If needed, you can easily replace the firing pin, extractor, or complete bolt. No need to send it back to the manufacturer for hand fitting like a mini 14.
I don't know about you but I've NEVER heard of a mini-14 firing pin, extractor or bolt failing under even heavy usage. So having easily changeable parts on a rifle that is by any measure definitely less reliable than the mini-14 is a handy feature to have. Nor do you have to have it sent back to replace such parts. If you look at the take down process, the bolt and firing pin are easily removed by hand.
All the take down was designed to be done using the tip of a bullet.
All the take down of the mini-14 was designed to be done using your hands.
See for yourself at 1:15
(the instructor in the video uses a punch, you can easily do the same with your finger just by pulling on the trigger guard)
Biggest down side is an AR bolt does need lube. Now if needed, you can spray it in through the ejection port while the weapon is together in a pinch.
Still a downside to the mini-14 which some people say can run dry for much longer periods than the mini-14. May not be good for it but it still functions perfectly.
The AR is not nearly as picky when it comes to mags. The Mini 14 had better have a perfect mag from about 1 of three companies to function correctly. And hope that nothing get bent out of spec or it won't feed.
This problem lies with the design of the after market magazines and not with the feeding mechanism in the mini-14
Put 1000 rounds down a quality AR and a Mini 14 in one session. Statistics show the AR will run, the Mini 14 will not stand up.
I'd love a copy of these statistics. Care to share?
Sights. I don't even need to address that. Optics mounts, lights, rails, any kind of combat accessory?
a point I addressed in my post, point goes to the AR15, or rather the picatinny rail mostly which is avaliable for the mini.
Combine all that with Rugers price. I don't see how they sell any.
The sad part is, Ruger could have improved it. Brought it up to date. The changes they have made are minimal.
And just because Ruger named it "Mini 14" doesn't make it such. That's just marketing.
I can see perfectly how they sell any. You'll find a basic mini for 600 or less while a low end AR15 (those ones prone to jamming, remember?) will run you 800+. Going into a gun store with 800 bucks, you could either walk out with an ar15 and that's it or a mini with maybe some accessories, some ammo, and maybe a few targets.
Despite me bashing Ruger for not listening to the gun community at large they have listened to somethings that are said. For one the recommendation of a thicker barrel, improved accuracy with the target models and etc.
Actually it does since the mini-14 is a shrunken down version of that famous reliable M14 and M1A bolt design.
M1A Bolt
Mini-14 Bolt
The mini is what is was designed to be. A ranch/truck rifle.
The AR has been around for over 40 years. It's not perfect but I've yet to see a rifle that was. But to continue to call it unreliable, especially comparing it to a mini 14, is just bad information.
Oh don't let the name ranch rifle deceive you and after all, both are in the same caliber which is why they are so often compared. Ruger may call it a varmint gun and a ranch gun but people use it far more for home defense than anything else.
The mini-14 has been around for 43 years counting it's conception in 1967. The bolt design dates back 78 years to 1932. Any way you stretch it the stoner bolt design is still the new kid on the block compared to the mini-14. But that isn't proof alone. The proof is in the numbers. The reason this forum is a mini-14 based forum is not because it's cheaper. What's 600 compared to 800 dollars when speaking about a quality rifle? And by the way no one here has said the ar15 is anything like a luger that jams as soon as a microscopic piece of dust works it's way into the action. We're saying comparatively the mini-14 is built tougher, simpler and works through the mud, rain, dust and dirt for as long as you need it.