Stock weights

imarangemaster · Jan 14, 2018

Just for grins, I broke down both Mini14s to weigh them:

The Polymer stock and Choate handguard weighed in at 2.04lbs. The 583's late model wood with the matching wood handguard weighed in at 2.78 lbs, a full 12 ozs heavier than the Poly.

The 196 stainless with the poly stock weighed 7.08 pounds, but it has the John Masen stainless brake/sight/bayonet lug that weighs about 4 ozs.

The 583 in the wood weighed just at 7.75 lbs.

583 action with its thicker barrel weighs almost exactly the same as the 196 with its pencil barrel and John Masen unit.

FYI: the Choate handguard and Birch handguard from Accuracy Systems weighed exactly the same.

tri70 · Jan 15, 2018

Weight is deceiving at times, too much forward weight at the barrel makes a gun hard to maneuver and get on target. Too much weight in the rear makes it hard to keep the stock shoulder steady and comfortable. Both cases will make the gun feel heavier than they really are. Balance of the gun is key for best results.

imarangemaster · Jan 15, 2018

I totally agree. The stainless balances different than the wood. I think stainless/poly 196 might have a little edge feeling lighter, but the blue/wood 583 feels more familiar. The stainless Mini almost feels like the Saiga sporter I had, but the wood 583 handles like the USGI M1 Carbines and Ruger 10-22 I have been shooting for 55 years.

Sure, I have shot hundreds of thousand of rounds through the AR platform starting in 1974 with my M16A1 in the army, my GAU-5/A/A in the Air Force, and assorted semis and full autos through the 45 years as a shooter and 20 of those as a LEO. For sheer joy of shooting, though, I have to go with the Mini and M1 carbine.

DGW1949 · Jan 17, 2018

I agree with tri70 in that balance means a lot.
One of the first things I noticed about my (then new) blued 'n wood 582-series was that it was decidedly too butt-heavy...no doubt the result of it's stock not only having a longer LOP than the older Mini-14's, but a much thicker, solid rubber butt-pad to boot.
All in all, what Ruger did there was turn a very well balanced carbine into a somewhat clumsy, slower to get on target affair.....leastways, in my hands.

DGW

imarangemaster · Jan 20, 2018

Funny you should say that. I considered getting a beater early stock with the shorter butt and curved butt plate.

imarangemaster · Jan 20, 2018

Anyone know offhand, how much shorter the original, curved carbine butt plated stocks are than the newer ones?

sandog · Jan 20, 2018

The curved butt, old style wood stock has an L.O.P. of 12 3/4 inches.
My Ruger synthetic stock is the middle of the road length, at 13 inches.
I no longer have a new style wood stock to measure but I recall the LOP of it to be closer to 14 inches. And the LOP of the Hogue was longer as well.
If anyone has a new style wood stock or a Hogue, please let us know the LOP of them.

Phish · Jan 20, 2018

LOP on my 583 is 13.5" which is just about right for me although I wouldn't mind taking another 1/2" off but not going to yet. I might get another stock if I can justify $200 dollar Walnut be IDK though. I am pretty rough since I carry it it in the woods and up the tree stand hunting and the factory wood is getting beat up. That is why I thinking of getting the Hogue myself but I haven't found actual weight on them yet but heard they are heavier then good wood.

Phish · Jan 20, 2018

That is true COSteve as I shot M1 Garands a lot and at Camp Perry in it first M1 match back in 2000 with 3rd place medal for it that I still have in the safe. My last match I ever shot also after years of shooting National Matches with a Win M70 06 and smallbore rifle. Lot of fun but work had put a damper on any more matches it didn't pay the bills.

butler · Dec 11, 2018

All,

I just picked up my first Mini-14 (Serial #580-8xxxx, and was surprised at how heavy it was -- 7.6 pounds. I AM NOT SAYING IT'S TOO HEAVY; I'm just saying it's heavier than I expected:

Ruger says Model #5801 weighs 7.0 pounds:
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

However, as "iamarangemaster" noted above, his Mini-14 (Serial #583-xxxxx) weighs 7.75 pounds (I don't know if there's a difference between the 583 and 580 series, but our rifles look similar).

So what's going on? I can come up with three possibilities:

1. Ruger is wrong.
2. My scale is wrong.
3. My rifle has been modified in a way that's not immediately apparent (heavier internals? heavier stock?).

Respectfully,
butler

imarangemaster · Dec 12, 2018

I wonder if I had a really dense piece of wood like close to heart wood. It weighed 12 ozs more than the Poly stock. My 186 weighs under 7 pounds (6 lbs 15 oz) with its wood stock!

butler · Dec 12, 2018

iamarangemaster,

Would you be willing to do a head-to-head size/weight/photo comparison of the wood stock from your 186 and the wood stock from your 583?

Respectfully,
butler

Gearhead Jim · Dec 12, 2018

My stainless 580 came with the skinny barrel and ugly black plastic stock.
It looked like "Rambo Done Wrong".

I liked the length of pull on the plastic stock but the comb was way too low to use with a scope in the Ruger rings, which were as low as can be installed without removing the rear peep sight. I used an 8" length of black plastic stiff foam slip-on pipe insultation slipped over the comb and held in place with black duct tape. Ugly beyond belief, but worked well.

Later, I bought one of the modern wood stocks from Midway. It's quite pretty, more importantly the comb is high enough to use with a scope, though a little more height would be ok. But the length of pull is too long, I had it shortened by 1/4" and wish I'd done 3/8".

With the wood stock, the gun is slightly heavier but the balance shifts slightly to the rear which changes the feel to "about the same". The tapered barrel would make it slightly heavier and shift the balance slightly forward, neither of which I want.

I have yet to hear any good numbers on accuracy improvement and heat resistance with the tapered barrel, a test of several guns with each barrel would get a valid comparison. Has anyone done that, or something close?

sandog · Dec 12, 2018

The old style wood stock is lighter. It's a bit blockier around the edges than the new style stock with pad, but trimmer overall. Maybe the wood is slightly different too, the new stocks seem like denser wood.
I have come to like the shorter LOP of that old curved buttplate birch, but have always thought the polished butt plate was a bit slippery.
I put a piece of skateboard tape on it.
Now, unlike a Hogue stock that grabs everything, my stock is sticky only where I want it.

The old style stocks also have the benefit of a pre drilled hole right where I want the back of my sling mounted, on top of the stock.
With out having to drill a new hole in my nice old wood stock, I can just screw the swivel in the top butt plate hole.

I love the old style wood. You can sometimes see one pop up on the classifieds here on PU, or see one at a gunshow. Someone takes a nice old wood stock off their older Mini, in order to put on a Tacticool stock that they soon grow tired of, but by then they've already sold the factory stock.

My stock is a few ounces heavier because I pack this "Kit" on each Mini.
A spare battery for the FastFire dot, Allen wrenches for the Ultimak, Tech sight and gas block bolts, a spare bushing, fitted firing pin and extractor and some spare small springs, Otis cable, patches brush and a vial of CLP, a tube of Moly grease, and a loaded 5 round Ruger mag. All fits in a Spectre Gear mag pouch.
Midway sometimes has them as GI surplus and sells them for $10-$14 dollars.

40nascar · Dec 29, 2018

I don't know what my stock weights, but the 5804 mini 30 i just picked up today weighs 7 .15 lbs. With one 5 rnd empty mag and no other accessories. I am happy with that considering it has a wood stock. I will change out the handguard for a Choate, and that should bring it down to 7.00 lbs or less, and cool the barrel down more efficiently.

butler · Dec 29, 2018

Got my hands on an older stock, and wanted to share some pictures/comparisons.

Here are the two stocks:

Here's a rear close-up of the two stocks stacked on top of each other:

Here's a picture of the rifle in the newer-style wood stock:

Here's a close-up of the newer-style wood stock:

As you can see, the length of pull (LOP) of the newer-style wood stock is around 13.5":

Weights:
- rifle with new stock (flat buttplate with rubber recoil pad): 7.6 pounds
- new stock only: 2.4 pounds

Here's a picture of the rifle in the older-style wood stock:

Here's a close-up of the older-style wood stock:

As you can see, the length of pull (LOP) of the older-style wood stock is around 12.5":

Weights:
- rifle with old stock (curved butt-plate with no recoil pad): 7.0 pounds
- old stock only: 1.8 pounds

Looks like the material used in both stocks is the same kind of wood (i.e. I don't think the newer style stocks are made of heavier birch and the older ones are made with lighter walnut). Instead, the 0.6 pound weight difference between the new and old is due the different LOPs (there's just less material in the older stocks) and the rubber recoil pad (which makes the newer stocks feel slightly more back-heavy).

Hope this helps someone else out there.

sandog · Dec 26, 2019

I no longer have a new style wood stock to weigh, but I recall my results were similar to Butlers.
The old style stock is smaller overall (see Butlers pics of the two) is shorter overall because of the shorter LOP, and the curved plastic buttplate is gonna weigh less than the rubber pad of the new style.
.6 lb less, more than 1/3 of a pound, weight savings.

40 Nascar, due to inconsistencies in wood density, it's possible you weighed a lighter than normal new style stock, and a heavier than normal old style stock, but in general, the old style is going to be lighter.

The Hogue, being synthetic, is going to weigh less than a wood stock, but I recall it being heavier than a Ruger synthetic or Choate stock.
The Hogue is thicker/longer taller and has that bumpy rubber overmolding on it, which is going to add some weight.
I currently have a Ruger synthetic ( along with an old style wood on the other Mini) but don't have a scale that I can weigh it on.

Imarangemaster said the Ruger synthetic was 12 ounces less than the new style wood, and I believe he weighed it with a Choate handguard. That would put the Ruger synthetic at less than 1 1/2 pounds. More than 1/2 pound less than the Hogue.
We haven't heard from Imarangemaster lately, I hope his health is holding out and he's doing O.K.

Gearhead Jim · Dec 30, 2018

What caused me to buy the new wood instead of the old wood for my 580, was the comb height. With the old stock, I had to ducttape some foam pipe insulation (really ugly) over the comb to get my eye high enough for a scope in the factory rings, which are as low as I can use without removing the rear sight.

imarangemaster · Dec 31, 2018

I would really love to trip across an affordable old style wood stock for my Mini-30 The LOP on the 186 is perfect for me.

kwg020 · Dec 31, 2018

As you know COSteve cut his new style stock down. I also cut down a laminated Mini stock as well to get it to 14.5" which is the same as my M1 Garands from the top of the butt stock to the rear sight. It would be a full inch shorter LOP if you are talking about measuring to the rear of the receiver.

My old Mini stock gets me about 1/2 inch closer to the rear sight. My synthetic stock is 15" from the top of the butt to the rear sight. I wish there was a way to cut off that 1/2 " as well.

kwg

Gearhead Jim · Dec 31, 2018

I had my new style wood stock shortened by 1/4", wish I'd done 3/8" or even 1/2".

Shooting smallbore at 50', I can't remember how the stocks fit me on the target .22's but it worked ok. The first time I shot a centerfire rifle was a M1 in the Navy, qualified Expert on that first run but got a black eye from crawling the stock. But I still liked the length of pull.

SAN14 · Dec 31, 2018

My old Mini stock gets me about 1/2 inch closer to the rear sight. My synthetic stock is 15" from the top of the butt to the rear sight. I wish there was a way to cut off that 1/2 " as well.

kwg[/QUOTE]

I shortened my synthetic stock on one of my minis by about 3/4 in. some yrs. ago. It took some work and ingenuity to get it done and I did expose a little of the steel skeleton within the rubber buttpad. But in the end, its the same LOP as my old style wood stock.

kwg020 · Jan 1, 2019

SAN14 said:
My old Mini stock gets me about 1/2 inch closer to the rear sight. My synthetic stock is 15" from the top of the butt to the rear sight. I wish there was a way to cut off that 1/2 " as well.

kwg

I shortened my synthetic stock on one of my minis by about 3/4 in. some yrs. ago. It took some work and ingenuity to get it done and I did expose a little of the steel skeleton within the rubber buttpad. But in the end, its the same LOP as my old style wood stock.[/QUOTE]

I currently have an unemployed original wood Mini 14 stock. The kind with the curved butt. I have been saving it for a future project yet to be decided. The prices on the older skinny barrel Mini's has been creeping up. I assume because of the States that have put huge restrictions on AR's and AK's so folks are taking a second look at the Mini's.

But, there is one out there somewhere that has been bubba'd all to heck and it's got my name on it. But, I do tend to go with shorter stocks. 14.5 down to 13.5 inches seems to be the sweet spot for me.

kwg

butler · Jan 31, 2019

Got my hands on a Hogue stock, and wanted to share some more pictures/comparisons.

Here are the two stocks:

Here's a picture of the rifle in the newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad):

Here's a close-up:

Weights:
- rifle with newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad): 7.6 pounds
- newer-style wood stock only: 2.4 pounds

Here's a picture of the rifle in the Hogue stock:

Here's a close-up (as you can see, basically the same length of pull):

Weights:
- rifle with Hogue stock: 7.2 pounds
- Hogue stock only: 2.0 pounds

So, the Hogue stock will save you ~0.4 pounds compared to the newer-style wood stock, but it's still ~0.2 pounds heavier than the older-style wood stock (see my previous posts above).

*****

But wait, there's more! The Hogue stock actually came from a special NRA-edition Mini-14 with a 16.0" barrel. So, here are some more pictures/comparisons.

Here's a picture of the 18.5" barrel rifle in the newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad):

Weight:
- 18.5" barrel rifle in newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad): 7.6 pounds

Here's a picture of the 16.0" barrel rifle in the newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad):

Weight:
- 16.0" barreled rifle in newer-style wood stock (flat buttplate/recoil pad): 7.2 pounds

The 16.0" barrel will save you ~0.4 pounds compared to the 18.5" barrel.

*****

So to sum up, here are the weights of the three stocks:
- newer-style (flat buttplate/recoil pad) wood stock: 2.6 pounds
- NRA-edition Hogue stock: 2.0 pounds
- older-style wood stock (curved buttplate/no recoil pad): 1.8 pounds

And here is the difference between the two barrel lengths:
- 18.5" barrel vs. 16.0" barrel: 0.4 pounds

Thus, here is a plain-jane Mini-14, but in the heaviest configuration:
- 18.5" barrel rifle in newer-style wood stock: 7.6 pounds

And here is the lightest combination I have on hand right now:
- 16.0" barrel rifle in older-style wood stock: 6.6 pounds

In this comparison photo, the 7.6 pound Mini-14 is on top, the 6.6 pound Mini-14 is on the bottom:

By simply playing with the barrel length and the type of stock, I was able to shave nearly a pound off my Mini-14. Now it's truly a lightweight shooter....

40nascar · Dec 26, 2019

I weighed several factory wood stocks ( with all metal and plastic attached) the original curved butt stock and the more modern straight cut stock with pad both are at 2.25 lbs. There is no weight savings of old vs new wood stock. I also have a factory limited edition newer stock that is a laminated wood stock. It weighs 2.5 lbs.

Stock weights

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities