one? Looks interesting. How is the check weld/fit?
This is a discussion on Mini 14 and AR15 within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by 120mm Somewhere there is a GAO study on M14 failure rates in Vietnam. Contrary to mythology, the M14 was an relatively unreliable ...
ctr, I would consider replacing the standard stock and pistol grip. A Magpul ACS is a solid upgrade, as is swapping the grip for a MIAD or Stark SE-1. The CAR stock is good for balancing lightweight builds, but much else. I'd recommend the IMOD or UBR for stocks, but they're a little more expensive...
one? Looks interesting. How is the check weld/fit?
A couple of folks mentioned the "brass" issue. Yeah, I forgot to mention the Mini 14 throws brass into the outfield, lol.
Keep in mind that stocks, like pistol grips, are pretty personal. If the comb height isn't right for you, consider a stock with a riser. I know the Magpul CTR has a .25", .5", and .75" riser available, plus a rubber butt pad if you need it. The CTR is a bit heavier than the standard CAR stock, and according to Magpul the ACS is .2 heavier than the CTR, so the CTR + riser + butt pad should work well.
I prefer the Mini-14's lower line-of-sight over bore axis, for close-range shooting, and the safety is IDEAL for a lefty shooter, like me.
I also own an AR15 HBAR, which is great for long-range shooting. I have used an AR15 Govt Carbine during a couple of dynamic entries, at work, and really don't want to to that again with an AR15. I have done the same with shotguns, and while the AR is handier in length than the shotgun, I prefer a Mini-14 for indoor use, based on my experiments at home. It will, however, be quite a while before I can take my PD's carbine cert class with a Mini, so for now the Mini is just for off-the-clock SD/HD.
Last edited by Rexster; May 6th, 2010 at 08:34 PM. Reason: typo
Personally, I like the inline bore to recoil impulse of the AR. Of course, I have to account for my offset when shooting close targets or over and around barriers...
The only "prob" with the M-14 we found was on "Full"auto.( uncontrollable) But then again we had a "different" out look on "situations"
"Back in the day", long before I was born, the Powell Board (1959), Hitch Report (1962), USMC LFDC report (1963), DDR&E report (1967), and one or two others I'm not remembering all commented that the M14 has no inherent reliability advantage over the M16. Aberdeen, in 1968, restates this and gives the M16 a slight nod to reliability in early service life. In modern days, there is virtually no support for the M14 system in the military (compared with other weapons), indicating it is not a long term solution for its role. Outside of the military, civi-versions of the gun rarely, if ever, make it through carbine courses (as any number of instructors can verify). Incidentally, that latter point holds true for the Mini as well.
Building off 120's earlier point, I think a miniaturized FAL would be pretty cool. I imagine it can be made pretty lightweight and pretty inexpensively.
"Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" - John Parker April 19th, 1775 Lexington, MA
Addons, yes. Modularity, no. The core design of the AR-15 is what makes it modular. Rail systems only enhance this inherent modularity. An AR-15 can be a bunch of things by popping two pins and swapping an upper, or utilizing the newer barrel change systems by Colt, LMT, and MGI. You can't do that with a Mini; not pooping on the platform, but it is what it is. For some (most) people this doesn't matter, but for armorers and people working out of arms rooms it does.
A few AR15s did not function so well during my PD's 4-day carbine cert course when I went through it in 2002. My Colt Govt Carbine did fine, 100% reliable in the three years I owned it, but I should note that I hastily bought that Colt because the Knight Armament SR15 my wife had earlier bought me for the purpose had shown itself to be a lemon. (It actually was part of a batch that was recalled for a fundamental flaw that NEVER should have gotten past QC.
When my agency went through its carbine selection process, the performance and longevity of the Texas DPS Mini-14s was studied closely.
Either weapon should suffice for private citizen SD/HD. The AR15 is best for a wartime environment, and is also easier to maintain at the armorer level. If a private citizen makes a hobby of attending carbine courses that require hundreds of rounds to be fired in a day, perhaps the AR15 is a better proposition. Mini-14s generally have to go back to Ruger for major work, there not being a widespread system of Ruger armorers, and Ruger is also quite stingy with its replacement parts, unless installed in-house.
I don't put any more stock in official Army tests than I do in big tobaccos lung cancer research. The people who make such tests have a vested interest in being proved right. The Garand system is tough, reliable and combat proven. The AR system has put many a GI in the ground because it jams.
The Army did everything in its power to prove the M14 better than the AR-15, going as far as rigging tests to do so. It couldn't.
The Garand was also not the benchmark of durability and reliability it's so often made out to be, as was demonstrated both in lab and battlefield settings. There's an outstanding article out there illustrating this, but hard-drive crash means bookmarks are gone and I can't find it. Hopefully someone will be along to repost the link so I can re-bookmark it...