Action strength again!

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Action strength again!

Post by 3leggedturtle »

Not gonna push the limits, but am curious which action is stronger, the AR15 or Mini-14? I know the mini14 is more reliable and AR15 is more accurate within reason. The only way the mini could be better is if they could use the M16 type mags. Todd/3leg
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18564
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Action strength again!

Post by Sixgun »

Turtle man......THAT is a good question to which I can only respond by experiences and not by reading. My uneducated guess is they are pretty much the same.......as to strength.....g..I've shots tens of thousands from both types and learned long ago .....and then "unlearned"..........back in the day, the Mini 14 was more reliable than a Colt AR....but.....the Colt shot a bit better......now......both are extremely reliable with the Colt winning hands down on the accuracy dept.

I gave up thinking as my brain will not allow extreme thinking....so I sold the Mini's and stocked up on the AR's with the 1-7 twist and 69 gr. Sierra BRHP's......and other junk..(55 fmj).......letting loose about 3-5K a year.-----6.

(got my azz CHEWED OUT....at the McKean County Rifle Club during the Levergun Eastern Regional Champs over the 4th weekend...........when the day before the match, I ripped a few 30 rd. mags off in a few seconds in my Colt Commando)
Model A Uzi’s
Image
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31932
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Action strength again!

Post by AJMD429 »

I know it is the in thing to dismiss the Mini-14 as trash, although the Garand/M14 it is a copy of is a Holy Grail in the firearms world. However, the ridiculous rear-pulling charge-handle of the AR-15 is enough to turn me off of the design. Then you add the gas-into-the-bolt design of the AR, and the high parts-count, and it just seems like a problem waiting to happen.

I've shot many tens of thousands of rounds through probably a dozen Mini-14's and another dozen AR's over the years, and both work pretty well, but the AR's are way more finicky in MY experience.

Think of it another way - would you rather have an AR-10, or a M-14....??? That may be a more apples-to-apples comparison, since I admit the M-14 is better executed than the Mini-14 in terms of potential accuracy.

I do wish the magazine options were a bit better, but I've shot many thousands of rounds through even the cheap magazines, and not had issues.

As to 'strength' I'll bet both are plenty strong, but I've always thought it interesting to think that for all those seven locking lugs of the AR to REALLY share the strain, they would have to be EXACTLY matching the chamber cuts, and I'm thinking a couple much larger lugs would at least theoretically do a better job of handling that, given the need for compression and bending and the shearing potential of small 'edge' contacts. But never had a failure of either, so you'd have to speak with someone who 'proof-tested' numerous examples of each platform to see which was stronger.

Also, which one would INJURE you more if it did fail, might be a more important issue, and might favor the AR design (just thinking because more is enclosed).

If they made the Mini-14 able to use AR magazines, and if they made a more 'modular' stock and barrel attachment/swap system for it, it would be a real winner.

Personally, I had a really nice AR have failures-to-fire with hardly any firing pin dents, and it had been my 'go-to' AR, which I left the suppressor on, and installed a piston system to keep gas out of the action other than the already dirty blowback due to the suppressor.........I was not happy. So it will be relegated to secondary status, and the suppressor will go on my Mini-14 'government model' (threaded barrel) along with a Tapco stock so the light and laser can be attached (and yes, I DO use the 'ninja-mall' accessories, because they WORK, and I live on a farm, where it isn't unusual to have to run out and deal with a screaming goat being attacked by coyotes at 2 am, and both laser and light are very useful then).
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Re: Action strength again!

Post by 3leggedturtle »

Doc, I have a '79 Mini-14 with the wood hand guard if that tells U anything about my choice :mrgreen: . Was just curious, Mr. Ruger always built a lot if extra strength into almost all of his firearms. Yes I'd ratter have an M1A1 over just about anything, 30/30 lever excepted. Todd3/leg
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: Action strength again!

Post by Malamute »

Doc, is the trigger system in the AR that started giving light hits an aftermarket or "improved trigger pull" design? I knew a guy that swore he got a bad lot of ammo, but his ammo shot fine in mine. Mine was stock Colt parts, his was a match type trigger.

Ive had both minis and ARs. I wish the mini lived up to the M1 or M14 heritage expectations, but they just never did in my experience, particularly with accuracy. They arent easy to get most internal parts for either, as in impossible for the most part. My experience with ARs has been excellent overall, with reliability and accuracy. I had one extractor spring go bad and start stovepiping empties, it was fine after getting a new spring. I dropped on loaded magazine on a rock and the left side of it didnt feed after that, otherwise, the ARs Ive had have been more reliable than the import AKs Ive had. I used one SP1 Colt in the 80s with ball ammo it liked, it would do the first 3 shots into slightly under an inch pretty reliably scoped. I was able to consistently hit prairie dogs about 6-7/10 at 300 yards with a Leatherwood ART scope based on a Weaver 3-9x shooting off the hood of a truck. I dont think any I had would stay under 4" groups consistently @100 yards with the mini. Their iron sights are dismall also. No ring around them, and not a clean edged front blade. The A2 AR sights are nothing short of outstanding when shooting out to 800-ish yards at steel plates and plinking at rocks and such. Really like the wide and small flip apertures for varying conditions.

Cheap scope mounts yielded junk results with ARs for me, the only carry handle mount I tried that kept zero was an ARMS. It was literally a hand press fit into the carry handle. Even the factory Colt scope, while cute, wasnt very reliable keeping zero when it rode around against the seat of a pickup or slung on my back riding motorcycles.

This was fun reading, http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-ma ... filthy-14/ it echoed what many with military trainer and users said, run them WET, and they run, and run, and run. Several guys said they ran lines, guys would come with guns not functioning, theyd lube them heavily with CLP, then they magically ran, despite many in the military insisting they should be dry or barely lubed.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
OD#3
Levergunner
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: Action strength again!

Post by OD#3 »

I've never heard of a broken bolt lug on a Mini 14. Can't say that it can't happen, but I've never seen it. From an action strength design, I think that the Mini 14 wins. Note that bolt material and heat treatment is critical with the AR-15. Most everyone has gotten it down pat now. But there was a time when some manufacturers substituted 8620 for Carpenter 158 on their AR bolts, and lug breakage was a real possibility with those. Imagine a cast AR bolt made out of the same steel Ruger uses in their Mini 14's. It wouldn't take much shooting for the lugs to start cracking. Whereas, the Mini 14 has always used cast bolts and receivers, and the steel--while good--isn't anything exotic. So from a design point, I think the Mini 14 action is stronger. But like others, I finished experimenting with Mini 14's quite some years ago. The aftermarket support and parts availability just isn't there. I ran a carbine course with a Mini 14 once. Everyone else there had AR's. Naturally, a few AR's had malfunctions which were traced back to just being dirty and dry. My Mini 14 never missed a beat, and I found that I could keep up pretty well. Only the guys with red dot optics on their AR's were a bit faster at acquiring a sight picture. I love the Mini 14, and I wouldn't mind having another one--in addition to my AR's. But I wouldn't want it as my main "go to" rifle. Too hard to get parts for.
Pisgah
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: SC

Re: Action strength again!

Post by Pisgah »

Which is stronger? Who cares? Both are more than sufficiently strong to handle the cartridges for which they are chambered. Case closed.

As to the eternal "The AR15 is junk" argument -- really? That's the best people can come up with? The AR15 has been the issue weapon of the US military for fifty years -- FIFTY YEARS, people! -- and millions upon millions of them remain in service worldwide, with no real sign of a replacement yet on the horizon. Whatever the design's real or imagined drawbacks, it's hard to seriously argue against success like that.
User avatar
OldWin
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:38 pm

Re: Action strength again!

Post by OldWin »

Reliability means different things. Strength, I dont really see as an issue with either.
Starting side by side all ready go, and measuring round count without a malfunction, the AR of TODAY will run with a Mini no problem. Good chance it'll best it (and I'm a former AR hater).
If you are shooting ammo intended for either rifle, neither is going to fail at the bolt. A slam or out of battery detonation will destroy either.

But, if you are going to throw the rifle in the trunk of a car and leave it for 6 months with no lube or maintenance, I think the Mini would be the one to grab if you want it to run through a few mags problem free IMO.

One thing is for certain, the AR of today is nothing like the AR of 20 years ago. It is a way better rifle. And when it comes to optics and adaptability, the AR is light years ahead.
I've owned 3 Minis. A factory folder, a stainless gov't GB, and a standard with shortened barrel. All ran like a champ.
Bought an AR carbine 20 years ago and sold it 2 years later. Now I have a Colt M4 6920. No Minis.
Still got an M1 and 2 M1As though.
"Oh bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round.
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Action strength again!

Post by HawkCreek »

I couldn't tell you which was stronger but an old friend of mine had a Mini, it looked cool but that was all it had going for it. Probably the most inaccurate gun I've ever fired, it shot pattern not groups. Thinking on it I can't honestly say I ever saw it malfunction but after the first few range trips I didn't pay much attention to it. The AR on the other hand I have seen malfunction many different ways but I have a lot more rounds through the AR platform (on Uncle Sam's dime). Neither one is perfect and both have their strong and weak points but when deployed the AR's I was issued never had a problem running but I was diligent in maintenance. I now own an AR even though I am no longer employed by the .mil and honestly it's the one gun I've considered selling as I just dont use it. It sits locked away in the safe probably less than 500 rounds through it since I bought nearly a decade ago. I carried one a long time and know it's capabilities but they just dont appeal to me like walnut, steel and a Winchester roll mark.
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: Action strength again!

Post by Malamute »

HawkCreek wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:56 pm
The AR on the other hand I have seen malfunction many different ways but I have a lot more rounds through the AR platform (on Uncle Sam's dime). Neither one is perfect and both have their strong and weak points but when deployed the AR's I was issued never had a problem running but I was diligent in maintenance.
One thing that Ive seen mentioned a number of times, the .mil seems to feel magazines are priceless heirlooms or something, rather than a disposable, consumable commodity. Constant malfunctions with some training guns, using mags that looked like civil war surplus has been brought up several times. Some guys in iraq couldnt get magazines replaced until the old ones failed (even though they didnt feed reliably), so at the end of patrols, magazines were sometimes damaged in the field, (it somehow looked like they were curb stomped), and only then would they be given new magazines. Retarded. Some were even ordering their own mags so they had new and reliable mags for actual combat use. Cases of new synthetic mags were delivered (issue items), then ordered not to be used by someone, apparently since they didnt look like the old standbys. I guess the old crappy worn out mags were better than the dumb new plastic mags. I think some of this sort of nonsense is how the reliability of the guns became confused with other issues.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Action strength again!

Post by HawkCreek »

Malamute wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:58 pm
HawkCreek wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:56 pm
The AR on the other hand I have seen malfunction many different ways but I have a lot more rounds through the AR platform (on Uncle Sam's dime). Neither one is perfect and both have their strong and weak points but when deployed the AR's I was issued never had a problem running but I was diligent in maintenance.
One thing that Ive seen mentioned a number of times, the .mil seems to feel magazines are priceless heirlooms or something, rather than a disposable, consumable commodity. Constant malfunctions with some training guns, using mags that looked like civil war surplus has been brought up several times. Some guys in iraq couldnt get magazines replaced until the old ones failed (even though they didnt feed reliably), so at the end of patrols, magazines were sometimes damaged in the field, (it somehow looked like they were curb stomped), and only then would they be given new magazines. Retarded. Some were even ordering their own mags so they had new and reliable mags for actual combat use. Cases of new synthetic mags were delivered (issue items), then ordered not to be used by someone, apparently since they didnt look like the old standbys. I guess the old crappy worn out mags were better than the dumb new plastic mags. I think some of this sort of nonsense is how the reliability of the guns became confused with other issues.
A lot of truth in what you said there, Malamute. I read and showed anyone who would listen that the aluminum magazines were designed to be disposable, nobody wanted to hear it. To this day I think it's quite funny that the military wants new guns and ammunition but everything must be designed to work with current magazines! Yes lets design a gun based on the one part that is supposed to be disposable! I had some broken magazines but I was creative in assisting the damage so I wouldnt be held responsible and got them replaced quickly. I've heard (but not bothered checking the truth) that there is a new plastic mag of some sort that is back to being ok to issue for the troops. Speaking of plastic magazines back when I was in the P-Mag was brand new and everyone thought they were great but the original P-Mags were designed from the get to to be "range only" said so right on the product release from MagPul. Funny how quickly they went from range only to top of the line.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Re: Action strength again!

Post by Old Ironsights »

Though not as accurate, I simply like the Mini 14/30 better than the AR(s). It just feels better in the hand to me.

Here's a recent article that discusses this very comparison:. And I agree with his assessments.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... 15-4k-uhd/
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Re: Action strength again!

Post by 3leggedturtle »

Some great comments on this.

Jack, if I can put 5-7 shots in 4 seconds on target at 25 yards I'm happy.
Doc, never thought about which safer. Good point.
Pisgah, never heard they were junk, tho have heard grumblings about being weak cartridge tho.

Todd/3leg
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
Post Reply