The Much Maligned Mini 14

[Hardballing]

Wondering about these and who OWNS them. Reason I capped the OWNED part is that the interweb is full of armchair commandos who poo poo this firearm, but when pressed, admit they don't and never have owned one. So if you want to relate what your Brother in Laws best friends uncle told you, I could care less. If you own/owned one I am very interested to hear what you have to say.

Specifically I am interested in the new 580 series tacticals. NOT the previous 180 versions with skinny barrels. ONLY interested in their quality post 2007 IIRC when Ruger retooled this series and added the thicker barrels, tighter gasblocks, etc.

Reason for the curiousity is that this system has been around 40 plus years and I just saw some Gabe Surarez materials where he did a pretty strong thumbs up on them.

Your ownership thoughts?

 

[charliepapa]

I like mine...

if u want to fondle either one (ranch and/or tactical) in person and ever get over toward gonzales, let me know.

 

[Hardballing]

Might take you up on that Charlie and soon too.

I got interested in these as during the Jurassic my agency used them for the first SWAT team. Those were the 180 series and AC556 variants and they were more than good enought for "minute of man" and at CQB distances. And during initial training with the US Marshall's HRT teams (who issued them as well) they did VERY well agaiinst the AR's of the time. Only drawback was vertical stringing after MANY shots. Like many, I got into AR"s and more specifically AK's on a personal level in the years hence.

The reviews I've read of late tend to make me think Ruger has perhaps done something right here as I'm looking for an "anti AR/AK" blaster. So a couple of questions if I may.

What kind of accuracy are you getting?
Reliability with variety of ammo is what?
You using optics (I'm more interested in straight scoping of one vs rails and dots but to each their own)?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[JLouv]

it's a good thing you added all the stuff about the newer version of the guns.

I have an older one and I absolutely hate it. It hasn't seen the light of day in at least 10yrs. It functions fine, but it just tosses rounds out into the air. I wouldn't expect to hit anything smaller than the broadside of an entire apartment complex with it. I have the ranch rifle, so given it's accuracy (HAHA) the scope is useless (except to clearly see what you're not hitting). Maybe I'd feel differently if i'd gotten one with the fixed iron sights? I can't say.

I can say that I wouldn't mind one of the new ones. But no way I'd bother to put a scope on it.

If I ever break my self-imposed rule about never ever getting rid of a gun; my mini14 will be the FIRST & maybe ONLY one to go.

 

[Hardballing]

But no way I'd bother to put a scope on it.

.

Why not?

The ballistics of the .223/5.56 is way more than adequate to suggest a mild/lower vairable, say 1.5X4 or 2 X 6. And with the newer receiver and built in ring platforms, I would think that it would be relatively easy to scope it up. One of the pluses actually imo since Ruger is supplying the rings NIB. And 30mm's aren'te exactly expensive either.

Then again, my eyes are 50+. YEMV.

 

[oleheat]

I've had one for around 15 years, and it works quite well. Sturdy little rifle. No- It's not long-range precision-shooting tack-driver(), but it was never meant to be.

Never had any problems with mine, and I would feel comfortable depending on it.....





But- if you don't have an AR, you are not a real American.





( Of course I'm just kiddin'- but I've heard someone say that before.)

 

[Hardballing]

I've had one for around 15 years, and it works quite well. Sturdy little rifle. No- It's not long-range precision-shooting tack-driver(), but it was never meant to be.

Never had any problems with mine, and I would feel comfortable depending on it.....





But- if you don't have an AR, you are not a real American.





( Of course I'm just kiddin'- but I've heard someone say that before.)

Does having AK's make me a Ruskie? Or just smarter?

 

[Gus McCrae]

I DON'T own one. I would like to as I tend to like them better than a run of the mill AR. I've researched them quite a bit, because they look more old school (which I just like). For the money you pay though, you can get an AR which has much better market support, parts interchangeability, better ergonomics, as good or better accuracy and cheaper mags.

I think you can get one to be reliable and be plenty accurate, it's hard to justify one though.

BTW, I own neither. The only "assault weapon" I own is an M1 Carbine that I would trade for either an AR or Mini 14 if I had not inherited it.

 

[oleheat]

Does having AK's make me a Ruskie? Or just smarter?

Maybe Both! But I'm right there with you, I guess!.....Variety is a good thing!

 

[charliepapa]

it's a good thing you added all the stuff about the newer version of the guns.

I have an older one and I absolutely hate it. It hasn't seen the light of day in at least 10yrs. It functions fine, but it just tosses rounds out into the air. I wouldn't expect to hit anything smaller than the broadside of an entire apartment complex with it. I have the ranch rifle, so given it's accuracy (HAHA) the scope is useless (except to clearly see what you're not hitting). Maybe I'd feel differently if i'd gotten one with the fixed iron sights? I can't say.

I can say that I wouldn't mind one of the new ones. But no way I'd bother to put a scope on it.

If I ever break my self-imposed rule about never ever getting rid of a gun; my mini14 will be the FIRST & maybe ONLY one to go.

http://accu-strut.com/

 

[JLouv]

Why not?

The ballistics of the .223/5.56 is way more than adequate to suggest a mild/lower vairable, say 1.5X4 or 2 X 6. And with the newer receiver and built in ring platforms, I would think that it would be relatively easy to scope it up. One of the pluses actually imo since Ruger is supplying the rings NIB. And 30mm's aren'te exactly expensive either.

Then again, my eyes are 50+. YEMV.

For what I'd seriously consider using it for, a scope wouldn't be required. That's all. The original iron sights are plenty good enough for the range of the rifle. A scope would just be another thing to get snagged on something.

 

[JLouv]

http://accu-strut.com/

Interesting.

I've pretty much made up my mind to trade mine out....as soon as I figure out what I want/need anyways. I'll pass that on to whomever ends up with it...

 

[Gator 45/70]

I have a couple...Which are not for sale...One was made in 86 and the second in 05...
These have eaten everything that is fed to them....Good little bush gun's and you only need a screwdriver to take apart and clean...
No tack driver's in this group...However i would like to shoot the target model...Anyone ?

 

[Leadfoot]

The new ones have supposedly been cured of the terrible accuracy problem caused by the barrel being too thin.

I've owned 3 mini's. All were older models and none were accurate to say the least. But I do like the design and probably will own an new model at some point to give it a try.

 

[Hardballing]

Here's another weird factoid imo. Or weird opinionoid. Whatever.

Almost every person who has owned the new ones describes them as distinctly better than the previous generations. And almost everyone who has owned the previous generations comments on the durability of the rifles/design. "Always goes bang, no matter what it's fed" is a VERY common point. One of Ruger's better selling products over the years IIRC. There is a site, www.perfectunion.com that has LOTS of info on these things and while I would discount somewhat the ravings of those addicted to them (ditto over on Ruger forum), the only negatives I can seem to find is that they aren't AR's. Suarez commented that many found them "not tacticool enough". Which I find amusing.

I do find them kind of pricey at around $660 or so, for another $120 you could have an Arsenal AK for instance. But you could also have half the cost of a pretty decent illuminated recticle scope for a Mini for about that too. In short, for WELL under a grand, you could have a 2-4 moa rifle that goes bang every time.

What am I missing here?

 

[Jester]

I like mine, although its a bit sloppy.
I don't shoot it a ton, but it's fun to shoot when I do.
I just got a scope rail and plan to put a scope on it to see what it does for the fun factor of shooting nutria....

I have a mini-30 as well.

Love it.

 

[dwr461]

I had a Mini 30 and got rid of it in about 2001. I wasn't impressed. I'd say both the AK47 and the AKM was a better gun in 7.62x39mm.

Dave

 

[Storm52]

First and only gun I've ever sold was the mini-14 that was purchased in '75. Vertical strings to zero strings as the barrel heated as you couldn't keep it on paper. The magazines were expensive as there weren't any aftermarket versions available. Would I purchase a new model? I really don't have a need or niche` to fill. Isn't to say that Ruger didn't address the issues and are putting out a competitve, quaility product. I've shot the tactical model and it was a fun shoot. But then so are my ARs.

 

[jorawil]

I bought a new one 2 years ago and really like it. I got it for a shtf rifle. I was looking for 50 to 75 yard shots and it is very accurate. I am not a range nut but it will do what I need. I also have no care for ak's.

 

[Win1917]

I've had several of the older Ranch rifles but only have one left since I don't have any use for that kind of a rifle anymore. They were a popular truck gun with a lot of the cattle ranchers I knew and they seemed to work just fine. That was the pre-internet days though so they hadn't learned yet that they couldn't hit anything with them .

It's true they're somewhat crude and not as accurate as a modern AR but I've taken and watched others take a pile of animals with the lowly Mini-14. So in my experience, they're extremely reliable and if a guy's actually gonna use one in the field they'll work just fine. If it's gonna be a paper puncher or a long range varmint gun then something else would be a better choice.