Ruger Mini 14 VS the AR15 rifle

[tercel89]

Which has good points and bad points ? I know they shoot the same caliber but which tends to be the better rifle and easier to disassemble and more reliable ?

I have shot a Bushmaster and it is nice but what about the Ruger Mini 14 ? Any helpful information is appreciated .

[Dolomite_supafly]

I am sure OhShoot will be along shortly.

He has both and did a apples to apples review of both. He was, or may still be, a Mini fan but I know he said his AR shoots better.

Dolomite

[RichardR]

I was a big fan of the television series "the A team" back in the 80's so I had to have a mini-14, well it was a lot of fun to shoot I(and pretend that I was Murdock) but the magazines were expensive & once you started shooting & the barrel started heating up POA/POI (point of aim/point of impact) started to wander.

I ended up selling it to my uncle who absolutely loved shooting it, even as flawed as it was he still just had to have it.

Anyway I personally prefer AR's for serious stuff but mini's are still kind of cool for playing around with at the range.

[mikegideon]

I have both. I like the Mini, but it stays in the safe. I have several AR's. They shoot better, easier to take down and clean, easier to fix, etc. It's just a lot better gun.

[TnShooter83]

I've shot both. And for me the the Mini-14 was bulky and needed a pistol grip.

The accuracy is ok for for man targets, but the AR's I've owned had it beat in accuracy.

I'd go AR if I had to choose just one.

[TrickyNicky]

I grudgingly (I love Ruger) would have to say AR. keeping in mind I own neither, it just seems that there is more you can do to the AR platform. As stated there is no contest in the price on magazines or even availabilty of mags.

To bad there not as many options for the mini as there are for the 10/22. That would be a game changer IMO.

Anyone ever see/use one of those "barrel harmonic equalizers" for the mini? Apparently supposed to help a bit with accuracy. Not sure if it would get you to where a good AR is but can't help wondering.

[Steelharp]

Saiga .223.

[kwe45919]

As Dolomite said, OhShoot has boasted his seceret love for AR's. Even has a second stashed. Said he just plain shot better with it.

Nothing against the Mini, but I didn't like any of the 5 or 6 I've shot in the past. Never tried for accuracy but the few I've shot made me not care to get one. AR's on the other hand, well, I'm on my first one and it's taken some getting used to. I came from a long AK history and since diving into the AR world, so far so good. Dolomite tweaked my AR and now it has to be my favorite rifle to date.

[kwe45919]

Saiga .223.

....and yes, definalty over the Mini for me!!

[Oh Shoot]

Yep, I've got two Minis, standard wood stocked Ranch and the Tactical, both new model 581 series. These of course have the various improvements over the previous models, the most important perhaps being the newer barrel that greatly reduces the stringing problem once it heats up, etc.

I really really like them, too. Like the action based on M14, the way they feel in hand, solidly zero recoil, mostly the fact that they look and handle like a conventional rifle. Also, absolutely rock solid running beasts, eat lacquer coated steel as well as brass, piston action keeps receiver area cleaner than direct impingement, seemingly will just run dang near forever without cleaning, etc. These are both totally stock, 'cept for a 1911 buffer I put in the action to soften it some, though they both still sling the brass halfway back to the factory.

Always just put off getting into an AR; one reason being that I love tinkering and gadgets, and figgered I'd just throw a couple extra grand into a 900 buck gun .

But anyway, about 3 months ago, looking at the market, possible shortages due to another round of price scares,etc, figured if I was ever gonna get one might better go ahead; rather than build first one, just took Dolomite's rave review to heart about the S&W Sport and grabbed one a good price. It's still just as stock as possible, only has Dol's trigger kit mod and a conventional scope added with quick release mounts, and desperately going to try to keep it that way.

So over last couple of range sessions have settled in with a more consistent test between the two; I'm still going to do some more precise testing but it seems clear so far that:

- With the iron ghost ring battle sights that come on both, there's just no real world difference. They are both torso capable killing machines up to 200 yards (max I get to shoot). That's what battle sights are for, and they both perform admirably.

- But to get more precise, let's glass 'em. I actually had two identical scopes -- cheap ones, but the same 3-9 Barskas, slapped them on both, zeroed at 50 yards and ran some tests, using just ammo can as rest. First time around I used a couple of different Russian .223, and found, as Dolomite has found with chronographing them, they just vary too much in loading to be suitable for precision, although again, all the various steel stuff is more than adequate for the torso thing above. Anyway, results at 50, 122, and 200 yards with the steel indicated that the AR is somewhat more accurate, the difference being greater the longer the difference, logically.

- Didn't have a large stock of same brass .223 except for Federal bulk, so tried that second time. Probably should get someone to chrono it for consistency. It's obviously at least somewhat more consistent, as disparities at all distances were less. But the tendency continued: the AR is just more accurate in groups. Difference in apprx. couple inches at 50, maybe 3-4 at 122, and 6-7 at 200. Of course, all those could be reduced with bench rig and probably ought to do that at some point to be fair.

The other frustrating thing about the test though, is that besides the actual spread of impact, is the point of them. As carefully zeroed as possible at 50, the impact areas at 122 and 200 are simply not the same between the two. No idea if this is due to my sloppy technique (remember, sitting and just resting forestock on can with pad on top), cheap scopes (though they seem to stay zeroed - I have quick release on AR and seems to hold removing/replacing), or what.

One other variable is that the M&P Sport has that unusual 8 twist, 5R barrel; since it's the only AR I have, dunno if it might be a bit more accurate than some/most stock AR configs.

Anyway, at this point, even though this is all pretty much not very scientific, the AR does indeed seem to have the edge in accuracy. I'll try to borrow someone's more solid benching system and do these some more to make sure, post some targets, etc.

I still feel like the Mini has soul, though, unlike AR.

- OP

Edited June 1, 2012 by OhShoot

[tnhawk]

I have a 6.8 mini 14 and a .556 AR. While they are very different rifles, I like having each of them.

You can't have too many guns or dogs!

Edited June 1, 2012 by tnhawk

[Moped]

Saiga .223.

I'll take a Saiga anytime over the Mini! Actually, I used the M16a1 and 2s in the service and I owned a hybrid (A1 lower with an A2 upper) and I love the Saiga better than those!!!

Now all that being said, the minis that I've shot, where all older models and not the lastest from Ruger, which according to all I've read, are much better than they used to be.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Moped

[mikegideon]

My Mini is real reliable, and shoots 1 to 1 1/2" groups at 100 yards with a scope and a rest. That's with your basic 55 gr FMJ factory ammo. I don't know how accurate my AR carbines are, because they're both running red dot sights.

[Clod Stomper]

I think it's well-established that, in general, ARs are more accurate than the Minis. There are always exceptions on both sides, of course.

I have an old 180 series Mini-14, a 196 series Mini-30 and an AR. I haven't shot the -14 in years. It was just too hard to hit anything. It was my first .223/5.56 rifle and I bought it for groundhogs when I was a teenager. Doesn't work well on groundhogs when you can't hit them.

I got a Mini-30 a few years ago with the intention of sending it to ASI to be converted to 6.5 Grendel. I decided it didn't make much sense to do that when I could assemble an AR for a fraction of the cost and it would be just as accurate. So I decided to see how well I could make the -30 shoot. Starting out, the shots would start stringing in a "J" shape. I'm talking 3"-4" at 25 yards. I added a barrel stabilizer and that helped the vertical stringing, but it still wanted to move right. I send the barrel off to be cryo-treated and that did wonders to the group size and shifting. Shortened the barrel and that helped a bit more. Added a reduced gas bushing also. It probably helped, but I haven't messed with it as much since. Last time I shot it the groups were at least round and not J-shaped. Next I'm going to try some handloads and see if I can get it to at least 2 MOA.

I've heard that the newer Minis are much better. Can't comment, haven't even touched one.

As for the Mini vs. AR:

Mags: Much cheaper and more available for the AR

Accuracy: Much more inherent with the AR. Though the Minis can be made to shoot acceptably well with some work. I prefer not to do that work.

Parts: Much more available and easily changed in the AR. If you need a new firing pin, bolt, or several other parts for the Mini, you get to send it back to Ruger. And if you've made any trigger improvements on your rifle, they'll "fix" that for you too, while they're at it.

Sights: I prefer the standard A2 adjustability. The Minis aren't as easy to adjust for windage or elevation. But if you sight in at one distance and leave it, it's a wash.

Handling: This is subjective. I prefer the handgrip, safety, bolt catch of the AR. I prefer the charging handle placement of the Mini.

Cost: Years ago, I could find Minis for $450 or so and ARs were all a grand or more. Not anymore. They're about the same now (for basic ARs), especially if you assemble your own.

Weight: The Mini is pretty light. But I can assemble an AR that is lighter, which finally leads to....

Modularity: It's not even close.

Will