I've been reading a lot of threads about Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30's, and the problem of groups "walking" as the barrel heats up. But no one ever mentions this as a problem in AR-style rifles. Why? Are the Colt and Bushmaster and Armalite .223 barrels that much better? Is there something about the AR-style gas system that helps? Or do AR's walk their groups too when they get hot?
newbie .223 question
- Thread starter LBC
- Start date
Mini-14s are gerat guns. The reason they "walk" and the ARs don't is the barrels on the ARs are thicker.
Personally, I would rather have an HK93 for my .223.
http://www.hkpro.com/hk93.htm
Or an HK33...after the demise of the NFA.
http://www.hkpro.com/33sg1.htm
Personally, I would rather have an HK93 for my .223.
http://www.hkpro.com/hk93.htm
Or an HK33...after the demise of the NFA.
http://www.hkpro.com/33sg1.htm
Walking is due to the wood stock next to the metal barrel. As the thing heats, pressure is applied from underneath.
The Stoner designed rifles (AR15 etc) do not have a stock directly touching the barrel and as such, are immune from this problem. The handguard is attached to the front sight/barrel assembly by a triangular metal washer. Severe pressure to the forearm can cause a shift in impact but its minimal except in the case of a tight sling for support.
Free float tubes are available for this, one style being just a solid tube and the other an under-the-guards look that does not change the appearance of the rifle. The latter also has an option for sling attachment to the tube, making it useable with a sling.
IMHO, there are some very good barrels for both rifles but the AR wins hands down in the accuracy department. Many AR's will group sub MOA straight from the box. Impressive, indeed.
The Stoner designed rifles (AR15 etc) do not have a stock directly touching the barrel and as such, are immune from this problem. The handguard is attached to the front sight/barrel assembly by a triangular metal washer. Severe pressure to the forearm can cause a shift in impact but its minimal except in the case of a tight sling for support.
Free float tubes are available for this, one style being just a solid tube and the other an under-the-guards look that does not change the appearance of the rifle. The latter also has an option for sling attachment to the tube, making it useable with a sling.
IMHO, there are some very good barrels for both rifles but the AR wins hands down in the accuracy department. Many AR's will group sub MOA straight from the box. Impressive, indeed.
Jody Hudson
New member
I know there are lots of people who LOVE the Rugers.
I've had five of them now as I would really love to love them too. However my primary interest in any firearm is accuracy and secondarily dependability, thirdly is it's cool looks. Ruger makes in in one out of three; the last one.
Each time I've gone out shooting with someone who claims to have a reliable and accurate Ruger (and most never showed up) the accurate and reliable one they had did not meet my criteria. Reliability is not terrible but accuracy is.
I hear all the claims about accuracy but I love the looks of the little Rugers so much that several times in the past I would have gladly purchased one for $750 if it would shoot 100 rounds without a misfire into an 6 inch circle at 100 yards. And that is an easy test to pass with any other popular rifle.
They are usually (always in my experience) less accurate than an AK and far less reliable. But, they are puuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrdy!
I've had five of them now as I would really love to love them too. However my primary interest in any firearm is accuracy and secondarily dependability, thirdly is it's cool looks. Ruger makes in in one out of three; the last one.
Each time I've gone out shooting with someone who claims to have a reliable and accurate Ruger (and most never showed up) the accurate and reliable one they had did not meet my criteria. Reliability is not terrible but accuracy is.
I hear all the claims about accuracy but I love the looks of the little Rugers so much that several times in the past I would have gladly purchased one for $750 if it would shoot 100 rounds without a misfire into an 6 inch circle at 100 yards. And that is an easy test to pass with any other popular rifle.
They are usually (always in my experience) less accurate than an AK and far less reliable. But, they are puuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrdy!
the truth and nothing but
Can we not just accept the Mini as a reliable close-range (50 yds or less) carbine that can put a quorum of shots in the kill zone in the unhappy circumstance that such shooting ever becomes necessary? The Mini was designed, as Ruger tells us, for "a few quick shots" against four- or two-legged critters. It's not a long-range battle rifle for extended combat scenarios. That's what the AK and AR were meant for.
Can we not just accept the Mini as a reliable close-range (50 yds or less) carbine that can put a quorum of shots in the kill zone in the unhappy circumstance that such shooting ever becomes necessary? The Mini was designed, as Ruger tells us, for "a few quick shots" against four- or two-legged critters. It's not a long-range battle rifle for extended combat scenarios. That's what the AK and AR were meant for.
Jody Hudson
New member
Even at 50 yards the Ruger is better at looking cool than at hitting anything...
And, if we take it down to 50 yards -- the 9 shot, 12 gauge, with slugs or buck is FAR superior to the Ruger and cheaper... oh and FAR more accurate, powerful and reliable as well.
IFFFFF the Ruger was accurate and reliable it would be my favorite rifle of all... but not as it is. It's best use is as the primary arm in A-Team... a perfect scenario for it -- pretense!
And, if we take it down to 50 yards -- the 9 shot, 12 gauge, with slugs or buck is FAR superior to the Ruger and cheaper... oh and FAR more accurate, powerful and reliable as well.
IFFFFF the Ruger was accurate and reliable it would be my favorite rifle of all... but not as it is. It's best use is as the primary arm in A-Team... a perfect scenario for it -- pretense!
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I bought a Mini whenever they first came out. I later bought a stainless Mini. I traded into another of each: Four, total. (All made prior to around 1980 or so.)
At 100 yards, with a K4 scope, they all would hold 1-1/2" to 2" at 100 yards for five-shot groups. I always felt that was plenty good for coyotes and jackrabbits.
With Ruger factory magazines, I never, ever had a failure to feed. Brand X magazines of the 1970s always proved reliable, as well.
They do exactly what they were meant for: Reasonably accurate, quite reliable, rugged enough to survive life as a "truck gun", and they're obviously PC enough to not be threatening to the anti-assault-weapon crowd of idjits.
$0.02,
Art
At 100 yards, with a K4 scope, they all would hold 1-1/2" to 2" at 100 yards for five-shot groups. I always felt that was plenty good for coyotes and jackrabbits.
With Ruger factory magazines, I never, ever had a failure to feed. Brand X magazines of the 1970s always proved reliable, as well.
They do exactly what they were meant for: Reasonably accurate, quite reliable, rugged enough to survive life as a "truck gun", and they're obviously PC enough to not be threatening to the anti-assault-weapon crowd of idjits.
$0.02,
Art
Jody Hudson
Count me as a lover of a good 12-gauge but, Jody, surely you jest. My Mini-14 certainly has what I'd call "functional accuracy" out to 100 yards, though it might be more comfortable at closer distances. I think the two--Mini and 12-gauge--are complementary, not in competition--don't you agree? Buckshot (or slugs) and M193 ball do very different things. I think there are scenarios that call for one and scenarios that call for the other.
Count me as a lover of a good 12-gauge but, Jody, surely you jest. My Mini-14 certainly has what I'd call "functional accuracy" out to 100 yards, though it might be more comfortable at closer distances. I think the two--Mini and 12-gauge--are complementary, not in competition--don't you agree? Buckshot (or slugs) and M193 ball do very different things. I think there are scenarios that call for one and scenarios that call for the other.
Jody Hudson
New member
I keep giving the Ruger another chance and you make me want to try again. Is there something about military ammo that it doesn't like possibly. I don't purchase the expensive premium ammo and like only firearms where I can feed them the far cheaper and usually reliable military surplus stuff. Is this the problem I have with Rugers, perhaps????
Mike, I WISH I could have had the wonderful experience you've had with the scope and the groups but have not. IN FACT I've never shot one that was worthy of a scope and I do personally prefer no scopes for the better reliability and lack of parallax (sp?). I let someone have a wonderful bargain on the last one I had as I bought it in a hurry and had it fitted with some expensive Millet sights before I picked it up. The sights didn't help it any on resale, of course, so someone got a DEAL when they bought that after my trade.
My goodness I wish that I could have the good experience that others... have with the little Rugers.
Mike, I WISH I could have had the wonderful experience you've had with the scope and the groups but have not. IN FACT I've never shot one that was worthy of a scope and I do personally prefer no scopes for the better reliability and lack of parallax (sp?). I let someone have a wonderful bargain on the last one I had as I bought it in a hurry and had it fitted with some expensive Millet sights before I picked it up. The sights didn't help it any on resale, of course, so someone got a DEAL when they bought that after my trade.
My goodness I wish that I could have the good experience that others... have with the little Rugers.
Don't know about the military ammo, but my mini 14s (1 ranch, 1 standard) will group inside 3" @ 100 yards with my reloads (five shot groups). Reloads are nothing fancy, 55 gr win fmj, LC brass, AA2015, 4198 or 4895 powder. Never had a missfire or feeding failure except when experimenting with reduced velocity loads.