Posted on 06/05/2021 2:49:24 PM PDT by aimhigh
As a gunowner who favors ArmaLite products (at least those produced during the Mark Westrom era), I did find it a bit humorous that the article included a comparison to the accuracy potential of the AR-10T (comparing a Century AKM to an FNAR would be just about as useful). To be fair, the author did mention that the Mini-14 was "not designed as a competition-style rifle" - something that is true of many self-loading rifles, including the Remington 740 series. He noted that the Ruger was certainly capable of putting holes in coffee cans (and presumably bad guys ;^) at 50 yards, which might be all some folks are looking for.
There has been at least one company (Accuracy Systems??) which has provided services/aftermarket parts for years, to address the accuracy issues associated with the design/production of the Mini-14 (and Remington 740-type rifles as well). Of course, by the time you pay for those modifications, you may have invested enough to purchase a used ArmaLite M15T or AR10T. Which perhaps highlights the main attraction of the Mini-14 - when it was first designed/produced, it was substantially less expensive than the available ARs (something which has obviously NOT been true in more recent years)...
There were additional issues not covered in either link, yes. And Bill Ruger is on record as rejecting any attempt to fix these long known issues, again until the day he died.
At the time of design, 1973, your only options for an AR-15 pattern rifle were Colt and Armalite, neither of which had any interest in reducing their high civilian prices. Thing is, it didn’t take long for that state of affairs to change - by the late 70s, people were starting to work out how to make AR-15 clones as the patents expired. By the early 80s, you suddenly have a lot of competition in the AR-15 market and the prices started dropping due to the efforts of companies like Olympic, DPMS, Bushmaster, and others. This is the point at which the Mini-14 stops being competitive due to its accuracy issues, as the dropping prices of AR-pattern rifles meant that they were becoming more and more direct competitors. (Note: My immediate family was heavily involved in the firearms industry in general in the 80s and peripherally with the self-loading rifle market segment at that time, to the point where they knew Bill Ruger personally from associating at industry events. Knew, but were *not* friends; Bill Ruger was an arrogant dick.) The AR-15 wasn’t a competition rifle either, but it had and has better inherent accuracy, and that’s something the Mini-14 under Bill Ruger simply could not match.
When, as became the case in the 80s, civilians started thinking of engagement or range distances in excess of 50 yards (as they did) and the Mini-14’s accuracy issues became glaringly obvious, the trouble began. When the price difference between a new Mini-14 and a decent AR-15 pattern rifle was a matter of $300 or less and you’d spend that much or more just to try to get the Mini-14 into the ballpark of the stock AR-15’s accuracy, that’s pretty much game over for mass sales. The Ruger-supported AWB didn’t help - if you can only have ten rounds, you better be able to make sure they all counted. (I remain amused that Bill Ruger’s pwecious widdle bay-bee the Mini-14 *still* got screwed by the AWB despite his support, and that he spent the rest of his life sulking about it.)
AS wasn’t the only company offering fixes for the Mini-14 at the time. IIRC, stepmom’s rifle took something like $550 worth of smithing back in the early 90s to get it to a consistent 3MOA gun, at which point the entire thing cost significantly more than a *new* base Bushmaster XM-15, shot worse than the XM-15, took more costly and harder to find mags than the XM-15, and held less ammo. Oh, and it weighed more yet had worse recoil. No wonder people went and bought the XM-15s instead.
Today it’s even worse. Last year you could get Colt-branded ARs for $400 on sale, which was less than the Mini-14.
That latter aspect may influence the sale of other Ruger products, as well. I've always thought the No. 1 single-shot was a beautiful rifle, and Ruger sold a bunch of them, so others may have shared that opinion. But the No.1 seems to have a reputation for inconsistent precision, just like the Mini-14. Again, once in a while, you might come across one that performs quite well. A guy I used to shoot with had a No. 1 in .270 Winchester, purchased used, that repeatedly managed 5-shot 100 yard groups you could cover with a nickel (using Remington factory ammo, don't remember the bullet design or weight). He made the mistake of 'messing with it': he thought the stock was just a hair too long, so he had a professional gunsmith shorten it for him. It never shot the same after (don't know if the gunsmith dismounted the forend to refinish all of the furniture together, or what). Some variable was introduced or altered, and performance was adversely affected.
In any case, Ruger apparently designs at least some of their firearms, with precision/repeatability taking a back seat to production cost, appearance, and other factors...
Bill was a nut to be blunt.
Brilliant, but a nut.
He was not a fan of accurate semi automatics in civilian hands.
I had an old Mini 14. It was minute of basketball at a 100 yards. sold it to buy a wedding ring.
I don't know - I had a Ruger .22 target pistol, years ago, that was quite accurate (with the right ammo ;^). Ditto for a 10/22 I once owned. But from what I've heard & read, Mr. Ruger was apparently more than a bit eccentric, with the Clinton gun ban issue being a prime example...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.