This is why the Ruger Mini-14 is better than the AR-15

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 6/28/2017 | K Felts

[w1n1]

James Reeves of TFB TV discusses 8 traits of the humble Ruger Mini-14 that actually best the infamous AR15. James also gives viewers a brief history of the Mini-14, including a discussion of improvements that have been made to boost the historic Mini-14's poor accuracy.

Production of the Mini-14 started in 1973 by Strum and Ruger. The rifle caliber is 223 Remington and is basically a scaled down version of the M-14.

Mini-14 has more of a personal feel than the AR-15. Maybe it is the wooden stock of the Mini that gives it more of a hunting rifle look and feel than the AR?

One of the negative thing about the mini-14 is the magazine has to catch on the front and then be pulled into position, similar to an AK47. Magazine changes with the AR are much easier.

Another cool feature with the Mini-14 is that the factory stock can be replaced with a folding stock. This makes it a wonderful compact rifle. See the Ruger Mini-14 vs AR-15 video here.

[rktman]

I like mine. Well I liked it before it drowned. ;-)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Meh.

[Mark17]

The Mini 14s we used at my place of employment, looked more like this.

[109ACS]

I have the very first version and it’s very accurate, but no after market goodies are available for it.

[Flatus I. Maximus]

Only accurate rifles are interesting. Every Mini-14 I’ve seen and tried was a great and fun way to spray a lot of bullets in the general direction of the target, but couldn’t begin to touch a well-made AR for accuracy.

Emphasis on “well made.” Not, “AR slapped together in a garage from surplus parts by Joe Bob Amateur Gunsmith.”

[Spirochete]

Out of the box, their accuracy is equivalent to an AK; about a six-inch shot group at 100 yards.

[Mariner]

Before the boating accident...a horrible personal tragedy...I owned both.

The mini is by far the superior carbine. Far more reliable and plenty accurate enough.

It hits a 6in target at 250yds every single time with a red dot scope. The AR with scope will do 2in at 250yds.

And a 3in group at 100yds with the iron sights.

The ONLY thing I don’t like about it is it does not use the standard AR mag, making sharing impossible.

[Flatus I. Maximus]

Mind you, I own or have owned many other Ruger rifles and handguns that were wonderfully accurate. Maybe that’s why I found the Mini-14 so disappointing.

[crz]

Its the action on it.

[wrench]

Poor accuracy in the 2 I owned. Will never own another.

It shoots marginally better than a handgun, and that is only because it has a shoulder stock. After the first 5 shots, barrel heat causes impact to shift up and right, dramatically after 25+ shots. It is a design problem.

It looks better than the AR, but will never equal the accuracy of the AR platform.

[scripter]

I think we were both on the lake that day. I lost a few myself.

[cpdiii]

Fun rifle to shoot but the accuracy sucks. With my M1-Garand I make 3 inch groups at 100 yards, open sights. With the Mini-14 it was 5 to 6 inches with a scope.

[Ancesthntr]

“Poor accuracy in the 2 I owned. Will never own another.”

---

Exactly my experience, and my second one was a Ranch model with a scope. Even my friend with (at the time) about 500,000 rounds of experience told me to ditch it in favor of an AR. That was about 20 years ago, and I haven’t looked back.

Yes, I know, now the Rugers come with a heavier barrel and are more accurate out of the box. Yes, they look more like a traditional rifle. So what? ARs are STILL more accurate (a decent one, anyway, not a Bubba-built or cheap one), cheaper and have about 50 million mags that can feed it.

[AlaskaErik]

Ford vs Chevy. Each side can give you a ton of reasons why their pickup is better than the other.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agree. We had one and it was not accurate. We finally gave it away. For $900 you can get a Wyndham AR15 that is a really fine weapon.

[AlaskaErik]

Lower Profile – doesn’t look aggressive as an AR15

That makes it better?! That's a pretty lame reason.

[jpsb]

The rifle caliber is 223 Remington and is basically a scaled down version of the M-14.

Scaled down M-14? I think not. M-14 pictured below is an American selective fire automatic rifle that fires 7.62×51mm NATO ammunition.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The site is dead wrong. The Mini 14 was a downsized version of the M-14. Hence the “14”.

[JamesP81]

The Mini-14 never quite stacked up. Tried to like mine, couldn't, traded it off.

Most of the older ones had fantastically bad accuracy. There were a few gems here and there, but most of them were on par with AKs if not a little worse. They tended to spray shotgun patterns at 100 yards, especially with less expensive FMJ ammo or steel case imported ammo.

The newer ones shoot a lot better. They can hold their own against rack grade ARs shooting ball / FMJ ammunition. That would be fine, except that a Mini-14 will set you back $800. A rack grade AR will only set you back 500 to 600, and less than that if you assemble it yourself (not hard to do, even for mechanically inept fools like myself). If it were cheaper than an AR, the newer ones would have a niche. As it stands, there's just no reason to get one other than you just happen to like the looks...which is fine if you do, not everything needs to have a practical purpose.

In my opinion, the Mini-30 has more relevance in the current market. If you install the heavier firing pin spring from Wolff, it will reliably run inexpensive steel case ammunition. This setup gives you a reliable rifle that is on par with an AK in cost, but has better ergonomics and far, far better iron sights. I think the Mini is at it's best in the 7.62x39 caliber running iron sights.