which ruger mini 14 ?

[sethwyo]

Can anyone describe (mabey with pictures too) the differnces between the series of ruger mini 14 rifles.

[Michael32170]

Ruger Webpage (http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html)

From what I hear, many people complain about the non-Ruger magizines (after market). You want to investigate this and see if it's true. If so, you may want to stick with Ruger built magizines.

[jim]

Seth

Avoid Mini14's like the plague. Due to magazine problems and parts/maint. problems and accuracy in general, you are far better off with an AR or an AJ. This wasn't always the case, but is now.

jim

[grumble]

I dunno, I've owned Mini 14s for years, and enjoy having and using them. The first one was the only one I had a problem with. On that gun the firing pin opened the hole in the bolt (the little hole where the firing pin sticks through to contact the primer) enough that tiny disks of primer metal blew back inside the bolt and jammed things up. That was after about 200,000 rounds.

The Minis get a bad rap on accuracy, and on out of the box guns, it's pretty much deserved. But it only takes 20 minutes to fix the worst of the problem. Remove the gas block on the barrel and use lapping compound to fit the block halves together and to the barrel. Then carefully torque the screws back on to the barrel. For some reason, Ruger hires a baby monkey and a gorilla to install those gas blocks, so one screw will be attached at 20 ft-lbs torque and another will have 200 ft-lbs of torque. This puts uneven stress on the barrel and wrecks accuracy.

This one simple bit of accurizing will cut your pattern sizes in half.

Some after market mags work fine, and others don't. If you get a couple that don't feed properly, as a last resort you can take a file to the feed lips where they don't fit properly -- careful though, don't remove more than a couple thousandths. If that doesn't work and it's just the soft metal on the feed lips causing the trouble, dig out your propane torch and bring the top of the magazine to a very dull red, and dunk it in some used motor oil to temper it. If neither of these things work, trash the off-brand mags and buy Ruger mags.

[grumble]

"...keeps the holes in about 6" out to 100 yards with iron sights."

Ouch. Like I said, out-of-the-box accuracy isn't very good.

[Teg]

Can anyone describe (mabey with pictures too) the differnces between the series of ruger mini 14 rifles.

If you just want a .223 there are better options.

[Michael32170]

If you just want a .223 there are better options.

I've never shot an Mini 14. But, I sure see that; It's really loved and really hated.

I don't think I've seen this much polarization on any non-political topic.

[grumble]

The folks who like black guns don't like Mini-14s. Those of us who like blue and wood DO like them. They have some problems that are easily fixed with out of the box accuracy and after market magazines. Other than that, they're good reliable rifles.

[Teg]

The folks who like black guns don't like Mini-14s. Those of us who like blue and wood DO like them. They have some problems that are easily fixed with out of the box accuracy and after market magazines. Other than that, they're good reliable rifles.

I don't really dislike Mini-14's I just think there are better more modern choices, but someone should like the gun they buy so that is important as well.

Personally the Sig rifle at the link below will likely be my next .223 purchase when I go for another rifle, I like the accuracy, adjustable gas system, gas piston system, multiple rails and rugged build as well as the fact that it can use regular AR-15 magazines.

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig556-classic.aspx

Everyone has their favorites I suppose, so long as you can make it work for you that is all that matters ultimately. :)

[grumble]

"Everyone has their favorites I suppose, so long as you can make it work for you that is all that matters ultimately."

Ahh, the true voice of reason. <G>

My #2 son thinks the black guns are the only way to go. Meanwhile, I tinker with wood and steel. I've shot the ARs and carried them around enough to have some opinions, but when it comes to putting my money on the counter, it better have some walnut attached. <G>

If you want to know what I really-really like, you got to go back 50 years and more, and it needs a lever on the bottom.

[Pitdog]

Grumble- 200,000 rounds? It couldn't have shot minute of barndoor at that round count, the barrel was oversized AND smoothbore.

[grumble]

That's a guesstimate, but not too far off. And except for the oversized bolt firing pin hole, it shot pretty decently. I reloaded them all, I didn't use surplus ammo. So they weren't as "hot" as some commercial loads, and I moly coated the bullets. There was some throat erosion, but nothing like you might expect for a gun used that much.

It held up well enough that I've bought two more since then.

[sethwyo]

I have one that says " Made in the 200th year of american liberty" im told it is a 180 series.

i recently bought a very nice looking ranch rifle that is the latest production, i went out to the badlands and fired about 6 rounds through it and it spat out some of its parts into my face.

I have tryed to get some aftermarket parts to repar it that wont fall apart like rugers factory parts do, but there are several differnt series '580' '181' series ect, and no one knows what to get.

And i have had very good accuracy with most of my half dozen mini14's, my mini30's can throw 1 inch groups.

[Bugler77]

I have read these arguments all over the net. I own a few Mini14's and 30's. And I own Rugers SR15. The funny thing is a AR15 built on GI specs is considered to pass at a six inch group at 100 meters. Well the mini also put down the same group. So what is the problem? It is all a matter of preference. I love the rotating bolt and wood and bluing of the rifle. That's just me. And the new mini's are better than the old ones as long as you do not buy from China mart. The rifles are not up to par with the regular production. Its a tool box people. Use the tool that gets the job done.
Just my $2.00 worth(adjusted for inflation)

[grumble]

Just about any rifle is capable of 2 MOA. To me, there is no better or more enjoyable way to spend an afternoon that taking some poorly assembled 6" gun and making it into a 2" gun. Gotta give those tools the right amount of TLC to let them do what they are capable of. No different than sharpening a chisel or plane, or reshaping a rounded off screwdriver.

[macgeoghagen]

When I was looking for an autoloader I researched the mini-14 vs AR-15 variants. The AR won for parts availability/cost, magazine availability/cost, my familiarity with the platform, ease of maintenance. But then I looked at what I really needed at the time: Loud, hard hitting, cheap, reliable, tough, good for use as a club if the ammo runs out, and RIGHT NOW. Didn't need long range accuracy or good looks. So I went and got a beat up WASR-10 and some magazines. I know it can be used as a club because at various points during its long scarred history it was used as a club, vehicle chock, mallet, shovel, and maybe pry bar. The evil spirits that reside within(ask a liberal) are happier to no longer be in service to the Romanian infantry. It's ugly, but it goes bang and punches holes in things.

[Michael32170]

"Everyone has their favorites I suppose, so long as you can make it work for you that is all that matters ultimately."

Ahh, the true voice of reason. <G>

My #2 son thinks the black guns are the only way to go. Meanwhile, I tinker with wood and steel. I've shot the ARs and carried them around enough to have some opinions, but when it comes to putting my money on the counter, it better have some walnut attached. <G>

If you want to know what I really-really like, you got to go back 50 years and more, and it needs a lever on the bottom.

I notice there are not jamming complaints for the mini-14, like there is for the AR-15. To me, that would be important.

[grumble]

Jams or stovepipes aren't a problem with Ruger magazines, but there are some feed problems with some aftermarket mags. You pays your money and takes your chances.

[Teg]

Those of us who like blue and wood DO like them.

Here ya go you can get both. :wink::lol:

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1619A-X

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1790-X

[Michael32170]

Here ya go you can get both. :wink::lol:

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1619A-X

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1790-X

The wood stocks are neat, but it's like trying to make a woody out of a Corvet.

[Teg]

The wood stocks are neat, but it's like trying to make a woody out of a Corvet.

True, I was looking at their site the day I posted these and it was the first time I saw them. It sort of tickled me when I saw the photos and it might be a nice novelty gun for the case, if you like to collect oddities.

But I am still set on the Sig556, I like the gas system/piston and the clean firing you get from that set-up, plus it is about $1200 cheaper than a SCAR, which is currently the other quality weapon with that type of system. :yes4:

[Poonie]

Back in the day I had to have a mini-14. Shot the crap out of it. Its an OK gun, but once I bought my AR15 the Mini went to the back of the cabinet and rarely comes out these days. Got tired of the pain in the arse magazines(AK mags are easier to insert). Got sick to death of people always getting torqued at me when my brass bounced off their heads even though I was 8 tables away.... Got tired of pie plate groups at 100 yards when my AR showed me how tight I could really get my groups. Heck My WASR 10 gets better groups than my mini-14.

If i had it all to do over I'd have saved my money and just bought the AR to start with.

Besides ole Bill Ruger was really anti gun when it came to the citizenry....I read how he was all for banning "assault weapons" from all but law enforcement......I'll never own another ruger.

[jim]

Plus one on that 200K bbl.

"I have read these arguments all over the net. I own a few Mini14's and 30's. And I own Rugers SR15. The funny thing is a AR15 built on GI specs is considered to pass at a six inch group at 100 meters."

Incorrect. Standard is no larger than 3" groups, and some do less. Quite a bit less, but that requires quality ammo that isn't issued anymore except to the "Operators", and not always to them. I don't like the AR's or Mini's, but am very fond of M14's, FAL's and the like. AK's are good enough for the 200 yd requirement (98% of shooting), and everything is reliable. Even a WASR is better than a Mini. Get an AK in 5.45 and buy the cheap ammo and you will do far more damage than with a Mini.

I don't mean to be difficult, but stay away from junk, and you will save yourself a lot ofpain and money.

jim

[sethwyo]

There are only two people here who even know what this form is about and what they are talking about, And one of them is me.

[Michael32170]

You always get less than 90% of what you pay for. So, if you want the best Mini-14, then get the most expensive.

[grumble]

Gee, Seth. What would we do without you? Thanks for being here and setting us straight.

[jim]

Gee, Seth. What would we do without you? Thanks for being here and setting us straight.

I agree, and feel so unworthy. {;^(

[Echo2]

You know Ruger lifted it's restrictions on the factory 20rd mags being LEO.....

[ArmySGT.]

There are only two people here who even know what this form is about and what they are talking about, And one of them is me.

Yes, and i dug one of them up earlyer this year when i got out of jail and found all my things wore stolen, guns to sell for money, food items, clothing, tools.

Because I don't give gun advice to felons.

[rice paddy daddy]

I can understand firing some groups to zero a weapon, but all the hoopla about how tight of a group a certain rifle will fire is kinda useless. Unless you just get a kick from making holes in paper, in which case forget even an AR and get a benchrest rifle. Groups don't kill things, marksmanship does. And when firing at moving targets (or muzzle flashes in the dark) from any position other than prone, possibly under the stress of being shot at, you ain't gonna be that good anyway. Trust me on this.
I've got a 195 Series Ranch Rifle that I bought used, it stays loaded leaning up against the wall at the head of my bed here at the ol' homestead. It's a rapid response rifle that hopefully will never be needed. Now, if it had a bayonet that would be even better.
If I was going to go into a fight with malice aforethought, I'd bring my Garand or Springfield M1A.
For what it's worth, I'm well aquainted with AR's, having been issued an M16A1 long ago and far away. They are good rifles, nothing wrong with them.

***End of Old Geezer rant***
:D:D:D

[grumble]

I understand what you're saying, RPD, and I agree as far as it goes. If you intend to "spray and pray," you don't need an accurate gun, and the same holds for close quarters -- any gun is "minute of vitals" at 10 yards.

My point is that aimed shots are better than unaimed shots, and if you can't hit a reasonably sized target with an aimed shot, you'll do no better with an unaimed snap shot. Most long guns are easily capable of 2 MOA, and if you have one that doesn't do that, why not spend a couple hours to make it more accurate? Not much different than putting air in your tires to get better gas mileage. Given a choice, I'd rather hit a target than miss it, regardless of whether the target is paper or muscle and bone.

[rice paddy daddy]

One of the old time gun writers once said "only accurate rifles are interesting."
But some people get so wrapped up in the minutia of shooting tight groups that they dismiss rifles that shoot 3" or 4" groups (at 100 yards) as being beneath contempt.
I don't hunt, spending time as the hunted gave me a different perspective, but I have been told that to reliably hit a deer's vitals you should be able to hit a 9" paper plate at 300 yards. 9" @ 300 yards = 3MOA (or 3" at 100 yards).
I'm a student of military history and military firearms. An M-1 Garand's accuracy was considered acceptable if it fired 4" to 6" groups. GI's armed with Garands did quite well. The rear sight of a M-1903A3 (also used during WWII) moved the sight 4 MOA with EACH click.
During WWI Cpl. Alvin C. York's platoon was pinned down by German machine gunners. With his comrades being killed, York took action with his M-1917 rifle (remember, 4" is considered very accurate for this rifle) and began picking the enemy off one by one. That's marksmanship, not group shooting. At one point York is charged by 6 Germans while his rifle was empty; drawing his Colt 45 Automatic he kills all 6 with 6 shots. It's a good thing he didn't know that 1911 pistols are inaccurate and unreliable without spending a couple of thousand bucks for a Kimber.
Mini 14's get a bad rap which I personally believe is unwaranted. Early models had barrels with a 1 in 7 twist, because 55 grain bullets were popular at the time, and will not stabilize all weights of bullets. Later the rate was changed to 1 in 10, and since the late 1990's they have been 1 in 9 which appears to be the best. Also, in the early years the barrels were outsourced and since Ruger has been making their own accuracy has improved. I have faith my Mini will do as I ask, whether that is home defense, defending the barnyard animals, or busting dirt clods on the berm at the range. Would I shoot a coyote at 100+ yards with it? No, I have a scoped 22 Hornet for that.
So my point was simply this - the difference betwen a rifle that fires 1" groups from a bench at the range versus one that fires 3" may not always be all that important.
Unless, of course, your hobby is exactly that - shooting paper from the bench. Nothing wrong with doing that at all if that's what you enjoy.

[grumble]

Col Hatcher was the source of the "only accurate guns are interesting" quote, I think. And I disagree. I'd much rather get a 6 MOA gun and make it a 2 MOA or better gun. More often than not, once I get a used, cheap, bargain gun shooting 2" or better, it goes in the locker and might never be shot again. Sorta makes me feel like I made the world a better place, y'know? <G>

Alvin York was a special case. And he's on my list of most admired. From his biography, I seem to remember that he was an expert at "Kentucky windage," after a few sight in rounds with any gun, he could put rounds where he wanted regardless of the sights.

4 MOA sight adjustments on military rifles? Um, I don't think so. At least, not any that I've owned. I'm pretty sure that troops who learned to shoot 30 cal guns had to qualify at long range, 400 or 600 yards. A sight adjustment that would move the point of impact 16" left or right could make that qualification difficult or impossible. Even the Russian Nagants are better than that -- they have their front post sight "staked" at the arsenal with a punch so the Ivan shooting it couldn't change it. And every one of those I've shot have been 2 MOA shooters.

Your point is well taken about group fire against an enemy. 40 guys blasting away at something 300 yards away where the specific target is unseen, and the objective is more to keep the bad guy's head down than to hit him, you're absolutely right -- accuracy isn't too important. For those who, like me, used to wonder why the elevator sights on the '03s and '17s went out to 1800 yards (you can't even SEE a stationary person at 1800 yards), I finally found the answer. It was for what they called "volley shooting" in WWI. Essentially, lobbing rounds like artillery from one WWI trench into the enemy's trench. Here again, your point about accuracy not being overly important is completely valid. But for me, squad or volley shooting isn't in my repertoire, so I tend to try to hit a target with only my own shooting.

My Mini 14 has taken two coyotes at 200+ yards, one shot each. (I've also missed a few, but I don't brag about that. <G>) The view out my front door lets me see them, and if I can grab a rifle quickly enough, I can get them before they trot out of sight. I don't have time to fumble around looking for the perfect scoped gun, remove the scope covers, and brace myself so everything stops bouncing around inside the scope's view enough so I can aim.

I guess I missed your point about the rifling twist? Yep, for a 223 with 55-68 grain bullets, 1:9 is about right. The longer (heavier) bullets will become unstable past about 300 yards, but that's getting into the realm of "by guess and by golly" anyway. Faster twists can put too much hoop stress on lighter bullets, and they can either gyroscopically precess or even come apart in flight.

I want to personally thank you for your service, too. I've also been on the noisy end of a gun trying to get away with no holes poked in me, but nothing like you probably were -- you have my sincere respect.

Interesting discussion! Thanks.

[rice paddy daddy]

I'm a fan of writer Mike Venrurino, and he did an article in Rifle Magazine about the Model 1903A3, often called Springfields although they were never made by Springfield, and he states that each click of the rear sight moved the peep 4MOA. I have never tried it on mine, in fact I've never even taken the time to combat zero it. To do so would involve drifting the sights in their notches.
Last year, he and the head guy at Hornady did an exhaustive test of the major sniper rifles of WWII, with WWII issue optics, using WWII issue ammo. The write-up was in GUNS magazine. The results may amaze you. Testing was done from 100 yards to 1,000 yards. The most acurate, over all? Mosin Nagant 91/30. The least? Springfield 1903A4.

My main beef is with the keyboard commandos (not you) who claim all sorts of fantasy ideas but most likely have no idea what they are pontificating about.

And, back in the day, when I qualified with the M14, us Army guys engaged targets out to 350 meters. The Marines, being Marines, probably made it 351 meters just so they could say they were better.:lol:
I fired Expert on two different occasions with two different M14's. I missed Expert with the M16A1 by one target, became a Sharpshooter instead. Of course, my eyes were much, much younger then:D

[grumble]

Naa, the jarheads also did it at 350 meters, they just CALLED it 351! <G> Reminds me of the WWII ditty,
"The Army does the work,
The Navy gets the pay
And the Marines come in
When the Army moves away."

Good for a fight in any shoreside bar.

That's funny about the '03 Springfield losing out to the Nagant! I didn't know that. I have shot both, and thought it was just me that the Ruskie guns shot better. There's such a fuss made about how great the '03 is that I wouldn't want to speak heresy in public! With any of the old WWI and WWII guns though, I sort of hold them with reverence, even the Mousers (Mausers).

The aperture sights on my first Mini-14 had huge clicks for windage adjustment. I remember taking the rear sight apart and cutting new detents with a hacksaw and jeweler's file so I could get it zeroed. Next time I pull out one of those old GI guns to play with, I'll take another look at the click adjustments. I had no idea they were so large.

[grumble]

OT:

I know this belongs in a different thread, but I'm thinking about it now, and it's in context with the previous posts.

An old Navy Chief and a grizzled old Gunny meet in a bar, and of course start talking about their time in the service. The Chief asks the gunny where he did his service. The Gunny says, "well, I started out a scared kid on Guadalcanal, and went through the landings in the Marianas. Iwo Jima was scary. Somehow, I survived Okinawa, then back to Pendalton. Somehow, I wound up at Inchon, and helped push the ChiComs back across the 39th Parallel. Then wound up at Toko Ridge in 'Nam. After three purple hearts, I decided it was time to retire."

The Navy Chief is quiet for a minute, then says, "Hmm. All shore duty, huh?"

[sethwyo]

" [QUOTE=rice paddy daddy;296036]

My main beef is with the keyboard commandos (not you) who claim all sorts of fantasy ideas but most likely have no idea what they are pontificating about. "

I would like for you to address some questions i have, I do not have any disrespect for you but would like to know . . .

would you also have a beef with a lying scumbag who would come on and puke their garbage on my form, and totally lie about me ? how long would such a liar been allowed to live back in the day when you wore serving ?

why do you think satans dirty little helpers are tolerated and allowed these days ?
why dosnt anyone stand up and tell the truth about them ? After all, its people like that who are responsible for senate bill 1867.

And why is it, that no one here has addressed the Topic of this Thread ? how are the differnt models of rugers ranch rifles and mini's identified and why wont anyone talk about it?
Id like to hear from you if you have the time.

[Wyobuckaroo]

Have carried and fired about 4 different versions of Mini 14s since the first ones came out (wood upper hand guard)

They all they ALL functioned flawlessly with minimal fuss. However they all ran HOT. After 7-8 shots you had to be careful of the hot barrel and gas block. Otherwise they shot good, from the start of the day to the end.

The old Minis started with a 1/12" twist barrel I'm told. I suspect they missed the boat by not keeping up and changing soon enough to the 1/7 or 1/8 barrel that is the norm today. But that is all old history now.

Have used several brands of aftermarket magazines. Only issue I ever had with one is failure to hold open when empty on an rare basis. Maybe I was just lucky that way. Never shot any exotic ammo. Just what ammo was provided. Always was using 55 gr ammo that I knew of. If there was 62 grain or any other weitht ammo there the performance or accuracy didn't change.

Have not fired one of the newer ones with the winged front site. I think that is one thing they should have done the 2nd day they made them. But that is just my preference.

If I had a need, and was handed a Mini again I wouldn't complain a bit.

I like cream and sugar in my coffee.......... Some don't.......

[hanabal89]

I can only write from my experience, not so much technical aspects of the gun. I have had a mini-14 for well over 20 yrs. Gun has never misfired, and always hit what I was aiming for. It does have a tendency to heat up as stated above.I have factory and non factory metal magazines, and never an issue with loading. Have shot cheap to match grade ammo as well. big difference being how dirty the gun was after I shot. I wouldnt trade it for anything in a situtation where I knew i needed the gun to fire.
On the othher hand, I have had friends with AR's that had a lot of issues with them. Not saying that they are junk, but I once had a friend that had what I called "the only single shot AR ever produced". had to return it to colt.
Just my opionion here, but ill take my ruger anyday.

[sethwyo]

I simply cannot figure people out.

[sethwyo]

so if one of you ruger owners has some problems with your ruger mini, and you go to buy some parts for it, and the gunsmith or phone oporator askes you waht parts you need and what series your mini14/ranch rifle is. than what do you do ?

i want to know the differences between the models of mini14/ranch rifles, the series. this is what this thread was started about.

[grumble]

Seth, I may be mistaken, but as far as I know the parts are mostly interchangable among the models and versions. The differences are mostly in barrel length, finish, sights, and stock. If there are differences in the parts, they'll be listed by serial number range.

What I found (but I have to admit it was quite a while ago), was that there were no small parts available except from Ruger, and Ruger wouldn't sell the parts, they wanted me to send the gun to them. I could get accessories and cosmetic parts, but not parts for the action or gas train.

What parts are you looking for?

[DaNgEr_KiTtY]

I like my old Mosin & Mauser. Wish I had money to be thinking about a new rifle but no need.

[Clem]

Let’s face it. The Mini-14 has a checkered history. I have an older 187 series (1989) and a newer 580 series (2009). The older one had one of Ruger’s crap barrels and wouldn’t shoot particularly well, and the point of impact shifted as the barrel warmed up. I sent it to a specialist who rebarreled it for me. It now shoots very well. The new one shoots pretty well, but I don’t have much time on it yet.

One of the things I learned a few years ago was that that gas block contained a gas bushing. The bushing acts as an alignment pin for the gas block assembly and is easily removable. It was also ridiculously oversized and that smaller bushings were available. The smaller bushings reduced the gas flow, reducing the thrust on the op rod, reducing the bending and harmonics on the barrel and reducing the battering of the mechanism. I tried a couple of different sizes and reduced the ejection pattern of the brass from 20’ plus to 6’ to 8’. The guns shot better as well. I also put in a 1911 buffer to cut down the banging and replaced the gas pipe on the older blued gun with a stainless one. They are also in Hogue stocks just because I prefer it. I also put a sling swivel on the Hogue stock and took off the swivel on the gas block. Using a shooting sling on the gas block only bends the barrel and changes the point of impact.

One of the reasons I like the Mini is because it has the same basic action as the M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine and M-14/M1A. I prefer that style rifle. I have shot the AR-15/M-16 series rifles in the service and afterword. I still don’t like them, for many reasons. I don’t have one, and don’t plan to ever get one, but I do recognize some benefits, like availability of mags. My non-AR rifle that uses AR mags is my SIG 556. I feel the 556 has it all over the AR, but others will differ. So be it.

[bigsurveyor]

I have owned a number of black and blue rifles. the mini14 is ok ..I sold mine.. Had a few problems but not bad. I prefer the ar and m1a greatly. as toys you get what you to play with ; but when things get serious you best have reliable performance and I have found that there are only a few on my list that I want to trust to keep me alive.