Thoughts on Ruger's "Mini" series

[Jason_W]

I may have posted a similar thread a few years back, but I don't remember. If it's a repeat, I apologize.

I'm considering saving for my first semi-auto centerfire (a process that will likely take years at this point)

Compared to the AR-15, what's the general consensus? I like the fact that I can buy two minis for about the cost of one AR, and I like the feel of the mini better. What about reliability and durability? I'm not overly concerned with accuracy, as long as it's capable of consistently putting all shots inside a paper plate at 100-150 yards, I'll be happy.

Any experience with a newer model mini in comparison to the AR?

[Kansas Ed]

I've also debated this question and it seems that everyone ends up pointing me to an AR. I've worked on one mini years ago that a gent wanted me to develop loads for. It started out shooting about 4" groups and I couldn't get them any better. Really frustrated me for awhile...but then I took off the flash hider and it sucked in to 1.5" groups. I liked the rifle, but they are so short coupled they were uncomfortable for me. I would like a semi, but seems that all are just too short for my makeup. I like the full sized M14 type rifle in 308, but prefer the ammo availability of the 223. I'm in your same boat...this will be an interesting thread for me.

Ed

[fatoldfool]

I have never heard a complaint about reliability. I have heard complaints about accuracy, however any I have fired had the capability to shoot under 3 inches at 100 yds, and some would do the 1 1/2 inch groups. Unless Ruger has changed the chamber, you are not supposed to fire 5.56, fire ONLY .223 ammo. I do have a friend who has fired about 500 rounds of 5.56 through his stainless mini with no apparent problems. It will shoot 1 1/2 inch groups with military 5.56. He has tried several different scope mounts and all loosened with firing. Now he just uses the original peep sights.

[Hobie]

The newer 580 prefix guns are supposed to be more accurate and they do have heavier barrels. Magazines seem to be the bugaboo to me. $29.95 a piece and relatively limited distribution compared to the AR mags which are everywhere. I was about to get an NRA carbine but didn't for that reason alone. Now I've got a Garand. Go figger.

When you're thinking about one for you and the spouse that is a good reason to get a pair. You could get one stainless and one blued, a his and hers. Who gets what is unimportant, that you have the pair (and maybe a spare, later) is.

[AJMD429]

They are basically a 'mini' M-14 - thus the name, so if you like the wood fixed-stock and the overall configuration of the larger M-1A, you'll like the Ruger. There ARE big differences, other than size, though. Ruger designed the rifle for 'ranch' use, not for combat, or precision target shooting. Accuracy Rifle Systems and other companies specialize in bedding, rebarreling, and so on for the Rugers, if a person wants to go that way.

The AR's are of course extremely versatile, modular, potentially very accurate, and so on. They are NOT as comfortable a 'fit' for me, and in all configurations they just seem heavy and flat and awkward, to me. BUT if I had to hit a golf ball on the first shot at 100 yards on a $100 bet, I'd be using the AR vs. the Mini.

OTOH, if I just want to walk around the beanfield and chance on jumping a coyote, I'd rather have the Mini-14.

Also - with a flush 5-rounder, the Mini-14 can 'look' very un-intimidating, which may mean you attract less attention of the kind you may not want in these politically-correct days.

Finally - NEVER try to scope a 'regular' Mini-14 unless you're sure that scope is recoil-proof, or you slip in a (cheap, $5) 'buffer' - the RANCH rifles have a different op-rod support/spring that is supposed to greatly lessen scope-shock. Besides, the rings and bases make the Ranch-14 far easier to scope.

For those who want a LONGER stock - a low-cost rubber stock-extending buttplate is made that extends the length maybe 1-1/2 or 2 inches. I like it, but wound up putting it on my 96/44 instead.

[Jason_W]

When you're thinking about one for you and the spouse that is a good reason to get a pair. You could get one stainless and one blued, a his and hers. Who gets what is unimportant, that you have the pair (and maybe a spare, later) is.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking of.

And I'm sure she'd claim the stainless one

[madman4570]

I may have posted a similar thread a few years back, but I don't remember. If it's a repeat, I apologize.

I'm considering saving for my first semi-auto centerfire (a process that will likely take years at this point)

Compared to the AR-15, what's the general consensus? I like the fact that I can buy two minis for about the cost of one AR, and I like the feel of the mini better. What about reliability and durability? I'm not overly concerned with accuracy, as long as it's capable of consistently putting all shots inside a paper plate at 100-150 yards, I'll be happy.

Any experience with a newer model mini in comparison to the AR?

IMO-------There is No comparison.
Save your penny's and get a Colt Match HBAR(the Match version is not much more money,so get it)
If you dont like the balck plastic gun---Get a Springfield Armory National Match M1A1 .308
The M1A1 are great guns but the AR's are just so much more people friendly to most people!
The top gun guy's used to laugh at them years back until many started getting beat with the black toy's
and ended up switching themselves.
A Colt Match Grade HBAR AR15 will group on the bench just like your Scoped Bolt.
It's the shooter,Mine will on bench group 1MOA or under.(on sandbags)On like a Ransom rest less.
With the match sights at 100 yards and proper ammo/form you don't give up much from a scoped average bolt gun.
Don't know about all the other brand AR's(Our guy's only shoot the Colt's)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... s_id/36407

Put it this way,some of the Guy's from other club's show up with their "worked" M1A1's(Douglas/Hart custom barrels/Custom everything and these Stock Match Colt's stay right with them if you do your part.
They are unreal.Buy the Match Colt-----------Dont scrimp on this one

[Jason_W]

I may have posted a similar thread a few years back, but I don't remember. If it's a repeat, I apologize.

I'm considering saving for my first semi-auto centerfire (a process that will likely take years at this point)

Compared to the AR-15, what's the general consensus? I like the fact that I can buy two minis for about the cost of one AR, and I like the feel of the mini better. What about reliability and durability? I'm not overly concerned with accuracy, as long as it's capable of consistently putting all shots inside a paper plate at 100-150 yards, I'll be happy.

Any experience with a newer model mini in comparison to the AR?

IMO-------There is No comparison.
Save your penny's and get a Colt Match HBAR(the Match version is not much more money,so get it)
If you dont like the balck plastic gun---Get a Springfield Armory National Match M1A1 .308
The M1A1 are great guns but the AR's are just so much more people friendly to most people!
The top gun guy's used to laugh at them years back until many started getting beat with the black toy's
and ended up switching themselves.
A Colt Match Grade HBAR AR15 will group on the bench just like your Scoped Bolt.
It's the shooter,Mine will on bench group 1MOA or under.(on sandbags)On like a Ransom rest less.
With the match sights at 100 yards and proper ammo/form you don't give up much from a scoped average bolt gun.
Don't know about all the other brand AR's(Our guy's only shoot the Colt's)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... s_id/36407

Specifically, in what respect do you find the minis lacking?

[alnitak]

Unless Ruger has changed the chamber, you are not supposed to fire 5.56, fire ONLY .223 ammo. I do have a friend who has fired about 500 rounds of 5.56 through his stainless mini with no apparent problems.

Not true. All Mini-14's have ALWAYS been chambered for both the .233 and 5.56 (stated so clearly in the manual, even designated so on the cover). It was designed into the rifle from the beginning.

People complain about their accuracy, but as another poster said, 2"-3" groups at 100 yards is not a problem. Yes, the AR-15 is more accurate. But for a ranch rifle up to 150 yards, I wouldn't hesitate. The rifle is quick to the shoulder, agile and with good sight acquisition. Minute of groundhog or 'yote at 100 yards should be no issue. Groups do start to spread in rapid fire as the barrel heats up. But then again, you can run the Mini through mud and it will shoot -- simple design and very reliable.

I have an older 186-xxxxx model, my second one. The new ones are as Hobie said -- heavier barrel and more accurate, with an easier scope mount system. The issue with the older barrels is the vibration pattern. Many find that adding a flash suppressor, with the additional weight, changes the harmonics of the barrel and leads to improved accuracy (though one poster had a different experience). People have also found that if you add an after-market SS rod to the front (under the barrel), or install a combat flashlight, the extra rigidity improves accuracy as well.

After-market metal mags work just fine in the Mini, and you can find them everywhere cheaply. No need for the factory Ruger 20-round mags. General wisdom is to avoid the plastic ones, though I have several and they work fine in mine.

All-in-all, I really like the Mini platform (reminds me of the M1 Carbine). It's small, light, convenient, and certainly accurate enough for anything in the range I'm going to be shooting. It is modular enough for my purposes (I don't need to load five pounds of accessories on mine, and scopes and lights are easy enough). For my money, the Mini does everything I need it to for SD purposes (I don't plan on shooting at BGs from 300 yards) in a reliable, simple package.

[madman4570]

I may have posted a similar thread a few years back, but I don't remember. If it's a repeat, I apologize.

I'm considering saving for my first semi-auto centerfire (a process that will likely take years at this point)

Compared to the AR-15, what's the general consensus? I like the fact that I can buy two minis for about the cost of one AR, and I like the feel of the mini better. What about reliability and durability? I'm not overly concerned with accuracy, as long as it's capable of consistently putting all shots inside a paper plate at 100-150 yards, I'll be happy.

Any experience with a newer model mini in comparison to the AR?

IMO-------There is No comparison.
Save your penny's and get a Colt Match HBAR(the Match version is not much more money,so get it)
If you dont like the balck plastic gun---Get a Springfield Armory National Match M1A1 .308
The M1A1 are great guns but the AR's are just so much more people friendly to most people!
The top gun guy's used to laugh at them years back until many started getting beat with the black toy's
and ended up switching themselves.
A Colt Match Grade HBAR AR15 will group on the bench just like your Scoped Bolt.
It's the shooter,Mine will on bench group 1MOA or under.(on sandbags)On like a Ransom rest less.
With the match sights at 100 yards and proper ammo/form you don't give up much from a scoped average bolt gun.
Don't know about all the other brand AR's(Our guy's only shoot the Colt's)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... s_id/36407

Specifically, in what respect do you find the minis lacking?

Accuracy! All the one's I have shot(including a new one last year which brother-in law bought,he didnt listen )they are better than a SKS,much less than a Comp HBAR.
Not as comfortable/trigger much worse/sights/ and you cant use them at the Shooting meets.
Also at least for me the pistol grip is a huge advantage.Just my findings though!

[AJMD429]

All Mini-14's have ALWAYS been chambered for both the .233 and 5.56 (stated so clearly in the manual, even designated so on the cover). It was designed into the rifle from the beginning.

People complain about their accuracy, but as another poster said, 2"-3" groups at 100 yards is not a problem. Yes, the AR-15 is more accurate. But for a ranch rifle up to 150 yards, I wouldn't hesitate. The rifle is quick to the shoulder, agile and with good sight acquisition. Minute of groundhog or 'yote at 100 yards should be no issue. Groups do start to spread in rapid fire as the barrel heats up. But then again, you can run the Mini through mud and it will shoot -- simple design and very reliable.

I guess if I could only afford ONE .223, I'd get the Mini-14, because of those factors. The AR's are in many ways 'better', but you start throwing money down pretty quick to take advantage of the 'modularity'.

My advice would be this: Buy a Mini-14 right NOW, and if possible, buy a stripped AR 'lower'. You'll have a great .223 in the Mini-14, and since the 'lower' is considered the 'gun' - you've grandfathered-in an AR you can always flesh-out later with parts little by little. If as you go along, you decide you aren't happy with the Mini-14, you can always sell it (they re-sell easily) and use that money to buy fancier parts for the AR you're building.

That's basically what I did, and the end result was a nice and handy Mini-14 ('Ranch' type), and a heavy varmint-barreled, free-floated, 'notch'-stocked, match-triggered DPMS AR-15 that I got one part at a time over several years as the money came available (the 'lower' only cost me $115, several years ago). The DPMS can shoot tiny (1/2"-1")little groups and has a 10-40x scope on it that it can really take advantage of, and the Mini-14 can shoot not-quite-as-tiny (2-4") groups but is WAY more fun to just carry around and shoot. I haven't shot at anything with the Mini and missed that I can't blame on my own poor shooting; over the years it's dealt with feral felines and wild canines just fine, which is about all I need to shoot.

[RSY]

Not true. All Mini-14's have ALWAYS been chambered for both the .233 and 5.56 (stated so clearly in the manual, even designated so on the cover). It was designed into the rifle from the beginning.

Actually, it is true for some. I have 180-series rifle from 1976 (first year of civilian availability). It's the one with the wood upper handguard. As such, its chamber pre-dates the SS109 NATO round. My manual only mentions .223 Remington, so it is probably not a good idea to fire 5.56 from it, though I have. The receiver was significantly redesigned and I think 5.56 is OK in 181-series and beyond.

[madman4570]

DocAJ,

To do what you are talking about what kind of coin are you talking about??)buy the Ruger/lower AR etc.
A grand to have right off the bat"it all" to me is very reasonable.

No getting somthing so/so now/part of another somthing/and so on.
That Match Colt is a very good investment that holds it's resale very well.
Just my thoughts!

Hey Guy's, get what ya like,and my findings are just that" Just my own findings"
Get what works for ya, and enjoy whatever you get. Good Luck

[shooter]

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between military 5.56 and .223? I thought they were the same, one was just marketed to the general public, thus the .223 moniker instead of the military designated 5.56?

[madman4570]

The primary difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45 mm is that .223 is loaded to lower pressures and velocities compared to 5.56 mm. .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, but the reverse can be an unsafe combination. The additional pressure created by 5.56 mm ammo will frequently cause over-pressure problems such as difficult extraction, flowing brass, or popped primers, but in extreme cases, could damage or destroy the rifle. Chambers cut to .223 Remington specifications have a shorter leade (throat) area as well as slightly shorter headspace dimensions compared to 5.56 mm "military" chamber specs, which contributes to the pressure issues.

[AJMD429]

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between military 5.56 and .223? I thought they were the same, one was just marketed to the general public, thus the .223 moniker instead of the military designated 5.56?

Here's one link on the topic - I can't find the other one...

http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html

Here's the other...

http://www.fulton-armory.com/556-vs-223-Chambers.htm

As far as the Ruger Mini-14's and 5.56 vs. .223, checking this page on their website,

http://www.ruger.com/service/productHistory.html#

I find manuals for 'early' Minis, 'current' Minis, and 'Ranch' rifles and 'Target' rifles - here's what they say

The RUGER® MINI-14® RANCH RIFLES are chambered for the .223
Remington (5.56mm) cartridge. The Ranch Rifle is designed to use either
standardzed U.S. military or factory loaded sporting .223 (5.56mm) cartridges
manufactured in accordance with U.S. industry practice. See “Ammunition
Notice” & “Ammunition Warning”, below.

...or...

The RUGER® MINI-14® RIFLES are chambered for the .223 Remington
(5.56mm) cartridge. The Mini-14 Rifle is designed to use either standardized U.S.
military, or factory loaded sporting .223 (5.56mm) cartridges manufactured in
accordance with U.S. industry practice. See “Ammunition Notice” & “Ammunition
Warning”, below.
USE ONLY FACTORY AMMUNITION LOADED
TO U.S. INDUSTRY STANDARDS

...or...

The RUGER® MINI-14® RANCH RIFLES are offered in two calibers: the
.223 Remington (5.56mm) cartridge and the 6.8mm Remington SPC cartridge.
The Target Model uses .223 Remington cartridges only.
RUGER® MINI THIRTY RIFLES are chambered for the 7.62 x 39mm
cartridge, and can use either standard U.S. military or factory loaded sporting
7.62 x 39mm cartridges manufactured in accordance with U.S. industry practice.
Do not attempt to use any other cartridges in this rifle, even though “7.62mm”
may appear in their names (i.e., 7.62 x 51mm NATO [.308 Winchester]; 7.62
Tokarev; 7.62 x 54 Rimmed Russian, etc.).
The Mini-14 Ranch and Mini Thirty Rifles are designed to use either standardized
U.S. military, or factory loaded sporting cartridges manufactured in accordance
with U.S. industry practice. Always be careful to ensure you are using the correct
ammunition for your rifle. See “Ammunition Notice” & “Warning -
Ammunition,” below.
USE ONLY FACTORY AMMUNITION LOADED
TO U.S. INDUSTRY STANDARDS

The "180-" manual was not ASCII so I couldn't 'paste' it, but it said the same thing (see link above).

So it seems the only ones you may not be supposed to use 'military' ammo in are the 'target' models, and it almost looks as they are merely saying they don't chamber the 'target' models in 6.8mm Remington SPC - if you're getting a 'target' model I'd double check that. Otherwise it's a non-issue.

[piller]

I have a Mini30. It is as reliable as my wife's SKS, and a little more accurate. I plan on soon buying the device which was on Gunblast.com to attach to the barrel and try to improve its accuract. Once I can get a 2 inch grouping off the bench at 100 yards with the factory sights, I'll be satisfied. I once fired it and put it away dirty multiple times over the course of 2 years just to see if I could get it to fail. No luck. It is stainless, and I could not get it to fail. When I finally cleaned it, there was no hint of rust. Made for Bomb-Proof reliability and with accuracy sort of an afterthought. I have a DPMS brand AR15 also. That DPMS will put any mix of rounds into a 2 inch circle or less all day long. It isn't finicky about the grain weight of the rounds or the brand.

[Dave]

With the way the prices are going I would get an AR. Mini's have gotten pricey and AR's are back down to pre-panic prices. The AR has it all over the Mini as far as accuracy, mag cost, ease of scoping, and parts availability. When used Mini's were $250 they made more sense. In my area the difference between a new Mini and a new Bushmaster is about $150. The savings on mags would probably make that up.

[O.S.O.K.]

The AR is a much better deal IMHO.

1) you can get a stripped receiver for $100 and a kit for as low as $465 ( http://www.del-ton.com for example). This way, you only pay the excise tax on the $100 receiver and the kit is sent to you directly - assembly is a snap if you can follow simple directions. Ruger mini's are going to run you that much at least. I would personally pop for an extra $40 and get a chrome-lined barrel - which you won't have on the mini...
2) As mentioned, you can get quality magazines for the AR for $12 - the Rugers are $30.
3) AR's are more accurate - both of my del-ton "builds" shoot good ammo into 1" groups at 100 yards - typical AR accuracy.
4) There are a gazillion after-market parts and accessories for the AR - way more than there is for the minis.
5) Most AR's can shoot 5.56 NATO or .223 rounds.

Is that enough reasons for you?

Now, just to stir the pot some, have you considered an AK-74 clone? This would allow you to shoot the inexpensive milsurp 5.45x39 ammo that is available for $150/1080 count can. That's less than 1/2 the cost of even the cheapest .223 ammo. They will shoot 3" at 100 yards easily and are as tough as they come. They are also economically priced - $500ish. The mags are a little hard to find though and do run $20 or more... but if you are intending to shoot this to any degree, the cost savings from the ammo will far out-strip the mag cost.

Hope that helps some

[Lastmohecken]

The magazine issue alone is worth the difference, to go ahead and get an AR-15 over a Ruger.

Also if you get a flat top model, you can do so many things, with so many different aftermarket parts, sights, scope mounts etc.

Plus Ruger was not friendly to the civilian market, as far as supplying high capacity mags, etc, and only recently jumped on the bandwagon, because they saw how much money they were missing out on.

[L_Kilkenny]

The Mini's are fine guns for woods bummin and I wish I had never sold the one I had.......kinda. Think of them as a lever gun on steroids and you'll be happy. Think of them as a target gun and you won't be. Right now the prices for Mini's make them much less desirable than before. If you can find an older Ranch Mini for pre-scare prices of $300-350 I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat but at the $550-650 prices for the new ones I'd agree with the rest and say get an AR.

LK

[RSY]

The "180-" manual was not ASCII so I couldn't 'paste' it, but it said the same thing (see link above).

The thing about "standardized US military" ammo is, at the time the 180-series was offered (mid-1970s), the military load was still a 55-grain bullet. It's not so much a normal chamber strength/integrity issue as it is one of the shorter leade in the 180-rifles. The original Ruger manuals are somewhat obsolete, as a result. You jam that SS109 62-gr. bullet into the rifling of one of those short-throated rifles and problems could arise (because the ogive on that bullet is farther out PLUS higher pressure).

[Hillbilly]

I have a 186 series rifle too. Mine seems to shoot minute of milk jug out past 125 yards.

Mini's will string shots when the barrel heats up... they get hotter than a $2 pistol on Saturday night after 10 rapid shots.

After market mags... I have some from John Masden, a stainless Mitchell and a couple of "no-names"... all work OK. The no names are a little fussy about locking up in the well... but once they are in they feed good.

Ruger could have put a couple of dollars into the sights on these rifles... I think they are too coarse for the potential of the gun and round. The front blade is too thick (covers small targets) and the rear could use finer clicks. Ruger should have installed a "Garand" quality sight on this gun- that would have helped it's reputation tremendously.

For what it is-I like it. If I wanted to bench shoot this gun another inch of pull would be helpful... but afreild it swings fast and shoulders quickly enough.

Ammo...mine has run everything from Isrealli mil surplus to Wolf 55 and 62 grain, and a few cartons of US surplus 193(?)

[alnitak]

Not true. All Mini-14's have ALWAYS been chambered for both the .233 and 5.56 (stated so clearly in the manual, even designated so on the cover). It was designed into the rifle from the beginning.

Actually, it is true for some. I have 180-series rifle from 1976 (first year of civilian availability). It's the one with the wood upper handguard. As such, its chamber pre-dates the SS109 NATO round. My manual only mentions .223 Remington, so it is probably not a good idea to fire 5.56 from it, though I have. The receiver was significantly redesigned and I think 5.56 is OK in 181-series and beyond.

I just checked the Ruger manual online for the 180- series starting in 1974. The cover has ".223 (5.56)" on it and the very first paragraph says the 180- series is "chambered for .223 (5.56mm), both U.S. military and commercial cartridges."

You must have a very early and unique Mini.

Serials for the 180- series 1974-1977:
180-00001 1974
180-05101 1975
180-28282 1976
180-59251 1977

[RSY]

Not true. All Mini-14's have ALWAYS been chambered for both the .233 and 5.56 (stated so clearly in the manual, even designated so on the cover). It was designed into the rifle from the beginning.

Actually, it is true for some. I have 180-series rifle from 1976 (first year of civilian availability). It's the one with the wood upper handguard. As such, its chamber pre-dates the SS109 NATO round. My manual only mentions .223 Remington, so it is probably not a good idea to fire 5.56 from it, though I have. The receiver was significantly redesigned and I think 5.56 is OK in 181-series and beyond.

I just checked the Ruger manual online for the 180- series starting in 1974. The cover has ".223 (5.56)" on it and the very first paragraph says the 180- series is "chambered for .223 (5.56mm), both U.S. military and commercial cartridges."

You must have a very early and unique Mini.

Serials for the 180- series 1974-1977:
180-00001 1974
180-05101 1975
180-28282 1976
180-59251 1977

See my comment above on the ammo issue.

Yes, it is a neat little rifle. Being a 1976, on the receiver is engraved in small print "MADE IN THE 200TH YEAR OF AMERICAN LIBERTY".

1974 and 1975 were only sold to law enforcement.

Hey, did you ever receive that Axis hide for your daughter from the August 2008 hunt???

Scott

[76/444]

Well,... I always wanted a Ruger mini, starting when they first came out.

But, learning from past experiences, I decided to waite a minimum of 6 months before buying one. By the time the 6 months were up, all the negatives began to be published, so, I waited for Ruger to fix them.

Seemed like forever,.. so , not wanting to go AR,... I looked into other avenues, and came across a little piece called the Kel-Tec SU16. But it was an early model as well, so I did the same waiting procedure. Not to knock AR's , but, it just seems they became cliquey/groupy purchases and very distant from their military issued origins,... like what happened to the 1911 over the past 50 years,... and that just isn't my thing.

So, while waiting on the Mini,... Kel-Tec got their act together and put out their third or fourth (can't remember now) version/upbrade model SU-16C folder. I had a good gut feeling and got one.

One of the BEST commercial weapons I ever bought in my life! NEVER has failed me! Not ONE Fail to Feed! Not ONE Fail to Eject! And on a good day its 1in 9 twist moderate barrel produces MOA is very common. Since buying it in late 2005, with thousands of rounds from 50gr. HPBT's to 55gr. and 62gr. in AR mags, is still going strong!

Here is an article from GunBlast on it,...

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec-SU16C.htm

As with most weapons, I have to mess with them and besides a few minor accessories I just had to get rid of the flimsy integral bi-pod. Went with Kel-Tecs aftermarket foregrip below. But I stayed with the original factory standard grip configuration, rather than the pistol grip change out shown. Now that it has been awhile since they issued that aftermarket butt stock/pistol grip, and I haven't heard any complaints,... I am considering another upgrade.

http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/

The Su16C comes with a good parkerized metal finish that has held up over the past five years, a gas piston cycler, under 5 lbs, and less than 26" folded,... which it can still be fired while folded. For ME,... bugging out with my 444 in hand and the SU16C packed on my back with a few hundred rounds ,... works just right!


Here is a little video on what they call a "torture test". Funny, not much of a torture test to me, but I guess it is entertaining to some. The original video that did the same, claimed to shoot so many hundreds of rounds before dumping it through the ice, that the factory lousy integral bi-pod foregrip began to melt. Which is why I immediately switched mine out for the one posted above(first link).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7505323905#

Personally, if I wasn't so totally satisfied with this little plastic piece, I would definitely go for the latest version of Ruger's new heavy barreled Mini. Seems like (as with their SR9 release) they have LISTENED to their customers and CORRECTED and, or, redesigned what so many wanted from them (Ruger).

I would definitely go with a Mini before taking a chance on a used mongrel slapped together AR, or, even a pure all matching factory AR. But you may just want to look into SU16C,... just for the heck of it!




just one man's opinion

[O.S.O.K.]

The Kel-Tecs are good rifles for what they are. Not as accurate as a run of the mill AR (on average), but plenty accurate enough and more so than the minis.

I'd be happy with one of them.

I have one of their 9mm Sub2000's that takes Glock mags - good little carbine and folds up and fits in a small backpack.

[awp101]

Magazines seem to be the bugaboo to me. $29.95 a piece and relatively limited distribution compared to the AR mags which are everywhere. I was about to get an NRA carbine but didn't for that reason alone. Now I've got a Garand. Go figger.

But the Garand has a whole lot more...panache....

[76/444]

The Kel-Tecs are good rifles for what they are. Not as accurate as a run of the mill AR (on average), but plenty accurate enough and more so than the minis.

I'd be happy with one of them.

I have one of their 9mm Sub2000's that takes Glock mags - good little carbine and folds up and fits in a small backpack.

O.S.O.K.,.... if you need better than MOA, your a more demanding shooter than I!

I would put my SU16C up against any stock AR/with a STOCK factory trigger assembly and barrel.

And, if I were to break her down COMPLETELY next to a completely disassembled AR,... you would freak out at how few parts comprise the SU16C.

[RSY]

Not as accurate as a run of the mill AR (on average)

Not to be offensive, but who cares? Consider the task at hand. The M16/AR15 has accuracy to spare for the purposes of a modern battle rifle. The way wars are fought today, the Mini-14 is a solid battle rifle, but admittedly not a long-range precision affair. It does what is was supposed to do quite well.

Ironically, the Mini-14 arguably satisfies the initial DoD requirements for the M14 better than the M14 itself, did.

[Sarge]

580 Series Mini 14. read here: http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2008 ... html#links

[O.S.O.K.]

Not as accurate as a run of the mill AR (on average)

Not to be offensive, but who cares? Consider the task at hand. The M16/AR15 has accuracy to spare for the purposes of a modern battle rifle. The way wars are fought today, the Mini-14 is a solid battle rifle, but admittedly not a long-range precision affair. It does what is was supposed to do quite well.

Ironically, the Mini-14 arguably satisfies the initial DoD requirements for the M14 better than the M14 itself, did.

Didn't you read my reply? I said "but plenty accurate enough". So, I already made your point before you posted that reply.

No offense taken, but you are inventing something here from nothing.

And I never said that the mini's werent' accurate enough did I? No. In fact, they shoot about like most AK's chambered for .223 (like the one I have). Plenty good for out to 300 yard hits on bad-guy sized targets.

I will say this - all three of my AR's can shoot into 1" at 100 yards or better. 76/444, what does your SU do? (Seriously - I'm interested to know)

Not that it matters...

[Bullard4075]

I'm considering the SOCOM 16 .
http://www.proguns.com/springfieldarmory-socom16.asp
Best of both worlds.
Few more dollars though.

[76/444]

Not as accurate as a run of the mill AR (on average)

Not to be offensive, but who cares? Consider the task at hand. The M16/AR15 has accuracy to spare for the purposes of a modern battle rifle. The way wars are fought today, the Mini-14 is a solid battle rifle, but admittedly not a long-range precision affair. It does what is was supposed to do quite well.

Ironically, the Mini-14 arguably satisfies the initial DoD requirements for the M14 better than the M14 itself, did.

Didn't you read my reply? I said "but plenty accurate enough". So, I already made your point before you posted that reply.

No offense taken, but you are inventing something here from nothing.

And I never said that the mini's werent' accurate enough did I? No. In fact, they shoot about like most AK's chambered for .223 (like the one I have). Plenty good for out to 300 yard hits on bad-guy sized targets.

I will say this - all three of my AR's can shoot into 1" at 100 yards or better. 76/444, what does your SU do? (Seriously - I'm interested to know)

Not that it matters...

O,S.O.K,.... first, you may wish to re-read my post.


Second,... I only compared the accuracy of the AR to A Kel-Tec,... not the Mini. In Fact I ended my post on a positive note concerning the Mini!

Lastly, my friend,... MOA is short for minute of angle,... or more commonly used to refer to 1" group at 100 yrds,... 2" a 200 yrds, etc. etc.

[O.S.O.K.]

I was replying to RSY only on the first part - he brought up the mini. And going back up to your initial post - yes, I see that you said MOA. So your SU shoots just like my AR's All of which have standard/stock triggers BTW.

Like I said several replies ago - I'd be happy with an SU

We are on the same page.

[Jason_W]

580 Series Mini 14. read here: http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2008 ... html#links

Those results are good enough for me.

The next question opens up a whole new can of worms. Chambering: .223, 7.62x39, or 6.8mm SPC. The 6.8 round is neat, but my concern would be that the round itself will die out making factory ammo impossible to find. It doesn't seem like it's really taking off.

The 7.62 almost gives the shooter a semi-auto 30-30 (without the option of 150 or 170 grain bullets).

[O.S.O.K.]

Jason, I think you want the mini-14. So, go for it, and post the pics of the new rifle.

I don't know about the newer models, but the older mini 30's were only capable of 6" groups at 100 yards. About like most M1 Carbines.

I'd go with the .223 chambering.

[madman4570]

580 Series Mini 14. read here: http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2008 ... html#links

With the absolute most respect "not very good groups" compared to a Match Grade AR

Those are not that good even shooting prone.
Those type groups you would be sent home pretty quick!

No disrespect, just the simple truth.

What is the calculated group size with your gun fired from a machine rest with (5) 5 shot groups.
No operator error stuff. No excuses,what is the average group size???

[AJMD429]

All arguments aside, I think what the consensus is boiling down to is that like when chosing any other firearm, it depends on what you want to do with it.

The arguments against (and 'for') a Mini-14 could apply just as well if we were discussing an 1892 Winchester - typically shoots 'only' 2-3" groups at 100 yards, but really well-made, and one heck of a fun gun, plinker, and truly a practical carbine.

I think in the end you may find there is a 'niche' in your gun collection for both types of gun (that's why I advised getting the AR-lower AND a Mini-14).

I've yet to heft an AR, CAR, or other AR-15 'variant' that has the 'handiness' of a Mini-14, and for me, I'm not interested in a 'sniper' grade weapon or bench-gun for most of my needs; I plink, zap a goat-eating predator now and then, and generally appreciate the fact that if needed, that Mini-14 would make a GREAT home-defense weapon. 'Zombies' aren't generally things that require sub-MOA shooting.

As to whether or not a Mini-14 is easy to scope, who cares - I wouldn't scope one any more than I'd scope a '92...! If I want to pick off a flea on a coyote's nose at 200 yards, I'll get out a bolt-gun most likely anyway, not that an 'AR' couldn't do the job if it had the proper tuning and heavy barrel.

I just don't find ANY 'AR' to be as handy as the scaled-down M1A known as a 'Mini-14'.

As for their newer 'target' models with the ballistic weight - not for me; I'm not worried about 1" vs 3" groups for my shooting; I'm seldom that accurate under 'field' conditions anyway. If you are, then go for the AR...! Give me the regular old 181-series Mini with its indestructable 'combat' sights (maybe put on a front like the M1A with the flash-hider - from Choate), or a 'Ranch' model if I want the scope option (I wound up just using a Williams replacement and putting the 'Ranch' sight on my Marlin 1894), any day.

I can't think you'd be all that unhappy with either.

[Jason_W]

Jason, I think you want the mini-14. So, go for it, and post the pics of the new rifle.

I don't know about the newer models, but the older mini 30's were only capable of 6" groups at 100 yards. About like most M1 Carbines.

I'd go with the .223 chambering.

It's going to be a while before I can get anything. I'm just dreaming here, and starting a little friendly debate as I do.

[Warhawk]

Where did you get the idea that you can buy two mini's for the cost of one AR?

IMO, the ONLY reason to own a Mini-14 is if you livein a state (CA) that bans the AR-15. I've owned several Mini-14's over the years, and every time I got rid of one I swore I would never own another one. I think it's finally stuck.

Mini-14 vs AR-15
Cost - equal
Accuracy - AR
Relaibility - AR (Mini's often have problematic magazines)
Trigger - AR
Spare pars - AR
Accessories - AR
Magazines - AR
Variety of configurations - AR
Optics setup - AR

[Rexster]

I like my normally-stocked Mini because it is slim. (My other has a SCAR stock.)
With the 5-round or 10-round mags, the normally-stocked Mini stays slim, great for carrying in a lacrosse racquet bag.

I like both of my Minis, actually 580-series Ranch Rifles, because the safety is lefty-friendly, and the line of sight over bore axis is nice and low. This latter factor comes into play when shooting a very close range. Home defense, and close-range predator control, are the proper role of the Ruger Ranch Rifle, IMHO.

I like my AR15 HBAR for long-range accuracy. I believe in using the right tool for the job!

If my chief would allow it, I would carry a Ruger Ranch Rifle on police patrol. Presently, it is AR15, or no rifle.

[AJMD429]

It's going to be a while before I can get anything. I'm just dreaming here, and starting a little friendly debate as I do.

HA!

"...friendly debate..."

This is all-out WAR, gentlemen - The AR-weenies vs. the Mini-14-studs...

[O.S.O.K.]

Well, if its going to be THAT way... then you really need to be considering a Barret 50 Cal

[madman4570]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured ... ndex2.html

If you can live with these groups----------See above--------Kinda like the SKS

A 3" average group is pretty good maybe, for a 10 shot sitting rapid fire group with a Match Colt.

No, but one thing that bugs the stuff out of me, people shoot these groups and say------Uh, though I had a flyer???????? That's your group period. No excuses,it shot what it shot???????/

People need to quit saying Uh, but I had this flyer(amazing) it is/ what it is/ what it is.

Get the Colt Match---------Don't piece one together you will feel better about yourself when you grab that Match Colt
You will scare the other shooter's so they drop their gun's and run.(it's all about the mental thing)
Otherwise get a SKS to shoot 3" Bench Groups!
I have a 1965 20ga smoothbore deerslayer with a Leupold Scope that will about do that.

[Jason_W]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured ... ndex2.html

If you can live with these groups----------See above--------Kinda like the SKS

A 3" average group is pretty good maybe, for a 10 shot sitting rapid fire group with a Match Colt.

No, but one thing that bugs the stuff out of me, people shoot these groups and say------Uh, though I had a flyer???????? That's your group period. No excuses,it shot what it shot???????/

People need to quit saying Uh, but I had this flyer(amazing) it is/ what it is/ what it is.

Get the Colt Match---------Don't piece one together you will feel better when you grab that Match Colt
You will scare the other shooter's so they drop their gun's and run.(it's all about the mental thing)
Otherwise get a SKS to shoot 3" Bench Groups!
I have a 1965 20ga smoothbore deerslayer with a Leupold Scope that will about do that.

I'm not really looking to get into competition shooting. I don't even know of many ranges around where I live that go much past 100 yards, so long distance isn't much of a priority.

What I'm interested in is something that is light, handy, and paper plate accurate off hand out to 100 or yards.

as for SKS and AKs, I've shouldered some AKs and shot some SKSs, and I just find them clunky and uncomfortable. It's a personal preference thing.

[madman4570]

Paper plate accurate "off hand" out to 100 yards ???
Yep,since you have already lost a lot of that with the Ruger to begin with.
Better indeed get the AR

[shooter]

The primary difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45 mm is that .223 is loaded to lower pressures and velocities compared to 5.56 mm. .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, but the reverse can be an unsafe combination. The additional pressure created by 5.56 mm ammo will frequently cause over-pressure problems such as difficult extraction, flowing brass, or popped primers, but in extreme cases, could damage or destroy the rifle. Chambers cut to .223 Remington specifications have a shorter leade (throat) area as well as slightly shorter headspace dimensions compared to 5.56 mm "military" chamber specs, which contributes to the pressure issues.

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that the military rounds were loaded hotter, and therefore generated more pressure, but I wasn't aware of the size differences in the chambers of the civilian .223 designated rifles.

FWIW, I've been looking seriously at a rifle chambered in .223. I love the mini 14 as far as looks and practicality, but I decided to buy an AR kit instead. Just because of the availability of mags and parts, and also the versatility factor. I'm all about economy right now, and being able to build an AR cheaper than buying a new mini 14 pretty much settled it for me right then. Not to mention the difference in accuracy.

[Swampman]

The Minis shoot about minute of pie plate at 100 yards. Not worth foolin with IMO.

[AJMD429]

It's a personal preference thing.

What...! We can't have that kind of thing going on...!

You simply HAVE to pick the gun the rest of us TELL you to pick. That's the RULES...!