Is the Ruger Mini-14 Obsolete?

[dennishoddy]

Yeah...great idea. Take a round that won't chamber for whatever reason and force it into the chamber. What could possibly go wrong?

The gun was just fine in the early years. The ammo was the root cause of the problems. Once that was sorted out the gun's been just fine. But it still needs to be maintained like any other piece of equipment.

The 1:14 twist on the first models to hit the battlefield were a major issue as well as no cleaning kits were issued as the military thought it would never need to be cleaned. Later on when the inaccuracy of the M-16 became a problem because of bullet instability that caused it to tumble, the twist rate was changed to 1:12.
As you said, the wrong ammo creating gunk in the receiver caused a lot of American lives. Soldiers were found dead with a bolt in their lap and a rag in their hand trying to get their weapon back into the fight with a field cleaning.
The forward assist can also be used to silently chamber a round when slamming the bolt home may give away your position. It was a great addition.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

It was not just the ammo. The gun was a POS up until the A2 model. Even them lots of guys would have rather carried anything but the M-16. AKs, shotguns, M-14, they were all preferred over the M-16 in Vietnam and for years after. They had to chrome line the barrel and then change the twist among other things.

You're way outta your league on this and don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you don't like it, fine. But don't be pulling the reasons for not liking it outta your backside.

Twist rate has nothing to do with the function of the rifle. Chrome lining of the barrel wasn't the solution to the extraction issues. Chrome lining the chamber was and the .mil knew that for years...since fighting in the Pacific theater in WWII. But McNamara and his band of merry a-holes were penny pinchers and the DC bureaucrats were the real source of problems for the gun. Bad stuff happens when you have people who don't know a gun from a Pop Tart making policy about guns. All you have to do is look at democrat-run states to see that's true.

Once they started chrome lining the chambers and making a few other enhancements (SS gas tubes, proper ammo powder, etc...) most of the function issues disappeared well before the war was over.

And who gives a rat's ass about "lots of guys" and their preferences? Who are these "lots of guys"...imaginary friends? Were you actually in the jungle with soldiers and Marines who actually used the rifle? What about the majority who used the gun for years without issue? They don't count? People spread disinformation about lots of things, oftentimes when they don't really have first hand information. They just repeat random BS they've heard until someone else believes it as fact.

Adoption of the A2 began in the early 80s. The early issues with the rifle had long since been rectified by then.

You should read this and learn something instead of spouting off the same nonsense over and over like a broken record:

https://smallarmsreview.com/the-m16-in-vietnam/
RE: The forward assist...

Here's what Chris Bartocci has to say about it:

Many believe to this day that the forward assist was an improvement to the rifle. The designers contested that it was in fact not an improvement but rather a detriment. Testing performed at Rock Island Arsenal proved this. They were able to demonstrate the detriment of forcing a cartridge into a chamber, and in particular a dirty chamber that can cause serious failures to extract and to open the bolt under adverse conditions. The forward assist was added by the request of the Army so the soldier would have some external link to the bolt carrier to manually close it. Odd, since even the M14 manuals say that you never force a round into the chamber. If it will not chamber, eject it out and load another. As Stoner designed the AR-10 as well as the AR-15, this external link was found not necessary. The forward assist was added to fill a psychological need, not a mechanical one. Eventually, it was added to all production rifles and is still in use today. It is an expensive addition to the rifle that has no practical purpose. Under extreme conditions such as being heavily corroded (not seen since they became chrome plated), or with heavily fowled chambers, the forward bolt assist will aid in chambering the round but will not affect the inevitable failure to extract. In firing hundreds of thousands of rounds out of M16-type weapons, this author has never had a malfunction that the forward assist would have cleared.

I agree with that. There is no need for a forward assist regardless of whether it's used by someone or not. There are other ways to quietly close the bolt into battery.

And in case anyone's wondering... I'm not angry and I'm not being rude. I am calling out BS, though.

 

[THE JOKER]

 

[THE JOKER]

 

[HillsideDesolate]

You're way outta your league on this and don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you don't like it, fine. But don't be pulling the reasons for not liking it outta your backside.

Twist rate has nothing to do with the function of the rifle. Chrome lining of the barrel wasn't the solution to the extraction issues. Chrome lining the chamber was and the .mil knew that for years...since fighting in the Pacific theater in WWII. But McNamara and his band of merry a-holes were penny pinchers and the DC bureaucrats were the real source of problems for the gun. Bad stuff happens when you have people who don't know a gun from a Pop Tart making policy about guns. All you have to do is look at democrat-run states to see that's true.

Once they started chrome lining the chambers and making a few other enhancements (SS gas tubes, proper ammo powder, etc...) most of the function issues disappeared well before the war was over.

And who gives a rat's ass about "lots of guys" and their preferences? Who are these "lots of guys"...imaginary friends? Were you actually in the jungle with soldiers and Marines who actually used the rifle? What about the majority who used the gun for years without issue? They don't count? People spread disinformation about lots of things, oftentimes when they don't really have first hand information. They just repeat random BS they've heard until someone else believes it as fact.

Adoption of the A2 began in the early 80s. The early issues with the rifle had long since been rectified by then.

You should read this and learn something instead of spouting off the same nonsense over and over like a broken record:

https://smallarmsreview.com/the-m16-in-vietnam/
RE: The forward assist...

Here's what Chris Bartocci has to say about it:



I agree with that. There is no need for a forward assist regardless of whether it's used by someone or not. There are other ways to quietly close the bolt into battery.

And in case anyone's wondering... I'm not angry and I'm not being rude. I am calling out BS, though.

Wow, way to disrespect Ken's memory.

If he would have had a Mini 14 he would still be alive today.

 

[THE JOKER]

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Wow, way to disrespect Ken's memory.

If he would have had a Mini 14 he would still be alive today.

Ken who?

 

[THE JOKER]

 

[THE JOKER]

 

[THE JOKER]