300yd broad side of the barn Mini 14 tests.

[Jamie Young]

I haven't been over here in awhile, but I thought I'd post this here since this was the board I learned so much about shooting and reloading. The Mini 14 does have a flaw in the barrel design, but I never missed what I am aiming at even when I heat up the barrel. I've often enjoyed reading threads about how people can't hit a pie plate at 100yds, but with practice in shooting skills and reloading, you can find a sweet spot on just about any firearm. The joys of handloading.....


All of this was with my first Ranch Mini 14 with a 3-9X42 Sightron Mil-Dot scope.

I was very happy with the 60gr HP. I really like the idea that I can juggle between 55gr-62gr and have a 60gr HP that all will hit a deer sized target out to 300yds without much of a trajectory change. I zero all of my rifles in at 200yds and it really helps. I've done well out to 500yds with some of my loads, but I haven't been to that range in almost 2yrs. I have serious doubts this 60gr HP MOA load is going to completely fall apart at 500yds when I get a chance to shoot, but I bet it'll fan out to 2 MOA or 3MOA. We'll see.

Pictures and more info

I've never spent more than $450 for a Mini 14 and I always got them in a package deal with PMI or Ruger mags. I have an Eotech on one of the Ranch models if the zombies ever attack, but I can still hit man sized targets further out than any of my 7.62x39 rifles.

 

[Trip20]

I might be missing something here, but there are no pictures in the thread to which you link.

Otherwise, I agree - the "can't hit the broad side of a barn" chatter gets little to no consideration from me in Mini-14 discussions. It's a gross exaggeration.

 

[bobn]

jamie, attend a local cmp clinic event. ask at your local gun club where nra hipower matches are shot. when you get your turn at the pits, you will get to insert pegs into the target holes. do not be surprised if one of the hi masters commences to hit the pegs shot after shot with a ar15 service rifle at six hundred yards using peep sights. that is why you can find all kinds of scoped minis for sale cheap......bobn

 

[Jamie Young]

I might be missing something here, but there are no pictures in the thread to which you link.

Odd you're the second person that said that. There are pictures there, but for some reason people can't see them.


I'll just copy and paste everything here:


When I knew I was going to a 300yd range down in Maryland I figured I'd pack light and test out some of my experimental loads. I've been on the quest for a flat shooting HP round that might perform better than an FMJ at 200+yds, but was as accurate as the 62gr SCBT IMI bullets I've been shooting for years. So far, my best load is 24.5gr of AA2230 with a 69gr Sierra HPBT. I've gotten good results out to 500yds, but haven't been to a 500yd range in almost 2yrs so I can't document it.

I think a 300yd tells me enough about how flat and accurate some of these bullets are and I think I'll be buying more 60gr HPBT.

The wind was blowing from 15-25mph so it took awhile to place my shots.

The 1st picture is a 3 shot group of my standard WC844- 26.1 M855 Clone load. It measured at about 4.5". I've saved a lot of money by reloading this round and it helped develop my shooting skills without having to buy match ammo. I've found my WC844 rounds to be as good as GI M855. *Accuracy and energy*

The 2nd picture is a 3 shot group of a test load of 24.5gr of AA2230 with a 60gr Sierra HP. It measured at exactly 3". I like the idea of being to shoot 55gr and 62gr without having to mess with my optics and I was hoping to find a nice HP that didn't have much of a zero change out to 500yds.

The 3rd Picture is the target I was firing at. I have my gun zeroed at 200yds with the M855 Clone loads and I was aiming at the top of the silloutte at 300yds without altering my Sightron scope. I noticed the M855 seems to have bucked the wind a little better, but I was still on paper with both loads.

The 4th Picture is my experiment with the Sierra 75gr HPBT. I know I was pushing it with a 1-9 twist, but I never shot anything heavier than 69gr so I thought I'd give it a try. The groups were terrible and never measured better than 8". I finished off the mag and I'll retire these for when I ever get a bolt action or a 1-7 AR.

 

[Jamie Young]

This 4th picture just proves the 1-9 doesn't shoot the 75gr HPBT well at all. Even so, these are 8inch groups at 300yds which most people say they get at 100yds.

 

[Maser]

You know it's usually that AR15 lovers who tend to put down the accuracy of a Mini-14. True, that an AR may be more accurate, but the Mini-14 certainly does have long range potential. Those 8 inch groups at 300 yards is pretty impressive IMO. When I had a Mini-14 for awhile, the farthest I ever shot it was and the 200 yard range and I got about the same grouping as you did at 300.

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

I like my AR; hate Minis, but don't believe that anybody on Earth will put shots through the same hole @600 yds. with ANY rifle. If that guy hit the pegs, it was purely accidental.

 

[bobn]

ausser, the x ring on a 600 yard target is approx six inches diameter. top prone shooter shoot perfect scores (twenty shots twenty in the ten ring)with nearly 17 to 18xs. at least half of the xs are on top of each other. google up nra hi power shooting and study up on it. you will be amazed. bobn
.....ps jamie excuse the intrusion, i merely wanted to point out what more suitable 223 launchers can do. it is hard to go back after moving on up, lol.

 

[BUSTER51]

Thank God for the Garand,so William B Ruger could copy the look and miniturize it and make lot's of money on it. But it's a damn good thing we didn't adopt the mini as a issue weapon or we would all have to learn German or Japonese .(if he had coppyed it sooner ).

 

[cuate]

Pros and Cons of the Ruger Mini 14

I have an AR and a Mini14, like them both, and there are improvements that can add to accuracy of both as well as expensive gee gaws one can add but really add nothing but just something to brag about.

There are gun owners (God bless all of them) that detest Mini14s, Glocks, 1911s, and etc. for their reasons, whatever they may be, this being the
reason that most all gun manufacturers continue to do well in sales.

Differing opinions concerning firearms are great, thats why TFL is one of the best in existance. Perhaps we might post our methods of increasing accuracy of Mini 14s and others?

 

[JR47]

The cost of that AR capable of such accuracy is multiple times that of the Mini-14. It also requires something that most of us don't possess, the ability to make full use of the capabilities of the rifle.

It's mostly the AR gang that point out the "faults" of the Mini-14. I'd like to remind them that we'd also be speaking German or Japanese if the M16, in it's original configuration, were to have been our service weapon in WWII. Sorry, but it's true.

The Mini-14 wasn't designed to be an "Assault Weapon". Nor has Ruger ever advertised it as such. It's a small portion of the public that is attempting to portray it as such. Much ado is made of the lack of reliable high-capacity magazines, and Ruger is blamed for that. Yet, Remington doesn't offer high-caps for it's 742 or 7400 series semi-autos, either, and you don't hear about that. Colt never offered the 11-20 round magazines for it's 1911A1, but nobody complains that Colt is responsible for the lack of reliable high-cap mags for that, either.

Has anyone checked into the new Mini-14 rifles that Ruger is putting out? Just the regular Ranch Rifles, not the Target. It's still a hunting/plinking arm. Trying to make a sub-MOA Mini-14 that's still cheap, is like trying to buy a factory AR that's capable of sub MOA 500 yard accuracy for $700 dollars. It ain't going to happen.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've thoroughly enjoyed my Minis, and they've done exactly what I wanted from them. However, it would never occur to me to try to use one in long-distance match competition. They're just not designed and built for doing that.

I had a match target Bushmaster that was easily a half-MOA critter. But no way would I tote that 9.5-pound thing around a pasture, meddling around with jackrabbits or coyotes. The Mini would be way superior for the purpose.

And to me, that's the key to the whole deal: Intended purpose.

ARs & Minis totally suck for running mule deer at 300 or 400 yards. I'll take my bolt-action '06, every time. But I don't think I'd choose that '06 for long-distance match competition, either.

Art

 

[BUSTER51]

Jr47, you are wrong Mr Stoner's design was fine as is .it was Robert McNamara and JFK who altered the design and took away the chrome lined barrel and chamber and also wanted to use the wrong powder that they had in surpluss ,once we went back to mr. Stoner's original specs the weapon was fine.the M16 served me very well and without malfunction from 1971 to 1973 under some very harsh conditions with minimal care and under heavy fire.you would be well advised to check the facts befor you defame a fine weapon or a great man like Mr Stoner.you may have heard rumors and thought they were facts. I was there and know first hand how the M16 preformed. rumor is not fact ,you would do well to remember that in the future. and by the way you can get a Bushmaster A2 for $729.00 that will be a moa at 100 yards rifle with the right ammo ,and that's not multiple times the price of a mini.

 

[Buckythebrewer]

My ar15 at 600 yards will shoot 5 shot group after 5 shot group under 6 inches ctc(M.O.A.)once all but 1 shot was under 3 inches using 77gr smk handloads(yes expensive rig,,about $2500 with scope)..I don't believe the mini is capable of precision At longer ranges . The Barrel twist rate is to slow,barrel to thin,,tolerances to loose,and design is just not the best for the application..Yes they are capable of O.K. accuracy I guess.But nothing compared to the average ar15's capability..I think thats some good shooting out of the mini.But to compare,,My ar15 will hit a soda can at 300 yards EVERY time off a Bi-pod using crappy (open base)55gr FMJ handloads, as well as some surplus ammo ive used..
Im not knocking the mini, but it is what it is.
You are obviously a good shooter that is willing to take the time to know what your rifle likes and how to get the most out of it.

Another thing about the mini's bad reputation is ,Alot of people run crappy ammo and never take the time to learn to shoot it properly..The bullets don't just magically hit the targets because you want them to .

But again,IMO It takes a combination of things that are specifically engineered FOR long range use to make long range accuracy happen.Twist rate,barrel quality,powder and charge,BULLETS,rifle design,etc,etc.

Beyond 600 yards ar15's in 223 can do excellent all the way up to 1000yrds if built properly..competition shooters prove it all the time.
JMO

 

[JR47]

Buster51, I arrived in Vietnam in May, 1966 and left it in April, 1969. Most of that time was spent in the Rung Sat Special Zone. I was issued an M16 rifle, new in the box, in November, 1967. After carefully sighting it in, and cleaning it, although the factory Colt rep assured us that it wouldn't need cleaning for "hundreds of rounds", I went on a Patrol. We took fire, and my clean, with twenty rounds through it, M16 gave me a bolt-over jam half-way through the first magazine. The second M16 that was issued was thoroughly checked by both the factory rep and the armorer. The rep accompanied a group of us to sight-in. The rifle gave me a bolt-over after three rounds of semi-auto fire. The rep said that I "must have gotten a 'bad one'." On the way back to the Armory, I tested the rifle against a tree, into three parts.

The initial M16 rifles were designed for a different powder than the ammunition was manufactured with. This increased the rate-of-fire, and fouling problems. The problem was NOT solved by the change to stick powder. It was reduced. You, obviously a man in the know, also remember that there was only ONE cleaning rod issued for every three weapons, correct? Maybe you forgot the little "comic book" that was issued, that hailed the M16 as such an improvement because it "DIDN'T NEED TO BE CLEANED"?

The recoil buffers failed, the bores and chambers pitted, the furniture was brittle, the rear sights failed, the flash-supressor was a weed-catcher, and the magazines were so flimsy as to be one-use disposable.

These weren't the M16A1, young man, that you were issued. Before YOU dare to defame anyone, you need to get YOUR facts together.

,once we went back to mr. Stoner's original specs the weapon was fine.the M16 served me very well and without malfunction from 1971 to 1973 under some very harsh conditions with minimal care and under heavy fire.you would be well advised to check the facts befor you defame a fine weapon or a great man like Mr Stoner.you may have heard rumors and thought they were facts. I was there and know first hand how the M16 preformed. rumor is not fact ,you would do well to remember that in the future. and by the way you can get a Bushmaster A2 for $729.00 that will be a moa at 100 yards rifle with the right ammo ,and that's not multiple times the price of a mini.

I was also there, BEFORE YOU, and I know EXACTLY how the initial issue M16 rifles performed. It would be YOU who heard rumors and thought they were fact. I KNOW how the M16 performed, and I knew it before you were old enough to enlist. YOU would do well to remember that there was a world BEFORE you came into being, sir.

By the way, read my post, all of it. Take a moment to digest it, as well. A $729 Bushmaster A2, if it's still that cheap today, might well do MOA at 100 yards, but that's not going to be true at the 500 yard mark. Check it out, THAT was what was posted.

Please, check the facts, something you would also do well to remember in the future.

The M16 rifle is the M16 rifle. It's not a Mini-14, and the Mini-14 certainly never in any of the factory literature alluded to itself as a combat weapon. It's a plinker/hunting rifle, and thousands have been sold with that proviso that the owners are quite happy with.

 

[Jason280]

I always get a chuckle when Mini 14 threads get started, because you always get the same basic responses. Most will complain about its "lack of accuracy", and you'll see the same old posts about how much better the AR15 is. Well, most of what is posted is BS, and a lot of the people criticizing the Mini 14 have little to no experience with the weapon.

Here's the reality. The Mini 14 was never meant to be a target gun, so expecting sub-MOA groups is foolish. The gun was designed to be a reliable and affordable semi-auto .223 rifle, and has proven to be so. You can find them used for half the price of an AR15, and the idea they are going to out perform a rifle costing twice as much is ridiculous. The funny thing is, none of those knocking the Mini 14 would ever berate the AK for its accuracy woes. Why not? Furthermore, the Mini 14 is a lot less sensitive to ammo changes than any AR, and the design is inherently more reliable. Also, if the amount of manufacturers spent as much time on the Mini 14 as they do the AR, there is little douobt it couldn't be made a consistent MOA gun. But, that would increase the price, and pretty much negate the initial concept for building the gun.

And the comment above about the Mini 14 in WWII is so absurd I am surprised anyone would even post such nonsense. Did you even read your response before posting it? There are very few gun designs on the market today that didn't borrow something from guns of the old, and the idea the American soldier would have lost because of having to carry the Mini 14 is downright ludicrous.

 

[44 AMP]

Ar Wars

First off, WHERE"S THE BARN? I couldn't find a barn in any of those pictures!

Second, why does virtually every thread mentioning the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Mini 14 turn into an AR WAR. My AR does this, mine does that, etc. Please gentlemen, grow up.

It is a fine thing that your $2k+ rifle can shoot MOA at fantastic distances. You are getting what you paid for. Bash a rifle that costs a quarter of that (or less) because it won't do the same thing? Not hardly fair.

ARs (M16s) aren't/weren't reliable. I got news gentlemen, NOTHING is 100%
EVERYTHINGjams. AR, AK,Mini 14, M1,M14, etc, I have seen every one of these jam. Each individual rifle and ammo is an individual thing. Murphy not only lives, he lives in some guns more than others. But He manages to visit nearly all of them if he gets enough time.

The M16 family did get screwed over by the bean counters way back when. Got a bad rep. Why, cause many of them didn't work as well as people claimed. It did happen. Large numbers of rifles screwed up. Not every one, and if yours worked ok, good for you. But if you were one of the ones whose life was risked because your M16 screwed up, you know what happened.

I don't think it fair to blame JFK personally, even if things did start to go sour on his watch. McNamara and his whiz kids are a whole nother matter. His Defense Dept policies removed more weapons from frontline service than a Soviet first strike would have.

Moving on to more current and personal experience, I have had ARs, Mini14s, and others, so I do have a little personal experience. For a sportsman the Mini 14 is a fine little carbine, with advantages over the AR 15. For the target shooter, the AR has advantages over the Mini 14. Claiming absolute superiority of one rifle over the other is a false generalization. I can provide personal observation of the flaws of both designs, but I won't claim either is best for everything. You may dismiss my experiences as "anecdotal", and would be correct to do so if I were to make claims about all the Minis and all the ARs, but I won't.

What I will claim is that my AR would jam consistantly trying to feed soft point ammo, the same ammo would feed through my Mini 14 flawlessly.

I will claim that when my AR failed to completely close, if a smack on the forward assist didn't do it, the rifle had to be disassembled to get cleared. No amount of force applied to the charging handle would open the action. On those occassions when a similar thing happened to my Mini, if a smack on the op rod handle didn't close it fully, a couple of smacks of the op rod handle would open it.

Both guns would run fine with good ball ammo. My AR wouldn't run fine with anything else. My Mini 14 would. These were just my personal experience, and are about 20 years old now, so maybe todays rifles are somewhat improved. One would hope so.

Some Mini 14s aren't as accurate as some people would wish. Some ARs aren't as reliable as some people would wish. But to take your experience with your rifle which works well (one would hope), amd claim that all rifles with your rifle's general design are God's Gift to shooting and all others are junk is not only unfair, it is intellectually dishonest.

It isn't even apples and oranges, more like VW beetles and Porsche 911s. But not exactly that either. Current fast twist target capable ARs are the end result of extensive developement and modification. The Mini 14 has only changed a little bit since it hit the streets. Show me an old pattern AR, with triangle handguards, a skinny barrel, no scope, shooting original GI 55gr ball ammo that groups MOA @ 600 yds, and I'll show you a real "keeper".

We beat this dead horse to death all over again nearly every time somebody starts talking about Mini 14s, can't we just get over it?

And, on a slightly related note, Why do we automatically take the word of a factory rep as good when we automatically distrust the car dealer? Something doesn't balance here.

 

[Samuel_Hoggson]

Jamie's mini-14 that will do 1 to 1.5 MOA deserves no criticism. This is as good as most $800 to $1000 chromed 5.56 chambered ARs will do with good ammo - like Jamie's! This is nothing to complain about.

Am I to infer that this level of accuracy is now "typical" for mini-14s?

My own experience with mini-14s was in the late '80s. These were "ranch" rifles. One gun with the best ammo we could load did 3 MOA. The other was only good for 5 MOA. We were not using irons, and yes, we did know how to make good ammo.

Now before anyone flames me, please consider the predicament. These guns were marketed as "ranch" rifles. This implies an intended use on varmints, presumably at typical varmint distances. The fact that they were chambered for .223 and had receivers set up for factory dovetail scope rings supports this argument.

Why should I have been satisfied with a .223 rifle that could do no better than 3 to 5 MOA? When someone says that these things were never meant to be a target gun - well, OK. Just what purpose is well-served with a 3 to 5 MOA .223?

Sam

 

[hpg]

I have owned more Mini 14's than AR15's note the word owned(past tense). Mini 14's are fine rifles,nothing wrong with the Mini 14's, I just prefer the AR's more............hpg

 

[Jamie Young]

hy does virtually every thread mentioning the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Mini 14 turn into an AR WAR.

Too much about the hardware and not enough talk about the software.... or the man behind the gun.