Perfect Union banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok….so I have been running this through my head for a while because I enjoy the Mini so much BUT in factory form it really has some drawbacks. I am also not completely happy with the current aftermarket options even when you use a stock like I currently own which is the Archangel Sparta(which I really like for the most part) take down for cleaning is too labor intensive a process and could not be accomplished as easily in the field as I would like.

So here is what I came up with(and maybe someone else already has and I just haven't seen it): The Mini Action sitting in a stock with an A2 style butt stock with and A2 style grip. The chassis is aligned so that it is in-line with the bore to help reduce muzzle rise and to improve site and scope angle. To accomplish this I would drop the action lower into the stock with some kind of improved bedding system, I would think that accuracy should also improve with the rear of the action sitting lower into the stock as it will move less in the stock. The butt stock could be made to be adjustable pretty easily so that it could fit different size shooter or fit with whatever shooting rig you use but still retain the A2 profile. See below for a mock up of what I am envisioning (I am not great at Photoshop so the proportions are not perfect) I am looking for input from the vast wealth of knowledge that you guys posses...which includes completely shooting the idea down because I have no idea what I am talking about:lol: The Mini definitely looks like it's own animal in this type of setup and not a clone of something else.
On a side note if only I could talk Ruger into designing an updated Mini with the charging handle on the left side of the receiver then it would be an unbeatable platform in my book in any stock and probably sell like hotcakes.
....Now I just need a fabricator so I can build a prototype and try out my theory….
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Interesting idea.

Buttstock:

Irons might be a tad low.

Better height for optics.

Pistol grip would make it no-go in some states.

Left side charging handle - would require a lot of redesign of receiver and op-rod and bolt catch.

Unless one runs a LH charging handle forward like on the HK 91/93 platform - it would have to be non-reciprocating. Sounds much too complicated but keep brainstorming - interested in what you come up with.

YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
SSM....Good point on the pistol grip...could always make a version without grip but still have the inline chassis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
This sounds an awful lot like an ATI/Ruger stock using a factory handguard and a aluminum bedding block. Bedding block would have oversize pads at critical points of contact that would have to be dremeled or filed to allow a super tight fit to eliminate play between the action and the stock.

A no protruding grip to appeal to ban states.

Or buy a Troy MCS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
This sounds an awful lot like an ATI/Ruger stock using a factory handguard and a aluminum bedding block. Bedding block would have oversize pads at critical points of contact that would have to be dremeled or filed to allow a super tight fit to eliminate play between the action and the stock.

A no protruding grip to appeal to ban states.

Or buy a Troy MCS.
Jorel...Both the ATI and Tapco stocks have the action sitting high in the chassis, I have had both and did not have a good experience with either....the new ATI shows a little promise but it is still an awkward setup in my book. I got the Sparta instead of the Troy after reading lots of reviews...the Troy is cool but heavy and has most of the downfalls of the Sparta and is WAY expensive. The new Ruger American rifle bedding intrigues me but I am not sure how it could or if it could translate to the Mini platform. The real challenge in the bedding world would be the difference in manufacturing changes over the years...maybe a shim kit???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Interesting idea.

Buttstock:

Irons might be a tad low.

Better height for optics.

Pistol grip would make it no-go in some states.

Left side charging handle - would require a lot of redesign of receiver and op-rod and bolt catch.

Unless one runs a LH charging handle forward like on the HK 91/93 platform - it would have to be non-reciprocating. Sounds much too complicated but keep brainstorming - interested in what you come up with.

YMMV
SSM...You are absolutely right with the redesign concerns and I am quite sure cost as well! It is just my opinion but I just wish that Ruger would spend time with models that were truly theirs instead of jumping into the black rifle market, don't get me wrong I would LOVE to have a SR556 & 762, they seem to be pretty awesome but it really doesn't set them apart from the others in a major way. The Mini on the other hand is iconic and if they wanted to increase brand awareness and loyalty why not revamp their classic Mini again, the 580 series brought us much needed changes the owners liked a lot, if they designed lets say Mini 14 V2AT(Advanced Tactical) with changes like the left sided charging handle and so forth I think you would have a whole crop of new and former buyers who would be interested and it would certainly set the industry on its ear! It would be theirs and not another AR variant, just because the AR is a great platform doesn't mean it needs to be the only platform....and you know us Ruger buyers, we will always swear that what we have is the best :lol: Anyways....just my pipe dream:wacko:
 

·
Garand-ite
Joined
·
681 Posts
I see where you're going with this. I have been thinking of grafting two stocks to make something like the Beretta BM59.
Kinda something like the M14's E2 stock? I would like it in wood. Haha.
 

Attachments

1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top