Perfect Union banner

61 - 80 of 98 Posts

·
Formerly "raf"
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
UPDATE:

I put the gun back in the original synthetic stock (i had put it in factory wood) and the issue went away.

Im thinking the fit wasn't correct on the wood stock and it wasn't latching correctly. Why this only manifested with 2 buffers installed is beyond me. Rifle currently has wilson 1911 buffers front and rear...smooth and silk and working perfectly.
As long as you got your Mini to run right in the syn stock, you are doing all right. You have a functional firearm, which is always the goal. Prefer syn stocks myself, but YMMV.

If you wish to do so, it's always possible to mod the wooden stock so that it no longer drops the trigger group. Perhaps contact Ruger with your problem and see what they say before making alterations to wooden stock. AFAIK, Ruger Mini wooden stocks are not known for precise fit, and that can be problematic.

FWIW, I've fitted and bedded a number of M1, M1A, and Mini-14 stocks, both wooden, laminate, and composite. The syn stocks available for all these rifles were almost always better stocks, out of the box, as far as accuracy was concerned, even before bedding.

I keep my pretty OEM wooden Mini stock in a box. I shoot my Mini with a paintable, virtually indestructible, accuracy-enhancing syn stock. YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
I wonder if the reverend would prefer to get hit on the head with a hammer or have a piece of our buffer material protecting his lil noggin when the hammer comes down.
I doubt it would make much difference....but your analogy is flawed, my noggin is not designed to operate normally being struck by a hammer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Holy cow! I've never before seen such inane babbling as I have from the good reverend in this thread. Reverend, I recommend you get re-baptized, full immersion, with your head under water for... oh... about 10 minutes should do it. You'll be as right as rain after. I promise!

The fact is very few firearms come from the factory functioning the best they can be. They usually have a lot more potential. Every firearm made for the US military goes through the hands of an armorer before it's ever put in a the hands of a soldier.

Your argument that someone thinks they know better than Ruger because they add buffers is beyond ridiculous. The Mini, like most other firearms, leaves the factory within some standard spec that the factory adheres to.

Beyond that standard is plenty of room for improvement. And thus there are countless forums, books, videos, magazine articles, technical papers, etc, on improving virtually every firearm ever made. You surely must know that, but you're obviously the sort to forget everything they know just to try to win an argument. And you're not winning. So far your grade in this class is F-. Thanks to the Dems you got No Child Left Behind going for ya, but that's about it.

I went through the painful process of reading through all your posts in this thread. It's you who has a problem grasping physics. I know physics, both academically and in practice.

Let's talk tech. You go first, because I'm a gentleman and I always say "ladies first. " It's how I was raised. :cool:
And yet, the military doesn’t use aftermarket buffers in any of their weapons? Gee, the ultimate proving ground, reinforces my point. Maybe you already did your full immersion for ten minutes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
You are beyond help, reverend.
The forward force of the spring means nothing, only the heavy op-rod slamming into the gas block.
That is what is hard on optics, hard on the gas block, and detrimental to accuracy. The spring only helps the op-rod on it's way.
Excess gas is also an issue, as a blowhard like you would know.

Pretty sure you can impart the same degree of rearward motion as the gas system.
Sure, any of us can pull the op-rod all the way back and "impart the same degree of rearward motion" but the amount of travel is not what matters.
What matters is the speed that occurs from the gas action, and the extra energy from that speed.
That op-rod will come back when firing much faster than you can pull it back, and impact the receiver with more energy.

Let's all put this dude on ignore, and we can get back to civil, constructive discussion among friends.
Physics was never your strong point, huh? Bummer.
 

·
Formerly "raf"
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
And yet, the military doesn’t use aftermarket buffers in any of their weapons? Gee, the ultimate proving ground, reinforces my point. Maybe you already did your full immersion for ten minutes?
USGI Mil omitted cleaning kits from initial issue of M-16 rifles. I don't think Mil always has things right at first. or even in the face of contradicting evidence. See book Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military: Hallahan, William H.: 9780684193595: Amazon.com: Books
for multiple examples of US Gov't firearms failures.

Claiming US MIL as ultimate authority flies in the face of objective facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
Reverend, you've repeatedly shown how ignorant you are of buffer use in the Mini in this thread, and also how much of an ass you are. Stick to the political forum, we seem to be in agreement with you there.

Maybe the title of this thread should have been "Switching stocks on the Mini can be problematic", instead of "Buffers caused some crazy issues".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
I doubt it would make much difference....but your analogy is flawed, my noggin is not designed to operate normally being struck by a hammer.
If MY analogy is flawed, then no one doing risky sports should need a helmet. Again, you are wrong but I know you won't change your stubborn mind. I'm done with your hardheadedness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
USGI Mil omitted cleaning kits from initial issue of M-16 rifles. I don't think Mil always has things right at first. or even in the face of contradicting evidence. See book Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military: Hallahan, William H.: 9780684193595: Amazon.com: Books
for multiple examples of US Gov't firearms failures.

Claiming US MIL as ultimate authority flies in the face of objective facts.
Hmm, so now a cleaning kit analogy? That's a reach. Indeed the manufacturer claimed they weren't needed, this predicated on using ammo of proper specs, a ball powder if I recall. The military didn't. It made a big difference. Also chroming the chamber/barrel...but those are teething problems. See, the military use improved the design, and changed maintenance routines, but no aftermarket buffers.
Actually when it comes to firearms reliability, the military is a very reliable testing ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
If MY analogy is flawed, then no one doing risky sports should need a helmet. Again, you are wrong but I know you won't change your stubborn mind. I'm done with your hardheadedness.
What sport is it that bashes heads with a hammer? Please tell. See, a gun like the mini has certain given operations that MUST occur when the weapon is being fired.
The analogy is awful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Reverend, you've repeatedly shown how ignorant you are of buffer use in the Mini in this thread, and also how much of an ass you are. Stick to the political forum, we seem to be in agreement with you there.

Maybe the title of this thread should have been "Switching stocks on the Mini can be problematic", instead of "Buffers caused some crazy issues".
Aww, trying to think for me? You aren't up to the task
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
Ar's were designed to use stick powders, but the military decided that
ball powder was cheaper and went with that instead, which caused
the major problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,278 Posts
Ar's were designed to use stick powders, but the military decided that
ball powder was cheaper and went with that instead, which caused
the major problems.
Lessons learned. The decision of the U.S Government to change powders was costly. It cost some good men their lives. But, we are not the U.S. Government. Unless you are a LEO or prison guard we can play with our rifles and powder choices without the fear of hurting anyone. If something doesn't work we can always make a change. Sandog uses two buffers, one in front and one in back. I choose to use one at the receiver. It's not big deal since we are not under fire by a hostile enemy and we like the results.

This forum is designed for the benefit of all Mini owners to make their rifles better. Better in their own opinion. Sandog has done tons of personal research and is more than willing to pass it on. If you are not thanking him for this information you should be. He has saved countless hours of research by everyone on this forum. Just like another member who designed the Accu Strut. If you have a skinny barrel Mini that has accuracy issues this is a relatively easy fix. I paid a lot of money to have a heavy barrel installed on my Mini and a year or 2 later here comes KKina with his Accu Strut. Doahhh !!

I just want to add that if you are running 2 buffers and the trigger group is dropping out, there are some major issues. (could it be an over pressure problem ??) It's one of the reasons why we stress NOT to make any changes to the rifle before getting 200 rounds down the tube.

I guess I don't know what all the rancor is all about. No one is forcing you to learn from other folks research. Feel free to learn it all by yourself without the benefit of the internet to make your life simple (er) . If you don't like their opinion, do it your way and come to your own conclusions. But, don't expect us to follow your every word when it's already been done previously and reported on by folks we trust and have followed for years.

kwg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Lessons learned. The decision of the U.S Government to change powders was costly. It cost some good men their lives. But, we are not the U.S. Government. Unless you are a LEO or prison guard we can play with our rifles and powder choices without the fear of hurting anyone. If something doesn't work we can always make a change. Sandog uses two buffers, one in front and one in back. I choose to use one at the receiver. It's not big deal since we are not under fire by a hostile enemy and we like the results.

This forum is designed for the benefit of all Mini owners to make their rifles better. Better in their own opinion. Sandog has done tons of personal research and is more than willing to pass it on. If you are not thanking him for this information you should be. He has saved countless hours of research by everyone on this forum. Just like another member who designed the Accu Strut. If you have a skinny barrel Mini that has accuracy issues this is a relatively easy fix. I paid a lot of money to have a heavy barrel installed on my Mini and a year or 2 later here comes KKina with his Accu Strut. Doahhh !!

I just want to add that if you are running 2 buffers and the trigger group is dropping out, there are some major issues. (could it be an over pressure problem ??) It's one of the reasons why we stress NOT to make any changes to the rifle before getting 200 rounds down the tube.

I guess I don't know what all the rancor is all about. No one is forcing you to learn from other folks research. Feel free to learn it all by yourself without the benefit of the internet to make your life simple (er) . If you don't like their opinion, do it your way and come to your own conclusions. But, don't expect us to follow your every word when it's already been done previously and reported on by folks we trust and have followed for years.

kwg
So all are equal, but some are more equal. Let them opine, others should shush. Jawol!
 

·
Formerly "raf"
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Hmm, so now a cleaning kit analogy? That's a reach. Indeed the manufacturer claimed they weren't needed, this predicated on using ammo of proper specs, a ball powder if I recall. The military didn't. It made a big difference. Also chroming the chamber/barrel...but those are teething problems. See, the military use improved the design, and changed maintenance routines, but no aftermarket buffers.
Actually when it comes to firearms reliability, the military is a very reliable testing ground.
No, Mil acquisition process altered the M-16 (to save a few bucks) by deleting original chrome-lined chamber/barrel, changing the ammo powder type, deleting the cleaning kit, and insisting on a Forward-Assist for the bolt.

Mil USE showed that the Mil acquisition process screwed-up, and the deleted features/items were added after causing needless casualties. Virtually all of the M-16's original "teething problems" were caused by the Mil deliberately altering the M-16. The Mil didn't "Improve" the M-16; they Restored it to original configuration. Heaven help us from that sort of bass-ackwards "testing", IMHO.

BTW, the AR-15 certainly does have an OEM buffer, as does the M-16:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
No, Mil acquisition process altered the M-16 (to save a few bucks) by deleting original chrome-lined chamber/barrel, changing the ammo powder type, deleting the cleaning kit, and insisting on a Forward-Assist for the bolt.

Mil USE showed that the Mil acquisition process screwed-up, and the deleted features/items were added after causing needless casualties. Virtually all of the M-16's original "teething problems" were caused by the Mil deliberately altering the M-16. The Mil didn't "Improve" the M-16; they Restored it to original configuration. Heaven help us from that sort of bass-ackwards "testing", IMHO.

BTW, the AR-15 certainly does have an OEM buffer, as does the M-16:

So, you are saying the mil altering things messed things up, while you preach altering an OEM weapon. Good show!
By the way, the buffer on the ar/m16 is OEM, not an add on. And includes the spring in that system. Calling a piece of polymer a buffer is quite a stretch. Especially that thin piece of poly Used in mini.
I have a poly buffer pin in my 1022, it is quieter. Does nothing else. But replaces a steel pin with a poly one, and does not change the operational specs one iota. Those little pieces of poly added to mini’s do. And the 10/22 one does nothing really, I have seen stock unaltered ones with tens of thousands of rounds (maybe more) and no damage to the bolt, no elongating of the pin holes in the receiver, etc. It is just quieter In poly. And the 10/22 receiver is thin aluminum.
Also seen mini’s with plenty of rounds through them, no damages from a lack of thin poly wafer additions. Believe it or not the spring and the materials used were designed to handle the power of the rounds used.
There are weapons with buffers by design. I get that. My camp 9 has one, recently replaced, and upgraded to more modern materials. But it is there by OEM design.
I have seen AK’s and mini’s that vexed people simply because they added ”buffers” that were not needed, and do nothing.
Granted I don’t use slip covers on furniture either, nor do I think that baseball would approve of batters putting buffers on their bats to prevent damage to the bat from balls impacting them. That’s a much more appropriate sports analogy than the hammer to a head analogy that got modified to a sports analogy when it was realized it was senseless. See, a bat impacts a ball every time it hits a pitch....that’s what it is supposed to do. Oughta put a buffer on to keep from wearing it that bat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
No, Mil acquisition process altered the M-16 (to save a few bucks) by deleting original chrome-lined chamber/barrel, changing the ammo powder type, deleting the cleaning kit, and insisting on a Forward-Assist for the bolt.

Mil USE showed that the Mil acquisition process screwed-up, and the deleted features/items were added after causing needless casualties. Virtually all of the M-16's original "teething problems" were caused by the Mil deliberately altering the M-16. The Mil didn't "Improve" the M-16; they Restored it to original configuration. Heaven help us from that sort of bass-ackwards "testing", IMHO.

BTW, the AR-15 certainly does have an OEM buffer, as does the M-16:

By the way, the forward assist was not initially incorporated, it was another faulty “solution” to user created problems. My slick side ar’s work fine without them.
 
61 - 80 of 98 Posts
Top