Perfect Union banner
80K views 157 replies 77 participants last post by  Back Again (Drache Teufel) 
#1 ·
I have read discussions like this for years. Now that I am a member I'm starting this one to try and objectively resolve this matter. Please no bashing lets just deal with the facts. I like both weapons, and have extensively shot then both. I personally favor the Mini 14.

Let's try and stick to these factors when considering these two rifles.
(Also lets try and stick with the most current AR's & Mini's .223 5.56)


1) Cost
2) Functionality
3) Practicality
4) Performance
5) Reliability
6) Accessories
7) Factory vs. Modded


Here is my Ruger Mini 14 (196 series):

http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=50777
 
#90 ·
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!
 
#91 ·
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about it and the Stoner design are made by those who were never issued one, the complaints from 'Nam era vets are no longer valid for the later rifles and the ammo.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.
 
#95 ·
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!
 
#92 ·
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."

Sounds like it's still an issue to me.
 
#93 ·
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.
 
This post has been deleted
#102 ·
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.
 
#104 ·
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.

;)
 
#110 ·
ar's suck they are for mall ninja rambo wanna be commandos. minis are awesome rifles for people who know how to shoot.

kevin lock this thread we have beaten this horse to death and now we are dragging it down the road.
Well...I suppose that's one way to get the last word in.
 
#111 ·
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.
 
#114 ·
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.
 
#115 ·
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!).
 
#121 ·
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.
 
#122 ·
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?
 
#123 ·
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.
 
#131 ·
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.
+1 Hawkguy.

I enjoy the differences so I keep both in the stable. Also makes a good way of demonstrating the nonsense of the "good gun/evil gun" thing to the uninitiated. Once they've fired 'em both, the only thing some have thought is that maybe the mini is more powerful (more muzzle blast/recoil).

All the best,
Grumpy
 
#124 ·
I find that few critics of the mini-14 have ever actually owned one.

My experience in bullet points: (since I have owned, modified and shot both extensively)

Accuracy is very similar when you compare like barrel profiles. If you compare a heavy barrel AR to a pencil barrel Mini-, you get apples & oranges. I can do the same with two ARs or two Mini-14s. I accurized mine and had it shooting 1 MOA for a modest investment. All in, maybe $1500, about the same as an AR with the same set of features I ended with. TIE

Reliability is higher in the Mini-14 due to the lower complexity and lower sensitivity to dirt, grime and contaminates. It has few small parts in the critical areas. ADVANTAGE Mini

Maintenence intervals are lower with the Mini-14 (see above) ADVANTAGE Mini

Versatility is higher for the AR types, out of the box, however, recent stocks offered for the Mini- bring it up to par for $200, matching the AR in ergonomics and as a mounting platform. With a lower initial cost, the Mini- is a contender. ADVANTAGE AR

Weight is similar in the stripped down models of both, around 6-8 lbs, and the sky is the limit in either. TIE

Aftermarket support is outrageous for the AR and barely adequate for the Mini- ADAVANTAGE AR

Magazine changes is probably the last sticking point for me. The AR types allow you to press a button and the mag drops free. The Mini- can sometimes be tuned to do this, however it isn't that way by design. It usually requires a tug. ADVANTAGE AR

In the end, the winner is one of two things: For the individual, it's a matter of preference. For the armies of the world, it's a matter of big picture (cost/support/longevity/performance/servicability/etc.). This can vary widely. It isn't valid to compare the needs of the US Armed forces with the needs of a Carribean island nation.
So, in the context of this forum, it's a matter of personal preference around all the points above. But there is only shaky ground, at best, to say the Mini- doesn't hold it's own in the world of the AR. Ask yourself this; Would you want your enemy shoot back with one? I know what my Mini- can do. My answer is NO! I'd feel better if they had AKs, SKS, etc.
 
#126 ·
My take is this:

1) If I had the full resources, and companies that would LOVE to sell tens of thousands of new battle rifles to the USA Military, LE etc.... I'd open competition for a replacement of the M16/M4, and even dare I say it, a new "common" intermediate round that is lighter to carry than the .308/7.62, but delivers down range accuracy in line with the current M16/M4, but more energy similar to the larger rounds.

2) The M14 was/is a very good rifle, and since the Mini is based on it, the foundation is solid, but the application has been limited by a few choices made for this "civillian" market carbine. (Barrel too thin/long, poor sight options, limited high capacity mags etc.)

3) The Stoner design has some great features, but over the years, the proven reality is, a gas impingement design fails when it counts, and is a cleaning nightmare. The AK, and other gas piston designs have proven time and time again, that they run when dirty, are easy to clean, and let's face it, KISS is important when you are training soldiers to maintain, and use their weapons.

So, where does that leave the Mini14/Mini30 v/s the AR/M16 debate?

Well, I'd have to say, that to get a stainless steel stamped reciever AK with a match grade barrel, would be awesome, it's not out there, so I have a Stainless Mini30 to shoot the 7.62x39 round.

And after many decades of Bushmaster M4gery ownership, and shooting, I was happy as could be to get rid of that rifle, and now I have a FNH FS2000 Tactical, that incorporates a clean running bull pup design that has yet to fail me in any way related to the weapon. (The magazines need to have an anti-tilt follower, and that is the only issue I have come across. Trigger feel is fine, accuracy is excellent, and since it's a bull pup, it's short, yet has a long barrel, so you get battle rifle ballistics from a M4 sized package.)

In a perfect world, the next US Military weapon would have a piston driven, bull pup assault rifle that shoots a harder hitting, yet just as lightweight to carry round with plenty of space for all the stuff we see clamped to the weapons our troops use today. (Lights, lasers, holo optics and magnifiers etc.)

A good contender is the P90. I also like my FS2000, and think the F2000 tactical has some very good points. Many of the worlds armies have gone to bull pup designs with good results, yet the USA resists this change, and I'm not sure why.

The fast mag change of the current weapon is not something that saves lives over having a light weight, reliable weapon that packs a punch in CQB and out to 500 yards, and that/those weapons exist today. (F2000, AUG, Enfield, Tavor etc.)

Israel makes a great bull pup design that has options for many roles in the military. Why can't the USA move to that format is beyond me.

Sure the FNH SCAR and other "new" M16/M4 varients are excellent rifles, but why put the action out in front of the trigger, and limit the barrel in the process to have a shorter weapon platform?

You can never have a bullet that's too fast and accurate in combat I'd think. And the only way to get it that fast is with longer barrels, or make it really light weight. Why not some of both? A 100gr bullet in 7.5mm on a 30mm case would be just about right on an 18" fluted barrel, in a bull pup with standard 40 round mags made of stainless steel, coated in teflon. (Or use the very reliable, and very light design from the P90, and stack say 80 rounds into a new bull pup design with an 18" barrel along the same lines?)

Again, just saying, the USA has massive companies that would LOVE to sell them rifles, and make the USA military the envy of the world when it comes to a new battle rifle, and bullet design that does it all.

7.5X30mm would be the dog's dangles, with 100gr plastic sabot bullets going 3800fps out the muzzle, in an 8.5 lb weapon that incorporates laser/light and holo sight as standard, with a open rail tatical option as just that, an option. (Could see a version setup with slower, subsonic rounds of 250gr, in the same case, going 1050fps in a shorter 10 or 12" barrel for dedicated CQB use, and special ops where long range shooting would be minimal, and a heavy, yet quiet round is needed.)

It would be slightly wider than the P90, and the mags would be slightly longer, but since it's not a PDW, but a Carbine, that's fine. (And have the rounds drop out the lower just like the P90 does, zero issues with what hand you shoot from, or working around buildings/doors/vehicles etc.)

Heck, make it simple blow back operation, and really keep it simple....

Just talking out loud...

But if you guys have shot the PS90, or P90, you know what I'm talking about, it's light, simple and damn accurate.
 
#127 ·
BTW, the Russians have a 9mm based weapon using the AK action, subsonic rounds, and long, built in suppressor.

Why don't we?

The "blackout" is a nice option, but I've read some very good reports on the Russian 9mm.

Quiet, and very large, heavy bullets that even subsonic, will defeat soft body armor.
 
#128 ·
no, the Mini is NOT based upon the M14. it's a different action entirely. It is based upon the .30 carbine, with the latter's fragility and lack of a rotating bolt, and the added problem of a high intensity cartridge. All of the above comments upon price are rendered bs by the current shortages. MY wife insisted upon buying a Mini-14, against my advice, and after she shot an AR, the Mini got sold REAL quick and she bought an AR. :)
 
#129 ·
You almost had it. The Mini-14 was not based on the 30 carbine but on the M1 Garand.

The 30 caliber carbine was based on an experimental hunting rifle being developed by Winchester. The gun was scaled down from 30-06 to the 30 caliber carbine round which was based on the 32 Winchester self loading cartridge.

No connection to the Ruger mini.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top