Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Mini-14

........minute of grape fruit at ANY range> works well for the nate's ,on a boo heard.... sob's

You should tell us how inaccurate it is and people with experience will be able to tell you if that can be improved.

CLEAN THE BORE! MOST PEOPLE DON'T CLEAN MINI-14 THEY JUST SHOOT THEM. BROUGHT A USED ONE A FEW YEARS BACK, IT DIDN'T SHOOT VERY WELL NEITHER. STARTED CLEANING THE BORE ON FRIDAY NIGHT, SOAKED IT, FOAMED IT, SOAKED MORE ALL WEEKEND DIDN'T GET A CLEAN PATCH TILL TUESDAY. IT SHOT MUCH BETTER AFTER THAT, STILL NOT A TACK DRIVER BUT GOOD ENOUGH FOR WHAT I WANTED.

I have done a trigger job and replaced the barrel. shoots most of the time about 3 shot one inch groups. It will open up another inch with a hot barrel.

The Mini works great for a self defense weapon , they will do min of Hood Rats very well

Why are you SHOUTING?

Dirty bores are a problem on any rifle. It isn't the cause of most Mini 14's not shooting tight groups though.

mini 14's are a funny rifle, i understand the new ones with better barrels and so on work. Hard not to like a rifle based upon a garand or M1Carbine.
I remember shooting one years ago, that the rear sight kept falling off. It was minute of barndoor at 100yards.
Then ruger not liking hi cap mags put the kabosh on them for a long time. And for the same amount of money you can buy any variety of ar15 that will most likely outshoot it, and cheaper cost mags.
Having said that, I might know where there is an unfired Arizona highway patrol commemorative mini14, new in the box. Often wondered about shooting it or carrying it in a vehcile with that big ol DPS badge embedded in the buttstock. No idea how it shoots.

The mini just has too many things rattling around against the barrel. The original skinny barrel ones typically average around 3-4 MOA. And while that's nothing to write home about, it's accurate enough to hit most things you're ever going to shoot at.

The new ones have barrels that are shorter and much fatter under the handguards to dampen all that vibration, so they're more accurate.

I consider the Mini a sporting rifle that can double as a defensive rifle. It's not a true military grade rifle, and they're not as reliable as an AR, or other major military rifles.

But they are probably the most reliable commercial sporting semi auto ever built. They're light years ahead of the Remington 740 series, BAR's and even the Remington 8 & 81 (which is saying something, because those were pretty good).

What I love about the mini is first the magazine. It's everything the AR magazine should have been. The factory 20 & 30 round Ruger magazines are just flawless. Next is the light weight, and the handling. They're much nicer to carry than an AR because the AR has such a tall action. The mini is much more like carrying a bolt rifle, just slim and sleek. So they tend to handle like a "real" rifle, which is very nice.

For a fighting rifle, I prefer the M1 Carbine over the mini because they're more reliable and generally a bit tougher; they truly are military grade. If you feed the Carbine JHP's then they're a good deal more effective than the .223's. But in general, the .223 is a FAR more versatile cartridge, so the mini makes more sense as a general purpose rifle than the M1 Carbine and many other rifles.

Kevin, you can't be serious? The .30 carbine is a 'good deal more effective' than a .223?

This one is more accurate than my old Ranch rifle.

The .30 Carbine will make a much more severe wound if you use JHP's than the .223. JHP's, especially the Barnes are absolutely wicked in the .30 carbine. But one difference, the .30 carbine with JHP's will make a fairly impressive permanent cavity, but it doesn't develop sufficient velocity to do any damage from the stretch cavity (and truly, there are only certain parts of the body that are susceptible to stretch cavity damage).

For FMJ's the .223 is much more effective. But inside of 200 yards, the .30 Carbine will typically do better on barrier penetration than the .223, but beyond 200 yards, the .223 just stomps the .30 carbine.

The .30 carbine is a downright decent round, but it's very limited in what it can do; not nearly as versatile as the .223.

Kev, we have to part company on a .30 carbine burning a bigger hole than a .223...

I know we both do outdoor writing, but I'd have to ask for your basis on that statement.

Do admit my ignorance on hunting animals with a .30 carbine because I never found it to perform as well as say a .223 in all applications except not tearing up something as badly.

I did ammo/load testing for ATK and some of the HP's they sent blew over a 6" hole on impact out of a .223/5.56. (Coyote. Live Target.)

Well my basis is ballistic gelatin testing I did back in the '90's (for which I actually used a 181 series mini-14). I compared the Winchester factory .30 Carbine 110 JHP to .223 FMJ and .223 55gr SP's. The Winchester .30 Carbine JHP penetrated about 14", and typically broke up into 4 pieces (typically 3 petals of the expanding nose, and the base). The petals generally penetrated around 6-10 inches (depending on size), and the base would go about 14".

The .223's I tried back then (both 55 grain) typically penetrated around 9-10". At about 4" the FMJ would yaw, break in half and the two pieces would travel around 9-10". The SP opened up and typically severely fragmented inside of 3" and penetration was generally 5-8 inches at most. So the Carbine's wound cavities under those conditions were greater. The base and fragments of the .30 caliber projectiles were larger than those of the .223, and they penetrated further; so the Carbine produced a larger wound.

Now I was testing the two loads as an urban defense cartridge, so it was a rather limited test. I fired into the blocks from about 20 yards away, which really doesn't help out a 55 grain .223 SP; I think you can pretty much expect a SP would blow up that close. The FMJ's did pretty much what you'd expect them to do, and performed very well.

Now honestly, this testing I did was a LONG time ago, and things have changed. There are more effective loads for .223's, and now there's the previously mentioned Barnes bullet for the .30 Carbine (as loaded by Cor-Bon) is a much better bullet than the old Winchester JHP. But I tend to find that most people who pick up a .223 for defense, generally stoke their weapons with 55 grain FMJ's. Some will stoke it with M855's. The Winchester or Barnes JHP's out of the Carbine will produce nastier wounds than either FMJ load in the .223 out to 150 yards or maybe a little more. And if both use FMJ's, inside of 200 yards, barrier penetration is typically better. So there are times where the carbine can be better; but it's a small window. (Since the Barnes bullet is a solid copper, I�m sure it would have the same penetration characteristics of a FMJ. The Winchester 110gr JHP is a semi-jacket, so it will deform if it hits a barrier). The Cor-Bon/Barnes load in the .30 Carbine really gives the little Carbine some impressive teeth.

So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I did that because you're constantly hearing people talk about how impotent the .30 Carbine is, yet most are quite happy with the performance of the 55 or 62 grain FMJ's out of a .223. So with a change to JHP ammo, the .30 carbine can be the better round at ranges under 200 yards. Again, admittedly not an apples to apples comparison.

So as I see it, there's a narrow window in which the .30 Carbine CAN be the better cartridge. For urban defense, the .30 carbine properly loaded can be an ideal self defense weapon. As a general cartridge, the .223 is a much better cartridge because it performs well out to much greater distances.

For a defensive rifle, I�d take a good AR over the Carbine. But if I had to choose between the Mini-14 and the M1 Carbine, I�ll take the M1 Carbine because it�s a purpose built military rifle that was built to an extremely strict quality standard. AR�s can be had with parts that hold to the same standards. But the Mini-14 is NOT a military rifle and has never been built to a military standard regardless of how much it looks like a Garand/M14.

I thought I read that for a good while it was the most produced and distributed US military rifle so it must have had some merits.

Has anyone ever made a .30 Carbine upper for an AR?

Yes it was, but the M16 finally surpassed it in numbers. I have personally seen an M1 Carbine with a 6.7 million serial number. I don't know what the absolute number was, and I'm not sure anyone really knows. But we know it was close to 7 million carbines built in just 4 years.

The Carbine is unique in that it has worked perfectly from day one. It's one of the only major military weapons that didn't have any problems whatsoever and needed to be de-bugged. Most rifles have issues related to materials and manufacture that need to be worked out. The Garand initially really didn't work quite right, took a few years to de-bug. The M14 had issues, FAL had issues, AK had some serious manufacturing issues, and of course, we all know the story of the M16.

The little Carbine was so good, it has never been really considered as what it was intended to be; a personal defense weapon (PDW) and a replacement for a pistol. In that role, it holds up damn well even today. But it has always been compared to general issue infantry weapons where it tends to fall short because of its cartridge.

I wanna say Olympic Arms made one years ago, and someone else, but I don't remember who.

The good old .30 carbine just doesn't get the respect it deserves. Loaded with expanding bullets it has plenty punch. Under 100 yards I'd take a .30 carbine over a .223 every time.

Noise can be fixed. Ever shake an AK?


You have to be joshing. So you're in hostile territory, able to carry only one long gun, you're gonna throw down your Mini because there's a .30 Carbine laying there available? Just can't see that playing out.


No. "Effective" projectiles for the 5.56/.223 are endless.


You're kinda going in both directions on this. Whatever......for a "rifle" to carry the civilian designed Mini-14 .223 just is not being bested by a .30 Carbine "military" design or not. Granted the 110 HP at carbine velocity puts it past the bad guy killin .357 110gr or 125gr but still not in the class of the 5.56/.223

I've had three M1 carbines, and none of them were as reliable as the Mini-14s I've had, NONE. Period.

Yep, the M1 is better made, but not more reliable, at least in my own experiences.

Maybe you can�t understand it, but I can. The Mini 14 is a great little rifle, and makes a great sporting/defensive weapon, but talk to people who have been to the carbine classes and ask how well the Mini�s hold up over several days of heavy use. It�s just NOT a military grade weapon. I sense you just don�t get the difference between a military and a non-military rifle. The mini-14 has never been exposed to the constant use and abuse of a major military. It has never been drug through one war, let alone dozens.

Military service will expose every flaw in a weapon�s design, manufacture, and materials. The Mini-14 has NEVER had that.
Now compare that to the M1 carbine. I personally will take reliability every time, and the mini just isn�t anywhere near as reliable or durable as the M1 Carbine. The Mini 14 has failed every military trial it�s ever been in due to reliability and parts breakage (dig around in Daniel Watter�s excellently researched �5.56x45 timeline found here: http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html ). Just stop and think�how many militaries or military units have used the Mini-14 or AC556? Then ask yourself why that is?

So you just go on believing the mini is a better rifle because it looks like more of a big boys gun than the M1 Carbine; looks are deceiving. But everywhere in this world where you find armed conflict you�ll find an M1 Carbine; they�re proven in the worst of environments. And the mini�s tend to not hold up in carbine courses where the only adversity is just a high round count. The SKS is vastly superior to the Mini-14 also, again; military grade...they don�t malfunction and they don�t break.

I think you need to study up on what kind of testing and abuse military rifles go through, and then think for a minute�if you were to go into battle, would you want an un-tested civilian rifle that has never seen battle, or one that�s fully tested and has been used in every major conflict around the world since WWII?
The only thing the mini has over the M1 Carbine is the cartridge. So if I want a .223 rifle for combat, I�ll take an AR built as close to military spec as I can get. But if I have to choose between the mini and the Carbine (again, for fighting), then the Carbine will get the nod every time.