the Mini-14’s design, its open receiver design, is a weakness in extremely dusty environments.
H
I've never said the Mini was useless. My only point was that what many people tout as a strength of the Mini-14’s design, its open receiver design, is a weakness in extremely dusty environments.
H
M-14's have been trudging along in Iraq and Afghanistan for a few years now.... They're not the most accurate guns in the world for the DMR role, but I haven't read a boatload of complaints because of them failing because of dust.
M67A2 Zippo Tank
08-18-13, 16:29
When I was in high school[grad. 1984]it was '"Mini-14, what every AR-15 wants to be when it grows up"'. Master whatever system you have, and you will master what ever fight you in.
AR-15: Advantages:
Breaks open for cleaning like a single shot .410.
Cheaper mags
Mini-14: Advantages:
Less sensitive to adverse conditions.
Simpler system.
Therefore I conclude:
Gas piston AR vs. Mini-14=Gas piston AR.
D.I. AR vs. Mini-14=Mini-14.
Really, red dot and reflex sights are better for long distance than irons; but iron sights should be learned for emergencies, too. Therefore, I did not consider accuracy as an advantage/disadvantage in this post.
Crow Hunter
08-18-13, 20:22
Mini-14: Advantages:
Less sensitive to adverse conditions.
Simpler system.
Therefore I conclude:
Gas piston AR vs. Mini-14=Gas piston AR.
D.I. AR vs. Mini-14=Mini-14.
I absolutely agree. That is why I was so surprised when the Bermuda army, the greatest in the world, recently decided to give it up and replace it with either the Colt M4 or the HK G36.
I mean with all their years of combat in far away lands, since 1983, particularly that last decade they have spent in the dirty/dusty hell of Afghanistan and Iraq, you would have thought they would have never wanted to give up such a superior weapon system as the Mini-14 for such an obviously inferior weapon system like the M4....
http://www.bermudaregiment.bm/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:ruger-mini-14&catid=48:weaponscat&Itemid=223
:jester:
When I was in high school[grad. 1984]it was '"Mini-14, what every AR-15 wants to be when it grows up"'. Master whatever system you have, and you will master what ever fight you in.
AR-15: Advantages:
Breaks open for cleaning like a single shot .410.
Cheaper mags
Mini-14: Advantages:
Less sensitive to adverse conditions.
Simpler system.
Therefore I conclude:
Gas piston AR vs. Mini-14=Gas piston AR.
D.I. AR vs. Mini-14=Mini-14.
Really, red dot and reflex sights are better for long distance than irons; but iron sights should be learned for emergencies, too. Therefore, I did not consider accuracy as an advantage/disadvantage in this post.
So, you're saying gas piston ARs are superior to DI ARs?
What evidence are you basing this on?
H
When I was in high school[grad. 1984]it was '"Mini-14, what every AR-15 wants to be when it grows up"'. Master whatever system you have, and you will master what ever fight you in.
AR-15: Advantages:
Breaks open for cleaning like a single shot .410.
Cheaper mags
Mini-14: Advantages:
Less sensitive to adverse conditions.
Simpler system.
Therefore I conclude:
Gas piston AR vs. Mini-14=Gas piston AR.
D.I. AR vs. Mini-14=Mini-14.
Really, red dot and reflex sights are better for long distance than irons; but iron sights should be learned for emergencies, too. Therefore, I did not consider accuracy as an advantage/disadvantage in this post.
Post less read more. :bad:
M67A2 Zippo Tank
08-19-13, 16:01
So, you're saying gas piston ARs are superior to DI ARs?
What evidence are you basing this on?
H
I've been studying the AR-15 platform since 1980 off and on. While D.I. is here to stay, Gas piston is the coming thing.
Crow Hunter
08-19-13, 20:29
Ditching the gas rings is another mark in your favor. I saw a break top open AR-15 one time and it looked liked a jack in the box had exploded, small parts wise. The Bolt spring is cool with me.
So seeing "a break top open AR-15 one time" constitutes studying?
Question: Does your system reduce the itty bitty parts DI ARs are known for? Thank you in advance.
You do realize that the "itty bitty parts" are still there, right? All you do is add more/new non-combat tested parts to a 50+ combat tested rifle design and all the additional failure modes associated with those parts.
There is a serious wealth of information on this site. You should avail yourself of it.
Reminder: This is a Mini-14 thread, not a DI vs piston. Please move that discussion to the appropriate thread(s).
I grew up shooting a mini14 (late 70s vintage). The gun is probably over the 30k mark, never needed repair, no malfunctions that I can remember, spent most of it's time in the back of a e150 van next to buckets of drywall tools. I wouldn't feel under gunned with it, but it wouldn't be my first pick either.
I grew up shooting a mini14 (late 70s vintage). The gun is probably over the 30k mark, never needed repair, no malfunctions that I can remember, spent most of it's time in the back of a e150 van next to buckets of drywall tools. I wouldn't feel under gunned with it, but it wouldn't be my first pick either.
30k would be an extraordinary number for a Mini. Do you have access to an armorer that could do a top down inspection of it, complete with gauges? Such a sample would also be worth photographing and writing up.
I want to do another test involving getting a Mini-14 dirty, this time with mud. Since a lot of the panty knots from the Mini-14 dust test were 'it's a old Mini, test a new one' and 'the AR had it's door shut when dusted' I'd like to get feedback as to what constitutes a 'fair' test.
What I'm thinking of doing is run 5 rounds thru each rifle, then coat in mud, fire 5 rounds, recoat with mud, fire 5 rounds, recoat, until 30 rounds have been fired.
Test stops when the rifle has its first malfunction.
Rifles I'd like to test are a 580 series Mini-14, an AR15*, a SCAR, a FS2000, and a AK, to serve as a control.
H
*I was thinking to do the first run on the AR will be with the ejection port door shut, then each run after that be with the door open.
Link to the original dust test: http://youtu.be/WcfqZFWpk9s
Why people defend a firearm that is so clearly outdated is beyond me. But, I think that opening the dust cover will change nothing.
I grew up shooting a mini14 (late 70s vintage). The gun is probably over the 30k mark, never needed repair, no malfunctions that I can remember, spent most of it's time in the back of a e150 van next to buckets of drywall tools. I wouldn't feel under gunned with it, but it wouldn't be my first pick either.
I can't believe that has rifling left.
we know the mini isn't an "extreme environment" firearm.
mud is just wet, sticky dirt. if the mini won't run with dry dirt, it won't run with wet dirt, either.
the only saving grace there might be that the mud might cake up and stay more on the outside of the action. but as soon as anything gets down inside it's going to be game over.
now, seeing how the AR runs if it gets an ejection port full of mud will be interesting - that is one thing we didn't see last time.
adding an AK is interesting, but having seen MAC's video pouring sand down into the action of an AK and then it running like nothing was pretty convincing.
one thing i'd be interested in is how the mini would fare if it were treated like EAG's Filthy 14. not sure anyone can afford that kind of test these days, though...
OP- Merged your new Mini-14 thread with this one. Go ahead and post your new test and results in here.
I can't believe that has rifling left.
Probably doesn't, I'll get some pics next time I'm out west river.
I can't believe that has rifling left.
(Just kidding voice)
It has no rifling left, the throat is shot out, and accuracy hasn't changed much...
H
(Just kidding voice)
It has no rifling left, the throat is shot out, and accuracy hasn't changed much...
H
Luckily they fixed that issue, I'm told.
Ridgerunner665
08-23-13, 02:54
I bought a Mini 14 in 2001 (or thereabouts)...I shot it a bunch...and don't think it ever once hit what I was aiming at.
It never failed to feed, fire, or function...but would NOT hit the broad side of a barn from 100 yards.
Thats my experience with the Mini 14...notice all that is in past tense...I sold it...CHEAP!
we know the mini isn't an "extreme environment" firearm.
mud is just wet, sticky dirt. if the mini won't run with dry dirt, it won't run with wet dirt, either.
the only saving grace there might be that the mud might cake up and stay more on the outside of the action. but as soon as anything gets down inside it's going to be game over.
Somebody ought to let these guys know:
http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8419
The Mini, bury it in the dirt for 2 weeks pull it out shake it off and hit bulls at 150+ yards.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110730211641AAqB8Ho
Dirt and grime are not a problem for the Mini-14, the bolt simply will sling that stuff off of it.
http://stoppingpower.info/mini-14-review/
I suspect this flipping motion helped earn Garands and M14s their reputation as reliable combat rifles as I imagine it would do a good job of slinging off mud and dirt.
http://www.mini14tactical.com/
Mini 14 - Open bolt design is a close copy of the M14. The open bolt is very forgiving when it comes to dirt, dust or sand. The rifle clean or dirty just keeps ticking and ticking.
http://www.rogco.biz/harbarownerscomments.html
When exposed to dirt, the Mini is very much like the AK or SKS, it's not fussy and will normally NOT balk like an AR will
H
Stupid video ! I've had several mini-14's over the years. Never had a malfunction of any kind. I also have several AR's. Never had any trouble with those either. The Mini-14's aren't accurate worth a crap. (I haven't tried the newer one's). I now have a tuner on my old model and it's shoot a half inch @ 50 yards now. Thing is, when you change ammo you have to reset the tuner. Anyway they can be made to shoot. They are used by many prison systems and some probably have over 50,000 rounds on them with no issues. To me the mini is a much faster carbine to handle. Nope, ain't perfect!
Stupid video ! I've had several mini-14's over the years. Never had a malfunction of any kind. I also have several AR's. Never had any trouble with those either. The Mini-14's aren't accurate worth a crap. (I haven't tried the newer one's). I now have a tuner on my old model and it's shoot a half inch @ 50 yards now. Thing is, when you change ammo you have to reset the tuner. Anyway they can be made to shoot. They are used by many prison systems and some probably have over 50,000 rounds on them with no issues. To me the mini is a much faster carbine to handle. Nope, ain't perfect!
Stupid how?
H
Stupid video ! I've had several mini-14's over the years. Never had a malfunction of any kind. I also have several AR's. Never had any trouble with those either. The Mini-14's aren't accurate worth a crap. (I haven't tried the newer one's). I now have a tuner on my old model and it's shoot a half inch @ 50 yards now. Thing is, when you change ammo you have to reset the tuner. Anyway they can be made to shoot. They are used by many prison systems and some probably have over 50,000 rounds on them with no issues. To me the mini is a much faster carbine to handle. Nope, ain't perfect!
Over 50.000 thousand rounds? We just got done discussing how that would destroy the barrel. I find that hard to believe unless they are replacing lots of parts. Why is the video stupid? Its pretty fair comparing the antiquated nature of an open action firearm.
Stupid because they are just pouring sand..dirt into the action. Of course it's gonna malfunction. Pretty course stuff too. A lot of you that shoot down the mini-14 probably haven't shot one, except with a keyboard. I know for a fact that Prison systems have used then for training for many years, and truth be known they will run on sorry maintenance that will kill your average run of the mill AR. I have a friend that's a Federal Warden and he doesn't BS. You don't have to like them, hell they sure aren't the answer to the world problems, but if they had gone to Vietnam instead of those first AR's I expect some troops would still be alive !! Now maybe the new ones are fitted tighter & are more finicky, I don't know. A new one cost as much as a cheap AR, so get your cheap AR. I think it's easier to find a cheap AR right now anyway. I just get tired of seeing people running down equipment they haven't used.
Keep the gas piston clean, the rifle properly lubed and the Mini-14 will run like a champ. Don't expect bolt gun accuracy and you won't be disappointed.
Keep the gas piston clean, the rifle properly lubed and the Mini-14 will run like a champ. Don't expect bolt gun accuracy and you won't be disappointed.
In a perfect world, this thread would die after the post above. Because it is the truth. The Mini fills the role it was designed for very well. I'm still in awe by how many people still think the circle peg should fit in the square hole...
Keep the gas piston clean, the rifle properly lubed and the Mini-14 will run like a champ. Don't expect bolt gun accuracy and you won't be disappointed.
The gas piston, shielded under the handguard and stock, actually didn't get that much dust in it.
What is properly lubricated? Properly lubricated when you know the rifle's going to get dusty as hell?
I tried a light gun oil, grease, and no lube. In each case the Mini choked when dusty.
I was disappointed. Even though I was able to hit the steel I was shooting at repeatedly.
H
When applying that much dirt directly to the rifle, the magazine to receiver fit and the dust cover on the AR platform certainly make a difference. A dust cover is a valuable feature on a combat rifle.
The Mini-14 design was based on the M-14/M1 Garand design. I know from experience that large amounts of sand in the M-14 action and magazine can cause issues.
The link has material concerning the reliability of the M1 Garand and BAR in a sandy environment.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?23000-Garands-vs-Sand/page2
Your video verifies that you have to protect the Mini-14 action from exposure to excessive amounts of dirt. If I thought I was going into an extreme environment like you simulated by applying dirt directly to the rifle, I would want a well worn Mini-14 with a meticulously cleaned chamber. I would skip the grease and apply a lot of oil to sliding surfaces.
sinlessorrow
08-24-13, 18:19
Unpossible! Even the man himself James Sullivan says we should be using his Mini-14 over the M4.
Unpossible! Even the man himself James Sullivan says we should be using his Mini-14 over the M4.
You had me there. I had to google James Sullivan to figure out who he was.
Equipment gets dirty.
Equipment breaks.
You have to know your equipment and how to keep it running.
sinlessorrow
08-24-13, 19:09
You had me there. I had to google James Sullivan to figure out who he was.
Shit gets dirty!
Shit breaks!
You have to know your equipment and how to keep it running.
He did a BBC interview or something that he was touting his Mini-14 and his Beta-C mags and how the military should be using them and blah blah. You should look it up if you want some laughs. Especially his idea of how soldiers fight and how a reload is really just one big jam.
Stupid because they are just pouring sand..dirt into the action. Of course it's gonna malfunction. Pretty course stuff too. A lot of you that shoot down the mini-14 probably haven't shot one, except with a keyboard. I know for a fact that Prison systems have used then for training for many years, and truth be known they will run on sorry maintenance that will kill your average run of the mill AR. I have a friend that's a Federal Warden and he doesn't BS. You don't have to like them, hell they sure aren't the answer to the world problems, but if they had gone to Vietnam instead of those first AR's I expect some troops would still be alive !! Now maybe the new ones are fitted tighter & are more finicky, I don't know. A new one cost as much as a cheap AR, so get your cheap AR. I think it's easier to find a cheap AR right now anyway. I just get tired of seeing people running down equipment they haven't used.
So yeah about that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwoZ6SS_pY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdHwoZ6SS_pY
He used a light coat of lube(barely any), poured dirt into the ejection port into the FCG, and took the BCG out and covered it in dirt.
The only issues he had was a trigger that wouldn't reset without wiggling the safety.
As to your Vietnam comment, you know nothing about the history of the M16 and what led up to its failures, it all gets pointed right back to the Army. Granted the system wasn't perfect and the original slip ring buffer would sometimes form one solid mass and act like a dead blow hammer instead of a buffer, but the sole issues were in the Army's handeling of the adoption as well as the powders originally used.
Actually the SEALS and ARVN had AR-15's(before they were M16's) in Vietnam before anyone else and they had ZERO complaints on the system. Before you come and tell us how history went you should do some research on the subject.
(Just kidding voice)
It has no rifling left, the throat is shot out, and accuracy hasn't changed much...
H
Last time I shot it was at a range in E. Iowa about 15 years ago. It was still minute-of-clay pidgin at 100, I imagine it hasn't changed.
Last time I shot it was at a range in E. Iowa about 15 years ago. It was still minute-of-clay pidgin at 100, I imagine it hasn't changed.
In my opinion, if you have a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle that will shoot a 10 shot group better than 4" at 100 yards you have a good one.
PA PATRIOT
09-05-13, 16:55
This Mini-14 dirt test is really meaningless and unrealistic considering that 99.999 of all domestic Mini-14 use would never ever see such conditions.
Lets keep it real and consider that the actual use of these rifles is "RECREATIONAL" and for what they are is a decent plinker and short range home/personal defender.
In closing my Mini complements my overall defensive and recreational use a long with my AR's, AK's, Precision and Competition rifles.
It is what it is and nothing more.
sinlessorrow
09-05-13, 17:01
This Mini-14 dirt test is really meaningless and unrealistic considering that 99.999 of all domestic Mini-14 use would never ever see such conditions.
Lets keep it real and consider that the actual use of these rifles is "RECREATIONAL" and for what they are is a decent plinker and short range home/personal defender.
In closing my Mini complements my overall defensive and recreational use a long with my AR's, AK's, Precision and Competition rifles.
It is what it is and nothing more.
Yeah screw fun dirt tests, no rifle in civilian hands sees dirt! Never bring us another dirt test again for any rifle, even the AR since no one ever sees dirt with their rifles.
sinlessorrow
09-05-13, 17:07
I agree completely. But try and tell that to some folks...
Over on Perfect Union they are coming up with all kinds of reasons why that test isn't 'fair'.
H
I swear I lost a few brain cells over there. I saw them comparing the AR to the Mini and everyone agreed the M4 is a heavy rifle.....6.9lbs sure is a lot.
PA PATRIOT
09-05-13, 19:14
Yeah screw fun dirt tests, no rifle in civilian hands sees dirt! Never bring us another dirt test again for any rifle, even the AR since no one ever sees dirt with their rifles.
So much sarcasm, sorry my opinion offended your delicate sensibilities but its truly better to keep so called "Testing" to real world application's and use. Sure Mini's might get some light dust, rain or mud splash but it will most likely never see that kind of fouling from its end users.
So much sarcasm, sorry my opinion offended your delicate sensibilities but its truly better to keep so called "Testing" to real world application's and use. Sure Mini's might get some light dust, rain or mud splash but it will most likely never see that kind of fouling from its end users.
Ever been offroading in the desert? Around much construction equipment with the wind blowing? Ever seen a sand storm in Arizona?
I grew up in New Mexico. Dust and sand gets into everything, wears it out faster, and makes stuff stop working.
I got that talcum powder moon dust from a construction site. If you were working there and had a Mini-14 behind your seat I can guarantee you that it would be pretty damn dusty.
Is the test I did somewhat extreme? Yeah. I covered a rifle in dust, shoot it off, and fired it. Or, in the case of the Mini, I tried to fire it.
H
I bought a Mini 14 in 2001 (or thereabouts)...I shot it a bunch...and don't think it ever once hit what I was aiming at.
It never failed to feed, fire, or function...but would NOT hit the broad side of a barn from 100 yards.
Thats my experience with the Mini 14...notice all that is in past tense...I sold it...CHEAP!
I have seen several Mini-14s like yours. I use to quip that they would shoot MOA or Minute Of Acre.
I took a Mini to a week long rifle course conducted on a talcum powder range in high plains wind conditions. Several Minis were on the line those days, and their performance was not surprising. The guns were not paperweights, but much time was spent fighting guns instead of targets.
As another poster notes the guns will work for some more than others. Assess your needs, choose your gear, and go to work. That being said, there's nothing wrong with choosing options with broadest performance margins rather than those more minimalist.
PA PATRIOT
09-06-13, 10:13
Ever been offroading in the desert? Around much construction equipment with the wind blowing? Ever seen a sand storm in Arizona?
I grew up in New Mexico. Dust and sand gets into everything, wears it out faster, and makes stuff stop working.
I got that talcum powder moon dust from a construction site. If you were working there and had a Mini-14 behind your seat I can guarantee you that it would be pretty damn dusty.
Is the test I did somewhat extreme? Yeah. I covered a rifle in dust, shoot it off, and fired it. Or, in the case of the Mini, I tried to fire it.
H
Being a Certified L/E Ruger Armorer as well as one for Colt, HK, Benelli, Springfield and Remington and a few others I do have a insight to what short comings a certain platform of firearm may have. I have also seen what a properly maintained and lubricated firearm can do in pristine or adverse conditions. Now I'm not saying its not fun to conduct back yard tests of are firearms but the conditions the Mini-14 were subjected to are not indicative of what 99% of the Mini's are subjected to on a daily basis.
Now for a comparison I did almost on a daily basis carry my Stainless Mini-14 in a Butler Creek stock hunting jacks in the desert at MCAGCC 29 Palms CA and that's some serious wind blown sand stinging dusty real estate and never experienced as much debris in my rifle as your test gun was subjected to.
Now for the record I am not a super fan boy of the Mini-14 and whole heartily would recommend another platform for S/D and other applications but I had to comment on what I saw as a unrealistic test.
Ned Christiansen
09-06-13, 10:32
I have not seen a Mini in our Chicago-area classes for a couple years but we used to get 1-3 of them each year.
There were inconveniences like a couple different kinds of sights and sight adjustment procedures and lack of info or intuition regarding how much adjustment equaled POI movement needed.
Due I think to the lack of aftermarket doodads, every last one had iron sights only.
Other than that there was absolutely no issue with them reliability wise. These classes are not extremely accuracy intensive, I mean, if a student's rifle is a 1 MOA gun or a 4 MOA gun, in most drills it would be hard to discern the dif. We also do 300M popups; I don't recall noticing "Mini-14 shooters always seem to have the lowest scores". But then I never really looked for that.
But I don't think they are 4 MOA guns. Never owned one but I'm pretty sure they can do much better that that-- can't they? I remember Jim Clark kicking butt and sometimes winning with one at the Soldier of Fortune 3-Gun Invitational. But obviously that would not have been an off-the-shelf rifle.
One other thing I have noticed, every one I've gaged had a 5.56 chamber even though it was marked .223.
The other thing is that the Mini wasn't the only rifle getting the dust bath.
The AR and AUG both kept functioning under the same conditions.
H
Larry Vickers
09-06-13, 15:19
The Mini-14's I have had in my classes have proven exactly what I have believed all along - they are not serious use firearms. They are for hobbyists, plinkers, and those who some how feel we should still be using a Garand variant as a service rifle.
Their performance in my classes has been very unimpressive - there is a reason you rarely see them anymore. They are trash.
Some people are trying to fit this gun in a niche it was never designed to be in, even though marketers- including the manufacturer- have tried to sell it as a tactical rifle. It is a ranch gun meant to be carried more than it is fired. My brother has dispatched many a pest ranging from coyote, foxes, and raccoons on his property to protect his chickens, rabbits and dwarf goats. I have used mine sparingly as a plinker. I have never experienced a malfunction when I shoot it, but I only put a box or two through it at a time. While I have easily dispatched many plastic bottles and tin cans out to about 75 meters, it never occurred to me to shoot it for groups. I imagine it would get the job done as HD gun, but I could never imagine it would be something any 'operator' would want to take to a war. I like the gun for what it is, and try not to tout it to anyone as something it ain't.
PA PATRIOT
09-06-13, 19:50
The Mini-14's I have had in my classes have proven exactly what I have believed all along - they are not serious use firearms. They are for hobbyists, plinker's, and those who some how feel we should still be using a Garand variant as a service rifle.
Their performance in my classes has been very unimpressive - there is a reason you rarely see them anymore. They are trash.
I don't think that anyone here was suggesting that the Mini be taken to war or be used to arm every police department in the county (Even though a few misguided departments have deployed them for years). The current discussion was based on a member test that was a bit on the extreme side for what the Mini-14 was actually intended for which is plinking, short range varmint control, and a general small bore center fire utility gun.
Now Ruger has sold a metric shit load of these rifles in three different calibers over the years and continue to do so they must have some operational merit in the civilian market. Now everyone here can agree that the Mini-14 will never make the grade as a serious combat arm but on the same note if properly maintained it can be very effective in its unitarian role.
I understand the limitations of the Mini-14 but it is far from "Trash".
sinlessorrow
09-06-13, 20:05
I don't think that anyone here was suggesting that the Mini be taken to war or be used to arm every police department in the county (Even though a few misguided departments have deployed them for years). The current discussion was based on a member test that was a bit on the extreme side for what the Mini-14 was actually intended for which is plinking, short range varmint control, and a general small bore center fire utility gun.
Now Ruger has sold a metric shit load of these rifles in three different calibers over the years and continue to do so they must have some operational merit in the civilian market. Now everyone here can agree that the Mini-14 will never make the grade as a serious combat arm but on the same note if properly maintained it can be very effective in its unitarian role.
I understand the limitations of the Mini-14 but it is far from "Trash".
Actually according to the guy who made the Mini our military should be using it instead of the M4. So what exactly was it designed for?
The Mini-14 goes nicely behind the kitchen door where it serves the same purpose as would a 30-30 lever rifle or Auto 5 or Stevens double plus it has a niche as a close range pest or utility rifle--the same as a S&W M-10 makes a good utility gun for camp or barn yard. I prefer an SKS to the Ruger for any role and admit that I have just damned the Mini-14 with faint praise. Texas DPS found them unsatisfactory. In 1987 the DPS official who selected the Mini-14 told me that his choice was based on the fact that its profile and looks would not offend the public as might an AR-15. This guy was known far and wide as an expert Colt Python mechanic.
Larry Vickers
09-06-13, 21:02
PA Patriot - how many classes have you attended where 600-800 rds have been fired over a 2 day span out of a Mini-14 ? 2 days worth of shooting that a good AR does without a problem ?
I travel all over the world training shooters with different small arms - how many classes do you teach ? What is your experience?
I'm all ears since you seem to be full of knowledge on small arms like the Mini 14 - educate and enlighten me
Standing by.....
PA PATRIOT
09-07-13, 14:49
PA Patriot - how many classes have you attended where 600-800 rds have been fired over a 2 day span out of a Mini-14 ? 2 days worth of shooting that a good AR does without a problem ?
I travel all over the world training shooters with different small arms - how many classes do you teach ? What is your experience?
I'm all ears since you seem to be full of knowledge on small arms like the Mini 14 - educate and enlighten me
Standing by.....
Larry,
Everyone is entitled to a opinion here on M4Carbine except of course if it runs counterpoint to yours, that being said and having witness your prior modus operandi of dealing with those who disagree with you on certain topics I will gracefully digress.
Had a Mini-14 over twenty years ago that served me very well. Shot the crud out of it and no matter what type of ammunition I fed it there were very few issues.
That said, I never took one to a class or into combat. Therefore I would be foolish to believe that because it worked so well for me under moderate circumstances it would also do the same under harsh ones.
Had my little complications with Larry too (;)) but in this case it may be best to override the personality differences and just listen.
Edit: By the way PA I agree that calling them "trash" isn't helping anything. Have to see the forest through the trees on this one I suppose.
Army Chief
09-07-13, 16:36
Just to put a somewhat more enlightened spin on this, no opinions on this forum are sacrosanct or above questioning -- absolutely none. We remain committed as a community to the free and fair exchange of worthy ideas, and all are to be given a voice.
The foregoing notwithstanding, we also make no apology for the fact that, among opinions expressed, not all are to be weighted-equally. This is by design, as it affords bona fide industry SMEs a venue worthy of their participation, without the senseless ankle-biting and argumentative banter that so often passes for the norm elsewhere. If you've actually been to see the elephant, then your elephant stories will necessarily carry more weight than the rest of us, no matter how much Animal Planet we've watched. Common sense.
Considering this thread specifically, Mr. Vickers is not a site deity. He is a prominent, competent and well-respected trainer with a lifetime of operational experience that demands a certain deference. We do our best to insure that he gets it, just as we do with every other vetted SME on the site (and most hail from very similar backgrounds, hence the designation). In Vickers' case, consistent with his background, temperament, the time of day and the issue at-hand, some opinions expressed may come off as pleasant and engaging, while others may seem curt and dismissive. Some may confuse a no-BS approach with hostility. We would always prefer that these discussions remain collegial, no matter who is addressing whom, but don't get so caught up in the style of the message that the substance is missed.
In this case, the participating SME obviously has little use for, or interest in, the Mini-14 platform. This should surprise no one, as the rifle has no serious service lineage (outside of the A-Team, naturally) and a somewhat inconsistent history. Others who come from different backgrounds find it dismissive to just say that the rifle has no utility whatsoever. Guess what? Both are probably right, as much depends (as it always does) upon what you're trying to do with the gun. Either way, the issue is with the gun -- not the people expressing opinions. Just be aware of the fact that, if you tell a former action guy -- any action guy -- that it makes more sense to butterfly-loop your boot laces, he's probably going to ask you why you think that, and where you learned it. Not a challenge; merely establishing a baseline for evaluating the opinions of the claimant. It's a reflection of the world from which they come. Nothing more.
Mr. Vickers needs no top cover -- nor do any of our designated SMEs -- and you may freely disagree with him, or anyone else on this site, provided it is done in the proper manner. Just take care not to wade into mental jousting contests over issues that will be viewed from very different perspectives, in which you may lack depth or which will inevitably lead to butt-hurt.
Easy day.
AC
Larry Vickers
09-08-13, 10:08
I should probably clarify myself a bit; an instructor like me will travel the country and see more rounds put downrange in 90-120 days than most people, including most LE, will see in a lifetime
When I see a type or brand of weapon that cannot even complete a 2 day carbine class without issues that are traceable to bad ammo or mags, that gun is trash in my book - period
If you want weapons that may fail you at the worst possible time then drive on, but I'll choose otherwise
LAV out
Cincinnatus
09-08-13, 22:09
Everyone is entitled to his opinion; everyone has the right to be wrong.
But as for me, I'll take LAV's advice, which is based on long, hard-won to-hell-and-back experience over any two-bit internet pundit's any day of the week.
I get irritated when joe-q-random-swinging-dicks start picking apart SMEs the way they would someone of their own, internet-certifiable bonafides. Bottom line, if you disagree with an SME, at least do it with some respect and some humility. They've earned it--YOU have not. The idea of any run-of-the-mill, internet chest-beater actually thinking they can measure genitalia against an SME is absurd.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion; everyone has the right to be wrong.
But as for me, I'll take LAV's advice, which is based on long, hard-won to-hell-and-back experience over any two-bit internet pundit's any day of the week.
I get irritated when joe-q-random-swinging-dicks start picking apart SMEs the way they would someone of their own, internet-certifiable bonafides. Bottom line, if you disagree with an SME, at least do it with some respect and some humility. They've earned it--YOU have not. The idea of any run-of-the-mill, internet chest-beater actually thinking they can measure genitalia against an SME is absurd.
Everyone deserves respect, regardless if he or she is an SME or not.
Cincinnatus
09-09-13, 00:48
Everyone deserves respect, regardless if he or she is an SME or not.
Everyone deserves basic courtesy, not respect. The two are often confused and are not the same. Respect is earned according to experience, character, etc. it is something that requires a basis for merit.
We now return this Mini-14 thread to the topic of Mini-14s. Thank you.
I have no dog in this fight.
I have owned and still currently own a Ranch Rifle made back in the mid 90s. It was purchased during the AWB by my father as a gift for me when I was 13. It came with eight preban Ruger OEM 20rd mags and one 30rd mag. The rifle was accurate for what I used it for. Plinking, busting dirt clods, defense while camping, and hog hunting in south Florida.
I have recently swapped out the rear sight with a GI Tech Sight for simply the reason of the OEM sight was crap and flimsy. The rifle worked when cleaned and lubed but had a habit of rusting on the gas port where the op-rod makes contact. If rusted the weapon would not work and I'd have to butt stroke the rifle to get it to unlock and allow the bolt to be retracted by the op-rod.
I had to keep that area consistently clean with oil and a brass wire brush. When done it would run smooth as silk. I haven't sold it due to the fact that it is a fun rifle and my father gave it to me as a gift.
The rifle in no way will ever take the place of my ARs. The design of the rifle is sound; it is the material and quality control that goes into that rifle that is a failure. I would very much like to have a new 16 inch model but not for the price that they are currently being sold at.
The Mini-14 in my opinion works well as a rifle that will sit in a safe or armory like a prison or a home. It is not good as a primary police patrol rifle or as a service rifle for the military. They can't handle exposure to humid weather well or the dirty life of a patrol car's trunk. In an A/C area they are great if cleaned and lubed properly.
firefighter37
09-10-13, 18:13
I owned a Mini-14 during the 1994-2004 AWB and it was impossible to find good mags for. This alone made me want to sell it. The fact that it was not accurate at all was the other deciding factor. I would agree with everyone else who says these rifles are basically junk. If I needed a cheap gun to throw in the truck I probably still wouldn't consider the Mini-14. Brand new they are too expensive to be considered a truck gun.
I will say, and as much as I hate to bring this up, a Mini-14 was effectively used in combat by William Matix and Michael Platt against a squad of FBI agents in which two were KIA. Look up the April 1986 FBI Miami shootout if you are not familiar. W. French Anderson did a fantastic write up of this event which should be required reading.
The success of the Mini in that case was probably attributed to the fact that the FBI agents were carrying revolvers and sub-par 9mm loadings, but that is a completely different topic.
I have heard a lot of people like to keep them aboard boats as defense from pirating, but I think there are much better choices for that as well.
RogerinTPA
09-10-13, 19:11
I owned a Mini-14 during the 1994-2004 AWB and it was impossible to find good mags for. This alone made me want to sell it. The fact that it was not accurate at all was the other deciding factor. I would agree with everyone else who says these rifles are basically junk. If I needed a cheap gun to throw in the truck I probably still wouldn't consider the Mini-14. Brand new they are too expensive to be considered a truck gun.
I will say, and as much as I hate to bring this up, a Mini-14 was effectively used in combat by William Matix and Michael Platt against a squad of FBI agents in which two were KIA. Look up the April 1986 FBI Miami shootout if you are not familiar. W. French Anderson did a fantastic write up of this event which should be required reading.
The success of the Mini in that case was probably attributed to the fact that the FBI agents were carrying revolvers and sub-par 9mm loadings, but that is a completely different topic.
I have heard a lot of people like to keep them aboard boats as defense from pirating, but I think there are much better choices for that as well.
Good point. I that case, the feds were outmatched due to those limitations and the firepower the Mini could bring to the fight. Apparently, the guy welding the Mini practiced often in the everglades, shooting thousands of rounds in the months leading up to the shootout.
I'll add in my first hand experience with the Mini-14, FWIW. In the late 80s my agency began to utilize the Mini-14 as a patrol rifle for general issue, first as a pool gun and shortly thereafter as an individually issued item. At the same time, we were also given the option of purchasing our own AR15 to use in lieu of the Mini-14, which is the route I took. Recently we have ditched the Mini-14 and are issuing the S&W M&P 15. I'm an instructor and Ruger armorer. We had +200 Mini-14 rifles, with a mix of GB and standard models.
The patrol rifle class we put our students through is four days long and does include a high volume of shooting, rain or shine. I've found that the Mini-14 is reliable and has adequate accuracy for the intended purpose. No, they are not MOA guns. Only factory 20 round mags were used, along with factory ammo. The Mini-14 does not like to run dry, adequate lube is critical. From an armorer standpoint, the Mini-14 is fairly easy to work on, but not as easy as the AR15 family. Also, Ruger refuses to sell many parts (bolts, firing pins, barrels, etc.) which required us to ship some directly to the factory for service. Extractor issues were not uncommon, after extensive use, along with bolt catch springs. Barrel twist rates were all over the place, depending on whey they were manufactured. The Mini-14 does not lend itself well to accessories such as optics or a white light.
I'd take an off the rack Mini14 over a low end AR15. Reliability trumps just about everything else. However, give me a properly manufactured AR15 over a Mini-14 any day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.