You need to throw out the price argument. So what if the AR is $200 more? That's peanuts over the lifetime of a rifle.
+1
More like peanut shells, when you consider that you may be relying on this rifle to save your life.
If we're talking about combat or self-defense---situations where your life and the lives of those you love are on the line---what difference does a couple hundred dollars make? Would you really rather have a rifle that is less dependable, more prone to malfunctioning--- because it COST LESS?
In a combat weapon, I'm going to spend whatever it takes to get the most reliable weapon available.
Thus the real argument of 'Mini vs. AR' should be one of reliability: Is the Mini indeed more reliable than the AR under combat conditions? If it is, then it's the better choice, no matter which can be gotten for a lower price.
On the other hand, if the AR is just as reliable as the Mini, then and only then do these other factors---cost, accuracy, ergonomics, parts availability, etc---come into play.
Having used an AR15 in the military and in law enforcement, and owning several of BOTH rifles, I will say with confidence that the MINI 14 is a great patrol and self defense rifle, but it IS NOT ready for prime time combat. 1). The barrel, even the newer "heavier" ones (580-581 series) are too thin and when they heat up, your shot group spreads out. 2.) the sight are mickey mouse. PERIOD. The rifle needs M1 Garand/M14/M16 style adjustable sights. 3). More rails for optics, accessories, etc. Ruger only offers aftermarket rails for their rifles. Ruger just isn't interested in competing in the military market with the MINI 14, or they would have made those upgrades at least.
I think the key with the MINI 14 is using it/appreciating it for what it is and using it in those perimeters. It's a great, reliable pretty accurate rifle and will fit the bill for most uses for the american civilian, even law enforcement shooter. It just isn't ready for the streets of Baghdad or the mountains of Afghanistan. Oh and a new MINI 14 is damn near the price of a no frills AR15, making the choice for shooters outside of California and other blue anti-gun states a no brainer.
I prefer the mini for safety reasons. Much of my shooting has involved my kids in the past and now my grandkids.
I tend to favor anything (pickup trucks, guns, etc) according to how I will use it the most.
With the mini I can see from a distance whether the safety is on or off, I can also see whether the bolt is open or closed, and with one glance I can see whether the gun is cocked or not.
IMO there is no better or worse anything because everything has its place and for my use the mini fits better than the AR.
If in life it was true that there is one better than all the rest; then all men would wish to marry the same woman.
I see the mini-AR argument as much the same as my wife is better than yours.
Well put, Gig. For the record, though, I must assert that my wife is better than yours . . . and anyone else's, for that matter.
BadPig, you make good points about the Mini not being a MBR. Of course, it wasn't designed to be; while the Stoner design was, yet lacks essential the essential durability of such a description. That's why I think the Mini vs. AR debate remains eternal.
On price, the Mini's cornering/grandfathering of the California market has kept its price artificially high for the rest of us. Ruger, Sr.'s legacy, I guess, for better or worse.
Location: A Little South of Heaven, Slightly North of Hell
Posts: 314
This thread topic should be banned. There are so many of them, they get so old, and they just go around in circles. Really, how many times can we have this discussion, and think its going to produce something. Almost as bad are the threads about 223 vs 5.56x45. These should all be stickied.
This thread topic should be banned. There are so many of them, they get so old, and they just go around in circles. Really, how many times can we have this discussion, and think its going to produce something. Almost as bad are the threads about 223 vs 5.56x45. These should all be stickied.
Cool then we can move on to new stuff like 9mm vs.40 vs. 45......
Well put, Gig. For the record, though, I must assert that my wife is better than yours . . . and anyone else's, for that matter.
BadPig, you make good points about the Mini not being a MBR. Of course, it wasn't designed to be; while the Stoner design was, yet lacks essential the essential durability of such a description. That's why I think the Mini vs. AR debate remains eternal.
Thanks Joe,,,and I got a big laugh from your "my wife" comment.
A few things about this debate---
The rifles are different and have different uses...
-If I am going into the woods with my grandchildren, I will take the mini..
-If I am going into battle, I will take the AR.
I expect to be doing far more of the former than the latter, but I will always be doing it with my wife.
I don't have near the experience with the Mini compared to the AR/M16 platform (6 yrs Marine Infantry). If for no other reason than I "grew up" with the AR platform so I'm more comfortable with it. My experience with the Mini is limited to a couple thousand rounds.
I never had the reliability issues with my AR's or M16. I've shot a lot of rounds through both military and civilian versions.
I like the mini platform but not near as much as the AR.
The AR-15/M16 is a better weapon than the Mini will ever be, there that should keep this going for a while more
Then let's really wind it up then. The design the mini was taken from was a short term weapon that was not widely used in a long term conflict. I think it's service life as the main weapon was about 7 years. It's procurement was cut short in 1963 after a number of negative events. It went into service after Korea and was replaced early on in Vietnam. It really seems to be coming into it's own in the current fight tho.
I always admired the "black rifles" but never owned one. This year I decided to fill that hole in my collection. Criteria: reliable short range (100-150 yards) carbine in 5.56. Budget was $1000 so it could have gone with either an AR-15 clone or a Mini.
Did all the research and eventually decided on the Mini-14 Tactical with black synthetic stock. Lots of reasons, but the main ones were reliability and cost. In the end, I just couldn't overcome my misgivings about the AR's self-fouling gas system.
I'm completely satisfied with the accuracy even though it wasn't high on my list of priorities (short range CQC). As for reliability, it fires everything I have fed it, including about 400 rounds of cheapo dirty Russian steel cased stuff, without a single hiccup. It now sports a folding pistol grip stock, rails and a red dot. Ready to roll!
Self fouling of the AR is a non-issue. As much as this weapon has been maligned, it has served the US military well as the single longest continuous issued firearm in US history. The AK is the only weapon that is issued that has a longer service record. Easy to clean, easy to field repair, inexpensive magazines readily available. Most complaints about it and the Stoner design are made by those who were never issued one, the complaints from 'Nam era vets are no longer valid for the later rifles and the ammo. The Mini is a nice firearm, classic looks, easy handling, and use to be way cheaper than a AR. Today one can find an AR for less than a Mini. The indisputable fact is that the Mini has never been proven as a longterm battle gun. The issues that are affecting the Mini today (just read the forums) with customer service, firing pins breakage, high costs, and the inability to DIY field repairs all show that they cannot be compared. And we need to remember that there have been far more rounds expended through AR's in the past few years (in real battle situations) than through all the Mini's ever. The Stoner design no matter what the detractors have stated, is still at the top and has been, long before I was issued my M-16A1 over 30 years ago.
__________________ "I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
Well if that's true then why is the Army looking for a new rifle? According to a Feb. 2 WSJ article, "Army Sets Sights on New Rifle", they are looking to replace the M-16 / M-4 in part because "Operations in Afghanistan...have rekindled debate over the quality of the Army's standard-issue rifles and their reliability in dusty, primitive conditions. An Army report on a 2008 battle in Wanat, Afghanistan, cited soldier complaints about jamming and overheating M4s, in particular. Nine servicemen died in that fight."
gossman had some good points, the AR platform has had a long life as far as military weapons go in America, we are always looking at ways to upgrade to something better like we did going from the M14 to the AR platform for VietNam. I never had any trouvle out of mine as long as it was kept clean but I can see that maybe because of the climate and weather conditions in the mid east that it could have some issues. The M16 or what ever variant is made to tighter specs than most of the other weapons that being used(AK'S) as they were made to operate in the harsh climates and lousy conditions plus I dont think that they receive the training our military does in marksmanship they are more pray and spray. I hope if they could come up with a system that was idiot proof then more power to them but to set back and criticize the AR, well i feel the same way complaints are usually from someone who hasnt had to use one or they ignored what they learned in training and in that case well they are playing Russsian Roulette.
Self fouling of the AR is a non-issue. As much as this weapon has been maligned, it has served the US military well as the single longest continuous issued firearm in US history. The AK is the only weapon that is issued that has a longer service record. Easy to clean, easy to field repair, inexpensive magazines readily available. Most complaints about it and the Stoner design are made by those who were never issued one, the complaints from 'Nam era vets are no longer valid for the later rifles and the ammo. The Mini is a nice firearm, classic looks, easy handling, and use to be way cheaper than a AR. Today one can find an AR for less than a Mini. The indisputable fact is that the Mini has never been proven as a longterm battle gun. The issues that are affecting the Mini today (just read the forums) with customer service, firing pins breakage, high costs, and the inability to DIY field repairs all show that they cannot be compared. And we need to remember that there have been far more rounds expended through AR's in the past few years (in real battle situations) than through all the Mini's ever. The Stoner design no matter what the detractors have stated, is still at the top and has been, long before I was issued my M-16A1 over 30 years ago.
In his book The Gun, Chivers gives a thorough history of the Stoner carbine and how it was rushed into service (without proper testing and evaluation) because the DOD was in a panic over the AK-47. That and a whole bunch of lobbying, corruption and undue influence from generals like LeMay.
If the DOD backed/ supported all of the improvements on a Garand type carbine like they did for the Stoner design we might have seen a different weapon being used for the last fourty years. As per usual, when the pentagon commits to a weapon they rarely look back...regardless of how flawded it is!
I'll pull up some information later from Pat Rogers regarding failures of the Mini 14 in his carbine classes.
No you won't. The Mini-14 has been through many carbine classes without failure. This Rogers fellow had an agenda when he bad-mouthed the Mini, and he has never backed-up his criticisms with facts, even when asked repeatedly to do so. He's long on anecdotes and small sample sizes, however. And just why does every AR loving, Mini-14 hating, chairborne commando draw this guy's name like a gun? Is he a mechanical engineer? An experienced and talented custom gunsmith? No. He's just an ex-cop and ex-soldier who loves the platform he learned on and desparages everything else. In fact, it was his tendency to disparage people that got him banned from M4carbine.net.
Location: A Little South of Heaven, Slightly North of Hell
Posts: 314
Look, the Mini's seem to be holding their own at some of the various shoots/course, etc.
The military uses the M16 platform, bottom line
Ruger to my knowledge did not submit it for consideration. As far as the rumors of some Teams members carrying SS AC556's, who knows - not a priority to me.
The Mini-14 was designed as a ranch rifle, a truck rifle, and depending on whose definition, and what groups have used it, a type of para-military rifle.
Maybe we should spend more time on the M-14 vs. M-16 discussion. Ill take my M1A Loaded any day over a plastic and aluminum gun.
In all seriousness, this crap should be stickied. These discussions occur too often, and go on for too long - guit beating a dead horse. Consider your Mini a good little SHTF carbine. When you shoot the bad guys, take there M-16 or M-4 if that makes you happy. Personally, Im gunnin for a SAW!
__________________ "I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
Joe Garibaldi
Linear Mode
