A) If you had read the thread you would know
B) If you think new information is not a reason to update an old thread, well, then I won't try to convince you. You should probably just skip it next time.
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Fail-i-fornia
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by StrayRound
A) If you had read the thread you would know
B) If you think new information is not a reason to update an old thread, well, then I won't try to convince you. You should probably just skip it next time.
I participated in some of the earlier posts, which is why my e-mail client alerted me to a new post in this thread. If that doesn't count as reading the thread then I don't know what does.
Just as well, your article speaks about why the M4 should be replaced by other modern combat rifles, it does not mention the Mini-14 in any way, shape or form.
If you were trying to use that as your argument for why the Mini-14 is better, it's a rather unrelated point considering the article says neither are better, the modern combat rifles such as the ACR, etc are better.
Your post discussed neither the Mini 14 nor the M-16. All it did was complain about my post. So what's your excuse? Really weary of self-appointed forum police who think nobody has a right to post unless they approve.
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Fail-i-fornia
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by StrayRound
Your post discussed neither the Mini 14 nor the M-16. All it did was complain about my post. So what's your excuse? Really weary of self-appointed forum police who think nobody has a right to post unless they approve.
I asked you a simple question, I'm not policing anyone. If you don't have any justification then that's fine. I'm not here to stop you. It just seemed a little odd that someone bumped a rather old thread that hadn't been replied to since 2011.
For those who have trouble making inferences, the point of my post was to show that the debate over the reliability of the M16 family (including the M4) is ongoing even today, several years after the initial post.
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Fail-i-fornia
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by StrayRound
For those who have trouble making inferences, the point of my post was to show that the debate over the reliability of the M16 family (including the M4) is ongoing even today, several years after the initial post.
And to think, you could have said that in your first post, and could have avoided all that needless sniveling.
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Fail-i-fornia
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by StrayRound
Yes Kevin by all means lock this thread since nobody will be allowed to comment on it anyway without being insulted by the holier than thou.
I don't know, considering all the posts you've ever made in this forum have been in this topic that is used for basically stirring the sh*t pot, it's hard to say where you stand.
All I pointed out was the article you linked made no mention of the Mini-14 what so ever, and considering the topic is AR-15 vs. Mini-14, you'd think it would relate to both in some way.
But please, carry on in your ignorance. When you don't get your way, call the other party names and throw childish insults at them. That's sure to get your point across.
I participated in some of the earlier posts, which is why my e-mail client alerted me to a new post in this thread. If that doesn't count as reading the thread then I don't know what does.
Just as well, your article speaks about why the M4 should be replaced by other modern combat rifles, it does not mention the Mini-14 in any way, shape or form.
If you were trying to use that as your argument for why the Mini-14 is better, it's a rather unrelated point considering the article says neither are better, the modern combat rifles such as the ACR, etc are better.
It tells me, where the M4 fails, the MINI 14 can not, does not fail at all.
And do not forget Nutnfancy ran a MINI 14 vs a AR and AK variant in his vids, and the MINI 14 won the day.
In simulated battle conditions the MINI 14 won.
His conclusion is the MINI 14 is not better then the AR or the AK, but it is just as good as either as a battle rifle.
I have the Ruger SR556 (the only AR I have, and the only one I would have considered other than the Sigs). I also have two Mini-14's. Personally, I like the Mini-14 better, but this is a personal preference. I love the Garand action. I like the feel of the rifle. I like the size and weight and the wooden stock.
Like my SR556, the Mini-14 is a piston driven system, not one that blows waste products into my receiver. Obviously, the AR-15's have great flexibility, aftermarket add-ons, etc, etc, while the Mini-14 pretty much requires Ruger magazines and replacement parts. That's fine. I like my Mini-14 better, but that is personal prejudice, and I won't deny it. "Tacti-cool" just ain't my thing.
I have the Ruger SR556 (the only AR I have, and the only one I would have considered other than the Sigs). I also have two Mini-14's. Personally, I like the Mini-14 better, but this is a personal preference. I love the Garand action. I like the feel of the rifle. I like the size and weight and the wooden stock.
Like my SR556, the Mini-14 is a piston driven system, not one that blows waste products into my receiver. Obviously, the AR-15's have great flexibility, aftermarket add-ons, etc, etc, while the Mini-14 pretty much requires Ruger magazines and replacement parts. That's fine. I like my Mini-14 better, but that is personal prejudice, and I won't deny it. "Tacti-cool" just ain't my thing.
^ ^ ^ Yes. Personal preference. I have two of both type carbines. The ARs are very slick/smooth operators. Beautiful design. Ergonomic to shoot but obviously a more delicate and sensitive mechanism than the Garand operating system. Too bad, that in the last fifty years, someone couldn't come up with a combination of the best of both. Now that would be a superior gun (carbine!).
I have the Ruger SR556 (the only AR I have, and the only one I would have considered other than the Sigs). I also have two Mini-14's. Personally, I like the Mini-14 better, but this is a personal preference. I love the Garand action. I like the feel of the rifle. I like the size and weight and the wooden stock.
Like my SR556, the Mini-14 is a piston driven system, not one that blows waste products into my receiver. Obviously, the AR-15's have great flexibility, aftermarket add-ons, etc, etc, while the Mini-14 pretty much requires Ruger magazines and replacement parts. That's fine. I like my Mini-14 better, but that is personal prejudice, and I won't deny it. "Tacti-cool" just ain't my thing.
I to prefer the Mini-14 & I love my Garands and wood stocks. I've seen both in plastic "Tacti-cool" stocks did'nt like them much. Have'nt seen AR-15 anything but plastic.
I to prefer the Mini-14 & I love my Garands and wood stocks. I've seen both in plastic "Tacti-cool" stocks did'nt like them much. Have'nt seen AR-15 anything but plastic.
Grew up shooting the Mini and Garand. How can they not be liked? I love to take out the mini with my ARrogant friends, and it is fun to have the 5 rounder for hunting and then the 30 when it's rock-n-roll time and out shoot them. We all have ARs and shot them in the service but...it is just the Ford vs Dodge vs Chevy argument any time you mention AR vs Mini vs AK? The only down side for the mini rifles in general have been the price for factory Ruger Mags and very few good aftermarket mags.
I buy 30 round blued magazines for $15.00 a piece new. They do not malfunction anymore than any other mags. Why are so many people having a hard time finding cheap reliable mags for the Mini 14?
There are more AR Mags made everyday than Mini14 Mags made in a month.
Joe R
__________________
Joe R
A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.” Proverbs 22:3
yeah, right, the million or so active and N guard who are USING the M4's and M16's are all just "wannabes", so are the guys who WIN all the matches with them. :-)
I have a 580 series thin barrel mini-14. I also have a del-ton echo 316/moe. The mini has an accustrut, trigger job, retorqed gas block, WC 1911 recoil buffers, and 1:9 twist rate. The del-ton is a very good quality carbine with magpul furniture. Flat top reciever with front sight post. I have an eotech 512 and a magpul flip up backup sight. The del-ton has a 1:9twist heavy barrel. I was in the army for 8yrs so Im very familiar with the AR. Ive worked hard to get my mini-14 to where it would shoot around MOA, and it does it consistently. Thats with my handloads. When I mounted the eotech on my del-ton I shot .75'' group with PMC X-Tac with the AR in a gunrest.
I love both of my 5.56 carbines but the AR is more accurate and easier to fix if needed. Although I have tons more rounds downrange with the mini, I havent had any failures with either one. I still believe the mini could run longer than the AR if they were being used outdoors and cleaning wasnt readily available. They both have their attributes and Im glad I have both.
but why screw up your training by having 2 different sets of sights,, safety, mag catch, etc, etc in different places, hmmm? I heard, from an impeccable source, a teacher of the Delta Force, that Ruger once sent 20 full auto minis to Aberdeen proving ground. not one of them made it to 2000 rds before suffering major breakage. So ruger gave up on the idea of major military sales of this light duty carbine. if you can find one used, for $300 with several hi cap mags, and all you want is a "truck gun", it might do ok. but to make it the equal of the ar will make it cost MORE than the AR, so why bother?
whoa;736287] I heard, from an impeccable source, a teacher of the Delta Force, that Ruger once sent 20 full auto minis to Aberdeen proving ground. not one of them made it to 2000 rds before suffering major breakage. So ruger gave up on the idea of major military sales of this light duty carbine.
no offense here but....you HEARD this....so it must be a fact. is there any document of this test? and the AR has NEVER had a criticism about being unreliable.....or has it? boy have i HEARD some stories of AR problems. but...my AR does just fine....and so does my mini.
fans boys on both sides need to quit. i own both. both are relaible accurate guns. no one will EVER prove one better. at least not in my mind....cause i OWN AND USE BOTH.
if you can find one used, for $300 with several hi cap mags, and all you want is a "truck gun", it might do ok. but to make it the equal of the ar will make it cost MORE than the AR, so why bother?
not a good argument, as the only the thing that makes a mini "EQUAL" to an AR to you.....is your opinion. i fail to find any evidence in your post to prove your point.
so i will agree to disagree. imo, my mini is every bit the equal of my AR & cost exactly the same. i really like both guns, i enjoy the differences versus thinking one is superior over the other.
Mini platforms are great and very underrated!
Just got emailed this and it looks to be a good one....
Linear Mode
