The mini14 is NOT a downsized M14

sloughfoot

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Apr 17, 2008
6,933
48
Huntertown, IN
Probably just marketing strategy because it is obviously an upgunned M1 Carbine.

Look at the gas system. Op-rod. Even the bolt hold open. None have any similarity to the M14. But they are all similar to the M1 Carbine.

Even the intended range is similar. I am old enough to have owned at least one since 1975. The modern wisdom is maddening to listen to.

Anybody want to know the historical evolution of the .223/5.56? It is not quite what people say...

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter much.
 
Last edited:

JettaKnight

INGO Homebrewer
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Oct 13, 2010
21,868
83
Fort Wayne
I know. I have watched this young man's video an many others. He is wrong. His video actually was the catalyst for my post.
Ah-ha.

...oops.


Wait, Ian McCollum is a "young man"? Well, looking at his Linked In page, I see he did go to Purdue many years after I left there. He's probably around 35.
 

92FSTech

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dec 24, 2020
36
8
North Central
The Mini is the Mini. It shares design elements with both rifles, but is really its own thing. In form factor and intended use I'd definitely agree that it's closer to the M1 Carbine than the M14.

I really like my ranch rifle. It's not the most accurate gun that I own, but it's accurate enough for its intended use, reliable as a brick, and a lightweight handy design. My only real complaint about it is that it throws brass 60-75 feet so I usually end up losing half of it, but thankfully .223 brass is cheap and abundant.
 

cosermann

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Aug 15, 2008
7,558
48
The "Mini" lost my interest by 1998. I gave it a good try. NONE of the 3 or 4 I had were accurate enough or reliable enough to hold my interest. So I moved in a different direction and never looked back. Folks say the newer ones are better. I'm not going to waste any time or money to find out.
 

1nderbeard

Marksman
Local Business Supporter
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Apr 3, 2017
690
28
Hendricks County
The "Mini" lost my interest by 1998. I gave it a good try. NONE of the 3 or 4 I had were accurate enough or reliable enough to hold my interest. So I moved in a different direction and never looked back. Folks say the newer ones are better. I'm not going to waste any time or money to find out.
yeah. Accurate it is not. I got at best 2-3 moa. It's just so fun to play with though.
I've got the stainless ranch model.
 

MrSmitty

Expert
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Jan 4, 2010
2,372
38
Jeffersonville
I had one years ago, traded a Model 19, and Single six ( yeah I know) for it. It had the pencil barrel, wouldn't hit the ground if I aimed at it...maybe minute of fat man... I would love to have a Mini-thirty though, I've heard the accuracy problems are a thing of the past ......Foe what they cost I'd have to sell most of my guns to get one...As to the OP, I like the design, kind of nostalgia.
 

92FSTech

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dec 24, 2020
36
8
North Central
I've gotten 2" groups at 100 out of my 187-series before, and I can consistently group under 3.5" with it. I'm pretty certain that the limiting factor in my case is the shooter, not the gun. IMO better sights would help tighten that up even more. I wish somebody made Garand style sights for the Ranch Rifle. The Tech Sight options look kinda clunky.

Even with the stock sights, it's good enough for what it is. It's fun (and cheap!) to shoot, practical at it's intended range, and has a certain nostalgia to the design. Not to mention it's a looker...

mini.jpg
 

indyjohn

PATRIOT
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
74   0   0
Dec 26, 2010
5,887
27
In the trees
I've gotten 2" groups at 100 out of my 187-series before, and I can consistently group under 3.5" with it. I'm pretty certain that the limiting factor in my case is the shooter, not the gun. IMO better sights would help tighten that up even more. I wish somebody made Garand style sights for the Ranch Rifle. The Tech Sight options look kinda clunky.

Even with the stock sights, it's good enough for what it is. It's fun (and cheap!) to shoot, practical at it's intended range, and has a certain nostalgia to the design. Not to mention it's a looker...

View attachment 120891

For those playing the home game, be reminded that the OP has tools that will hold 3.5" at a thousand yards.
 

AlVine

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Feb 12, 2014
97
8
Owen Co.
I know. I have watched this young man's video an many others. He is wrong. His video actually was the catalyst for my post.
Ian is exactly right, Bill Ruger intended for the Mini-14 to be a military rifle. He and his top designer, Jim Sullivan, started with the M-14 and tried to shrink it down for the 5.56 cartridge. Ruger mentioned it to Col. Studler of the Army Ordnance Dept. at an NRA convention and the Col. was very interested.

They didn’t end up with an exact scaled down M-14. The rotating bolt and fire control system are very similar to the M-14. Ruger simplified the M-14’s gas system, rather than copying the M1’s captive piston system. They simplified everything they could to lower production cost.

Calling it a ‘Mini-14’ and styling it like the M-14 were definitely done for marketing purposes. When Ruger later tried to scale the Mini-14 up to .308 they didn’t end up with an M-14, they ended up with a big Mini-14, the XGI. Neither was ever claimed to be a direct copy of the M-14.
 
Top Bottom