Educate me M1 Garand vs M14 vs Mini 14 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Educate me M1 Garand vs M14 vs Mini 14


JDSTG58
07-09-2012, 15:31
...........

b_oglethorpe
07-09-2012, 15:38
I'm pretty sure you just worked it out on your own. A show called top guns just did that episode. Maybe you can find it.

Jason D
07-09-2012, 15:40
The M1 and M14 were real battle rifles. The mini 14 is mostly a shrunk down civilian ranch rifle that takes design ideas from the M14.

All those I have looked at have been mostly rough looking junk.


You can go CMP and get a real rifle.

Unk
07-09-2012, 15:48
Mini 14's were notorious for shooting patterns rather than groups...that may have changed, never owned or fired one. Garands- shoot a lot.

JDSTG58
07-09-2012, 15:50
.........

45caldan
07-09-2012, 16:09
Their actions have a lot in common.
Your guess was a good one. The M14 is basically an evolved Garand and a Mini 14 is shrunken one.....basically.

Baba Louie
07-09-2012, 16:31
John Garand originally design his self loading rifle to be a 10 shot .276 Pederson chambered weapon. MacArthur nixed the round, so it became a .30-06 firing only 8 rds. It worked. Some say it worked quite well.

Post war saw development of a .30 cal. shorter action, full auto version, but lighter than the WWII veteran (how smart is that? Make if FA and lighter in weight?) and was adopted in '57 IIRC. Oops, that FA didn't work out so well. Remove the selector guts, good to go.

A lot of controversy surrounding that particular selection, but it did become the M14 in 7.62NATO. While no one adopted it (or darn few at any rate) the FN FAL was rechambered to the new NATO round as well, as opposed to a .270 (again IIRC) that Saive originally designed it to fire.

Also see Beretta BM59/62.

Bill Ruger scaled down the design to a ranch rifle sized version also usefull to PoPos and prison guard crews using origianlly the .223 known as a mini14, later adding the 7.62x39, named mini30.

More or less, that's what I recall. I could be wrong.

Decguns
07-09-2012, 17:02
I think you got it figured out. The M1 Garand was rather finiky, required constant cleaning and grease to work in the desert, suffered from rather high rates of malfunctions and part breakage. But it evolved into a decent rifle by war's end.

The M14 was a product improved Garand. Detachable magazine, improved gas system, etc... but still very similar to the Garand. It's sad to say the US Gov't spent 10yrs and millions of dollars getting the M14 to work as well as the FN FAL did at the get-go. The main flaw of both the M1 & M14 is that the entire action is open to the elements. Drop it into sand or mud, and you've got a single shot... if you can work the bolt handle at all.

The Mini-14 is Bill Ruger's effort to make a cheap .223 rifle. He copied the M14 where possible, used loose tolerances, cheap materials, and modified the gas system. The end result was one inaccurate little rifle. But, by 2008, the Mini was finally "fixed"... now a decent 2 MOA rifle.

JDSTG58
07-09-2012, 17:41
........

countrygun
07-09-2012, 17:48
Despite what some have claimed the M-1 was a reliable rifle, in many ways no different from other, later semi battle rifles. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. FN fans overlook the "Sand-cut" issue with the bolts in oreder to get them to function in the desert. What they don't admit about the Garand, is an issue very similar to "boots vs sandals" in the desert. The open design allows "crud" to leave, or be ejected, as fast as it enters. after the "gas trap" very first version of the M-1, the only parts breakage of note (and it was serious and dangerous) was the operating rod and this was due to the increased pressure from firing rifle grenades, which the rifle wasn't designed for. A relief cut in the junction of the Op rod and handle cured the problem by eliminating the sharp 90 degree corner.
The Garand's trigger design has been used and copied by many military rifles and, if one looks at how the AK-47 works one can see the similarity.


The M-1, as issued is rather "ammo specific" but that is because military ammo was, itself, pretty "specific". Modern aftermarket adjustable gas plugs relieve this problem to a great extent.

The M-14 was actually an extension of John C Garands experimenting with his own design. He constantly experimented and tweaked his own design. With a large number of soldiers having been trained on the M-1 and the fact that Americans were not familiar with the type of grip style of the FN type rifles, Armalite had the AR-10 In the works, the Military decided to stick with something similar.

Of interest to note is how the M-1 carbine fit into the picture. It was altered to full auto (M-2) but had a number of problems due to a high cyclic rate and magazine issus at that rate. However, when the military showed interest in a small caliber rifle, Melvin Johnson, the man who's rifle was the Garand's greatest competitor in trails and adopted briefly by the USMC, simply necked down the M-1 carbine case and rebarreled the carbine for the ".22 Johnson". But the AR design won the day.

The Mini-14 does indeed take much from all three of the guns mentioned. It was created, not as a "ranch rifle" (that model and designation came along much later in it's history) but for Law Enforcement agencies and civillians who wanted to fire the military cartridge but did not want to lay out the cash for AR-15s. It also appealed to the former soldiers trained on one of the previously mentioned rifles.

Also of note was the fact that, in the early 80's, Ruger was set to release a 7.62 nato/.308 version and they were going to call it th "XGI". The name illustrates the market they were looking at. it was supposed to use the M-14 mag rather than a proprietory one. design problems and some type of performance issues (and I have a strong suspicion, Bill Ruger's politics) caused the project to be dropped just at the monent of full production beeginning. (It was saving up for one of those that caused me to turn to the M-1, by pure chance).

Bob Hafler
07-09-2012, 19:09
I do some volunteer work where I come in contact with a lot of WWII vets who actually used the M1 Garand in battle against the Germans and the Japanese. I can honestly say that I've never heard one of them say the M1 Garand was finicky. Most will tell you that it was a fabulous rifle and was glad to have such a fine weapon to rely on. I have a Circa 1955 Springfield M1 Garand, it is by far my most prized gun possesion. I also have one of the New 580 miini 14 ranch rifles and like the M14 and the and the M1 Carbine you can see where it's design came from. IMO it is a very good design that has stood the test of time. As proven by the fact that the M14 is still used in our military to this day.

That new 580 series mini14 with the tapered beefed up barrel is quite a rifle.

AZ Jeff
07-09-2012, 19:14
I think you got it figured out. The M1 Garand was rather finiky, required constant cleaning and grease to work in the desert, suffered from rather high rates of malfunctions and part breakage.

Incorrect information. The M1's real issue was in RAIN, not the desert. The water would drive the lubricant out of the bolt cam track, and the op rod/bolt lug interface would gall and then sieze. It was never really solved, but Lubriplate helped. Oddly enough, the BEST lubricant was sheep tallow with lanolin, but that's hard to make widely available, and hence the Lubriplate.


The M14 was a product improved Garand. Detachable magazine, improved gas system, etc... but still very similar to the Garand. Drop it into sand or mud, and you've got a single shot... if you can work the bolt handle at all.

Don't forget the bolt roller, which minimized the need for the Lubriplate.

And the sand and mud issue is rubbish, and unsubstantiated by real world documentation that I am aware of.


The Mini-14 is Bill Ruger's effort to make a cheap .223 rifle. He copied the M14 where possible, used loose tolerances, cheap materials, and modified the gas system. The end result was one inaccurate little rifle. But, by 2008, the Mini was finally "fixed"... now a decent 2 MOA rifle.

The Mini-14 is a COMMERCIAL RIFLE. It does NOT need to survive in a COMBAT environment. The earlier ones DID suffer from relative inaccuracy (no worse than your average AK-47), but then again, it was NOT marketed as a combat rifle, so don't compare it to such. And by the way, it is NOT made of "cheap materials" when measured against current standards.

Markasaurus
07-09-2012, 19:18
The M1 is of course a great rifle but they are often more expensive then an M-14 (M1A) which is far superior, all things considered.
I used to own a Mini-14. The trigger is similar and disassembly is somewhat similar but the gas action is totally different (there is no gas tube only a gas "plug" that uses the gases of firing to just blow the slide back). The above posters are right Mini 14 is NOT accurate. Ruger did make an attempt to fix the accuracy issues with a bull barrel and some other minor mods but even the cheapest AR will outshoot the best Mini any day at any range.

It is very difficult to mount optics on a mini and probably a waste of time and money to do so. I didn't like it. I only put 100 rounds through it, had 2 jams (probably mag related) then put it away for two years until i traded it in, for a huge loss, towards a Stag M4gery. I am much happier with the Stag.

Anyway of all the 3 rifles the M-14 is easily the best.

countrygun
07-09-2012, 19:39
The M1 is of course a great rifle but they are often more expensive then an M-14 (M1A) which is far superior, all things considered.
I used to own a Mini-14. The trigger is similar and disassembly is somewhat similar but the gas action is totally different (there is no gas tube only a gas "plug" that uses the gases of firing to just blow the slide back). The above posters are right Mini 14 is NOT accurate. Ruger did make an attempt to fix the accuracy issues with a bull barrel and some other minor mods but even the cheapest AR will outshoot the best Mini any day at any range.

It is very difficult to mount optics on a mini and probably a waste of time and money to do so. I didn't like it. I only put 100 rounds through it, had 2 jams (probably mag related) then put it away for two years until i traded it in, for a huge loss, towards a Stag M4gery. I am much happier with the Stag.

Anyway of all the 3 rifles the M-14 is easily the best.


Why don't you wander over to perfectunion.com and see about the accuracy of the new Rugers. I am sorry, but 100 rds fired and a judgement on all mini-14s:yawn:

yellowhand
07-09-2012, 19:48
Got all three.
Each do something better than the other.
All three are good weapons, as designed and for intended use.
HOWEVER, this old combat medic still prefers his AK's for short range and FN FAL's for longer range, if the boots ever need to be pulled on again.
If ever faced with an emergency where I need a battle rifle, there will not be an arms room/ rear area supply point to get a new rifle that works for the asking or mine repaired.
Never had an AK or a FAL stop working.

CBennett
07-09-2012, 19:56
The M1 is of course a great rifle but they are often more expensive then an M-14 (M1A) which is far superior, all things considered.
I used to own a Mini-14. The trigger is similar and disassembly is somewhat similar but the gas action is totally different (there is no gas tube only a gas "plug" that uses the gases of firing to just blow the slide back). The above posters are right Mini 14 is NOT accurate. Ruger did make an attempt to fix the accuracy issues with a bull barrel and some other minor mods but even the cheapest AR will outshoot the best Mini any day at any range.

It is very difficult to mount optics on a mini and probably a waste of time and money to do so. I didn't like it. I only put 100 rounds through it, had 2 jams (probably mag related) then put it away for two years until i traded it in, for a huge loss, towards a Stag M4gery. I am much happier with the Stag.

Anyway of all the 3 rifles the M-14 is easily the best.


wow where did you get your m1 vs m1a prices..generally the m1 garands run between 650(very good service grade) to when available correct grade at $1200..you almost never find a m1a even used under $1200

countrygun
07-09-2012, 20:10
wow where did you get your m1 vs m1a prices..generally the m1 garands run between 650(very good service grade) to when available correct grade at $1200..you almost never find a m1a even used under $1200


I didn't even comment on that because I thought I was misreading it. You are spot on for prices in my area. The only m-14 I have seen below $1,000 was a Norinco. The only Garand above $900 was all matching, correct.

The Pirate
07-09-2012, 22:01
Also of note was the fact that, in the early 80's, Ruger was set to release a 7.62 nato/.308 version and they were going to call it th "XGI". The name illustrates the market they were looking at. it was supposed to use the M-14 mag rather than a proprietory one. design problems and some type of performance issues (and I have a strong suspicion, Bill Ruger's politics) caused the project to be dropped just at the monent of full production beeginning. (It was saving up for one of those that caused me to turn to the M-1, by pure chance).

An old guy that lives by me said he saw a bunch of those in south America years ago when he was in the service. He's not a storyteller, it'd be interesting to find out more.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
07-09-2012, 23:49
An old guy that lives by me said he saw a bunch of those in south America years ago when he was in the service. He's not a storyteller, it'd be interesting to find out more.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Similar thing here. I know someone, who is very reliable, that worked in a huge Texas gunshop back then and told me he knew of one that was owned by a civillian in the US.

As far as I had heard only 1 or 2 "toolroom models" that were passed around to gun writers existed. I used to have a magazine with a picture of one of them.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 00:54
Never had an AK or a FAL stop working.



Then I suspect that thou has never taken an AK or FAL to combat.

MrMurphy
07-10-2012, 06:50
Ruger actually did market the Mini for combat use.

The AC-556 in full auto, adopted as an issued weapon by the Bahamas Constabulary, as well as the Irish Gardai and French Gendarmerie (national police) since it looked 'less evil' more or less.

Folding stock models existed as well. And the Mini-14/20GB was specifically made for this, in semi-auto with a 20 round magazine, flash suppressor and a bayonet lug. Yeah, Ruger DEFINITELY tried to push it as a combat rifle, even made up stories about how it had almost replaced the M16.

DonD
07-10-2012, 07:41
The above posters are right Mini 14 is NOT accurate. Ruger did make an attempt to fix the accuracy issues with a bull barrel and some other minor mods but even the cheapest AR will outshoot the best Mini any day at any range.

It is very difficult to mount optics on a mini and probably a waste of time and money to do so.

Wow, are you biased and misinformed. The 581 and newer series Minis are decently accurate. Check user forums and they'll validate my comment.

My 581 series Mini 30 is a 1.5 MOA gun off of the bench with Fiocchi ammo

Hard to mount optics? What BS. They have half moon cuts in the receiver like most Ruger rifles that allows virtually any scope to be quickly mounted with Ruger furnished rings. Don :upeyes:

Bren
07-10-2012, 07:52
Educate me M1 Garand vs M14 vs Mini 14

To use a pistol analogy, that's like: Colt New Service Revolver vs. Colt 1911A1 vs. Hi-Point 9mm.

esh325
07-10-2012, 08:19
Incorrect information. The M1's real issue was in RAIN, not the desert. The water would drive the lubricant out of the bolt cam track, and the op rod/bolt lug interface would gall and then sieze. It was never really solved, but Lubriplate helped. Oddly enough, the BEST lubricant was sheep tallow with lanolin, but that's hard to make widely available, and hence the Lubriplate.



Don't forget the bolt roller, which minimized the need for the Lubriplate.

And the sand and mud issue is rubbish, and unsubstantiated by real world documentation that I am aware of.



The Mini-14 is a COMMERCIAL RIFLE. It does NOT need to survive in a COMBAT environment. The earlier ones DID suffer from relative inaccuracy (no worse than your average AK-47), but then again, it was NOT marketed as a combat rifle, so don't compare it to such. And by the way, it is NOT made of "cheap materials" when measured against current standards.
Emotions aside, the M1 Garand did not perform as well in sand and mud conditions as other rifles. Just because it was not reported during the war does not it never happened or wasn't an issue. I understand the Garand means a lot to people because it's an American icon of the greatest generation, but we shouldn't let emotion cloud the facts. Even despite it's short comings in adverse conditions, it still was an amazing rifle. There wasn't any other autoloading infantry rifle as reliable as the Garand that was fielded by other countries.

"The rifles were doused in mud "of light consistency." Results: "The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-I [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open."
> The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.""
-March 24 1941 Time Magazine

DonD
07-10-2012, 08:24
To use a pistol analogy, that's like: Colt New Service Revolver vs. Colt 1911A1 vs. Hi-Point 9mm.

Comparing the new Minis to a Hi-Point is another undeserved cheap shot. Don

kirgi08
07-10-2012, 08:35
M1As are much more $$$$$$$ than a standard grade Garand/I love the garand.I don't even know if you can get a M14 with a class 3 permit.'08.

MrMurphy
07-10-2012, 09:19
Yes, comparing a Mini to a Hipoint is a disservice to the Hipoint....

I like Ruger's revolvers and some of their bolt actions. The Mini, I do not.

yellowhand
07-10-2012, 09:56
Then I suspect that thou has never taken an AK or FAL to combat.

Only for a very short time, 10 or 12 days with AK in 1971.
7 long days with FAL in late 1973.
Was issued an M-16 or shotgun of some model the rest of the time till retirement.
Prefer the AK over everything I ever carried, for me and what I was doing, it worked well and carried well.
In the end, that's all that matters.
I'm still here.:wavey:

countrygun
07-10-2012, 09:56
M1As are much more $$$$$$$ than a standard grade Garand/I love the garand.I don't even know if you can get a M14 with a class 3 permit.'08.


"M1A" is a proprietory name, the rights being owned by Springfield Armory. It does not apply to all semi-auto versions of the M-14. It is merely the most common, if incorrect, moniker for the breed.

kirgi08
07-10-2012, 10:29
"M1A" is a proprietory name, the rights being owned by Springfield Armory. It does not apply to all semi-auto versions of the M-14. It is merely the most common, if incorrect, moniker for the breed.


AFAIK,there is no "semi" M14.The M14 was a select fire .308 the same as an FN/FAL.S/A does own the patent.The select fire Garand was the BAR.30.06 in 20 rnd mags was cool.In WWII you had both the Garand and the BAMG in 30.06.Water cooled ect.You also had the .50bmg.On tanks ect.'08.

countrygun
07-10-2012, 11:13
AFAIK,there is no "semi" M14.The M14 was a select fire .308 the same as an FN/FAL.S/A does own the patent.The select fire Garand was the BAR.30.06 in 20 rnd mags was cool.In WWII you had both the Garand and the BAMG in 30.06.Water cooled ect.You also had the .50bmg.On tanks ect.'08.


Exactly. and there are no "rules" about such things. Anybody in the civillian world making a semi-auto version of the M-14 can call it pretty much whatever they want. There was no "Military M1A" the private company, Springfield Armory, invented the term and copyrighted it for their company's use. Build one and call it an "M1A" and Springfield will sue you.

Since most of the M-14s in use were restricted from full auto when that became to be all but useless, the cognescenti, not wanting to give Springfield all of the billing for Semi-auto only versions simply refer to them as a group by the original "M-14". remember there are no rules about such things, just don't use someone elses copyright.

It should be exceedingly obvious to anyone, given that I don't recall a whole lot of military issue semi-auto AK-47s having been made, but the vast majority of semi-autos are sold as "AK-47"s:upeyes::tongueout:

Bob Hafler
07-10-2012, 12:20
The above posters are right Mini 14 is NOT accurate. Ruger did make an attempt to fix the accuracy issues with a bull barrel and some other minor mods but even the cheapest AR will outshoot the best Mini any day at any range.

I have a 2011 580 series Mini 14 ranch rifle and that statement is pure BS. The AR of equal value is not as accurate nor is it as reliable.

AZ Jeff
07-10-2012, 22:25
"The rifles were doused in mud "of light consistency." Results: "The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-I [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open."
> The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.""
-March 24 1941 Time Magazine
Interesting. I have never seen any reference to this test in the Scott Duff books or in E. Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy".

I gotta do some more research on this.....

vikingsoftpaw
07-11-2012, 00:08
Similar thing here. I know someone, who is very reliable, that worked in a huge Texas gunshop back then and told me he knew of one that was owned by a civillian in the US.

As far as I had heard only 1 or 2 "toolroom models" that were passed around to gun writers existed. I used to have a magazine with a picture of one of them.

That's a possibility. I did see a genuine Ruger XGI for sale - $450 when I first attended the Ohio Gun Collectors Show in the early 90's. There wasn't much interest in them back them.

Zombie Steve
07-11-2012, 00:33
Mayhap me and Yellowhand are the only ones in this thread that have owned all three.

Here's my big up front disclaimer - although I'm happy to shoot in the rain, and often shoot from the prone, I don't often find myself rolling around in the mud or sand. I've shot all of them dirty as hell, but I'm too old for tactical somersaults.

I can't compress my opinions of the rifles into a reader's digest version. It just won't work.

The Garand and the M-14 are excellent rifles. You just have to understand the gas system. You can't load full power .30-06 or .308 in them. The slow burning powders they use create too much pressure at the gas port, and you'll wind up damaging your operating rod. Not a big deal, I roll my own and use mid-range powders... my current favorite is H4895. The good news is the '06 and the .308 have guts to spare, so you're still outperforming anything an AK can do (just an example, guys, no need to get worked up). Other than running the brass too many times and ripping off a rim, I've never had a failure in either rifle. The actions are rough on brass. I get nervous on that 4th load. They go in the scrap bucket after that. Both are capable of fantastic accuracy, both have good stock sights with a million aftermarket options, and besides that, they're freakin' cool. Like any gun, you'll have to replace springs when they wear out, and a generous amount of grease never hurts.

Read up on Garand thumb and save yourself some pain. I haven't been caught yet, but it seems pretty damn horrible.

As far as the mini-14, I had one years ago, and it must have been the only accurate one ever produced. I used to buy cases of crappy Wolf .223 and shoot all day. It wasn't a target rifle. I just shot what I was aiming at, and it worked. Soup cans, phone books, prairie dogs and yotes all fell victim to my mini-14. :dunno: These days, I'm shooting AR's, and I'll say they're better rifles and worth the extra cost. I just disagree that mini-14's are the dog that everyone claims they are.

If I had to pick one out of the three, I'd go with the M14 hands down. Hope this helps.

ithaca_deerslayer
07-11-2012, 04:52
Great thread. You guys are awesome.

My Saiga, civilian politically correct AK inspired semi-auto rifle with sporter stock, has never failed during backyard target shooting :)

m2hmghb
07-11-2012, 07:03
Emotions aside, the M1 Garand did not perform as well in sand and mud conditions as other rifles. Just because it was not reported during the war does not it never happened or wasn't an issue. I understand the Garand means a lot to people because it's an American icon of the greatest generation, but we shouldn't let emotion cloud the facts. Even despite it's short comings in adverse conditions, it still was an amazing rifle. There wasn't any other autoloading infantry rifle as reliable as the Garand that was fielded by other countries.

"The rifles were doused in mud "of light consistency." Results: "The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-I [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open."
> The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.""
-March 24 1941 Time Magazine


That was when the rifle was oiled and not greased. Do your research on it, they issued lubriplate after they found out these problems. Basically the water/mud washed off the oil and it wouldn't function properly.

Jim Watson
07-11-2012, 07:49
I've been reading Ordnance Went Up Front by Roy Dunlap, written right after the war. He said he liked the M1 in spite of himself, most of the early faults were corrected or worked around. But it sure would have been nice if they had managed to convert to noncorrosive primers before going to a gas operated rifle. The gas cylinder is stainless, as is the piston, but he said blowby rusted the op rod enough to tie up the action. Frequent thorough cleaning was not an option in a lot of the PTO.

He said the carbine was not ideal but at least it didn't rust much.

The firearms instructor at my agency did not like the Ruger AC556s they bought to replace the collection of genuine antiques accumulated over the years. He said the bolt lug was prone to breakage in full auto, that it was a bad idea to try to make a military type weapon out of a sporting rifle. But it saved them $50 a gun versus M16s.

FLIPPER 348
07-11-2012, 11:11
Yes, comparing a Mini to a Hipoint is a disservice to the Hipoint....

I like Ruger's revolvers and some of their bolt actions. The Mini, I do not.




.....and your opinion is worth what exactly??? The new Minis are fine rifles and the older ones work well as designed to be a LEO carbine

Bob Hafler
07-11-2012, 11:34
.....and your opinion is worth what exactly??? The new Minis are fine rifles and the older ones work well as designed to be a LEO carbine

Flipper you just have to let the ill informed think as they must. Most of the time there just repeating what there neighbor or great uncle twice removed heard in a bar room from a drunk who I'm sure knows everything. :rofl:

CBennett
07-11-2012, 15:33
Yup, the M1 Garand is one you definitely GREASE not just oil..believe me ive been told this several times(GET GREASE lol) on the CMP forums :) . But luckily many to most use a simple grease thats available at walmart for a couple bucks.

I didnt mind my old Mini 14...good for what it was. The newer one I like more as it will hold accuracy better without the stringing effect. IF you can get one for less than a AR platform..thats fine but when you start getting into AR $$ territory unless your just not a AR fan the AR beats it hands down.

countrygun
07-11-2012, 15:42
Mayhap me and Yellowhand are the only ones in this thread that have owned all three.




I am insulted, I have all three in this room at the moment

Plus a couple of carbines

K.Kiser
07-11-2012, 16:00
I don't know about the Garand or the M-14 very much other than the basics, but I think the mini-14 gets a bad rap... For someone like me who doesn't like "tactical" and a bunch of add-ons, but rather a simple design that works reliably and resonably accurate I think they fill the spot..

I don't think the mini will be nipping at the heels of the Garand, M14, or AR-15's but it's still a well made rifle that can serve a purpose.. Especially the newer models.. All great rifles without a doubt..

esh325
07-11-2012, 16:59
That was when the rifle was oiled and not greased. Do your research on it, they issued lubriplate after they found out these problems. Basically the water/mud washed off the oil and it wouldn't function properly.
How do you know what lubricant they used on the rifle during this test? And it's still a valid test regardless of what lubricant they used.

MrMurphy
07-11-2012, 19:41
Experience with a dozen or so Mini's over the last 20 years means yes, it is a valid opinion.

I have not shot a new production model, but any pre-2009 or so Mini, that opinion still holds.

They're not bad little rifles, FOR WHAT THEY ARE. But they are in no way equal to a AR.

I consider them a 5.56mm M1 carbine, and good to about the same distance (100m).

TrueGunNut
07-11-2012, 20:24
The M1 Garand is AWESOME! Get one while you can.

FLIPPER 348
07-11-2012, 21:00
.

They're not bad little rifles, FOR WHAT THEY ARE. But they are in no way equal to a AR.

I consider them a 5.56mm M1 carbine, and good to about the same distance (100m).

Well you need some real world experince with one. I have a GB that I bought in 1981 (all GBs are bought used) that will go shot for shot with open sights on a US Army 50-300m pop-up range with ANY AR-15.

Wyoming
07-11-2012, 23:07
Mayhap me and Yellowhand are the only ones in this thread that have owned all three.

Here's my big up front disclaimer - although I'm happy to shoot in the rain, and often shoot from the prone, I don't often find myself rolling around in the mud or sand. I've shot all of them dirty as hell, but I'm too old for tactical somersaults.

I can't compress my opinions of the rifles into a reader's digest version. It just won't work.

The Garand and the M-14 are excellent rifles. You just have to understand the gas system. You can't load full power .30-06 or .308 in them. The slow burning powders they use create too much pressure at the gas port, and you'll wind up damaging your operating rod. Not a big deal, I roll my own and use mid-range powders... my current favorite is H4895. The good news is the '06 and the .308 have guts to spare, so you're still outperforming anything an AK can do (just an example, guys, no need to get worked up). Other than running the brass too many times and ripping off a rim, I've never had a failure in either rifle. The actions are rough on brass. I get nervous on that 4th load. They go in the scrap bucket after that. Both are capable of fantastic accuracy, both have good stock sights with a million aftermarket options, and besides that, they're freakin' cool. Like any gun, you'll have to replace springs when they wear out, and a generous amount of grease never hurts.

Read up on Garand thumb and save yourself some pain. I haven't been caught yet, but it seems pretty damn horrible.

As far as the mini-14, I had one years ago, and it must have been the only accurate one ever produced. I used to buy cases of crappy Wolf .223 and shoot all day. It wasn't a target rifle. I just shot what I was aiming at, and it worked. Soup cans, phone books, prairie dogs and yotes all fell victim to my mini-14. :dunno: These days, I'm shooting AR's, and I'll say they're better rifles and worth the extra cost. I just disagree that mini-14's are the dog that everyone claims they are.

If I had to pick one out of the three, I'd go with the M14 hands down. Hope this helps.

:goodpost:

A M1 is a class rifle to have for historical reason. I own a M1, three M1A's, three Mini 14s, Mini 30, a Mini 6.8 and four M1 carbines.

The rotating bolt system used in the above guns that John C Garand invented works.

The things that you hear about M1 thumb, the M1 ping, Mini's are inaccuracate and M1 carbines can't shoot through clothing is bull.

If you get a M1 thumb you deserve it as a learning experience. If some one is shooting at you and you are close enough to hear the ping your ears will be ringing. In combat the ping guy may be empty but not all of his buddies. Mini 14 are not match rifles and never were. They are for self defense and will out shoot M1 carbines that nobody complains about their inaccuracy. You don't want to be shot at with a Mini 14 and count on it being inaccurate for your safety.

During the Korean War it was said that because it was so cold the enemy wore so many clothes to stay warm that it stopped the 30 cal carbine. The 30 cal M1 carbine was to replace the pistol for support troops and not a main battle rifle. If it did happen then the same thing would have happen with the 45 auto.

If you want a M1 rifle just to have then get one. If you are only going to own one of the types listed for shooting then get you a M1A.

Jim Watson
07-11-2012, 23:14
The tilting bolt system used in the above guns that John C Garand invented works.

Every example of the above guns that I have seen had a rotating bolt.
You looking at an FN or something?

m2hmghb
07-12-2012, 01:06
How do you know what lubricant they used on the rifle during this test? And it's still a valid test regardless of what lubricant they used.

Because of the year. The problems were discovered during the testing in 41 when the rifle was not widely issued yet. The Marines didn't have the rifles yet, the first use of the M1 in the Pacific was by an army unit who landed to relieve Marines on Guadalcanal where they were still issued oil for it, which was around 42. I believe the 1940 field manual specified to only use oil on it and NOT grease, that wasn't changed until after the military found out the oil washed off the rifle in the humid climate of Guadalcanal.

Direct quote from the 1940 FM on the M1 Garand "Thoroughly clean and lightly oil all metal parts with the
oil provided with the gun. Do not use grease. Be sure to
apply a thin coating of oil to the following working parts"

Here's the link: http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/FM%2023-5-1.pdf

Yes the test as valid, but the conclusions were not valid because better products started being issued. Going by your basis you could say the M16 in Vietnam performed flawlessly because the tests all showed a good result, however due to poor ammunition, lack of chrome lining, and a lack of maintenance they typically malfunctioned.

countrygun
07-12-2012, 01:27
Bear in mind one thing when you copare the AR and the Mini, (It might be considered a reason to choose the AR but for me it wasn't)

In the market place now you have how many companies producing AR clones? They are all in competition with each other. As a result of that competition they refines their products. there are so many companies making them, look at the aftermarket parts. Like every issue rifle before it the AR has benefitted from being usable in matches at places like Camp Perry. Gunsmiths in military maksmenship units have spent a lot of time figuring out how to improve accuracy, the companies making clones incorperate them in thier products.

The Mini is made by 1 company. How far would the AR have come if only Colt was making them?

esh325
07-12-2012, 14:31
Because of the year. The problems were discovered during the testing in 41 when the rifle was not widely issued yet. The Marines didn't have the rifles yet, the first use of the M1 in the Pacific was by an army unit who landed to relieve Marines on Guadalcanal where they were still issued oil for it, which was around 42. I believe the 1940 field manual specified to only use oil on it and NOT grease, that wasn't changed until after the military found out the oil washed off the rifle in the humid climate of Guadalcanal.

Direct quote from the 1940 FM on the M1 Garand "Thoroughly clean and lightly oil all metal parts with the
oil provided with the gun. Do not use grease. Be sure to
apply a thin coating of oil to the following working parts"

Here's the link: http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/FM%2023-5-1.pdf

Yes the test as valid, but the conclusions were not valid because better products started being issued. Going by your basis you could say the M16 in Vietnam performed flawlessly because the tests all showed a good result, however due to poor ammunition, lack of chrome lining, and a lack of maintenance they typically malfunctioned.
It's still a limitation regardless. Reliability is a meaningless word when it's only limited to ideal conditions.

JDSTG58
07-14-2012, 11:46
.......

AZ Jeff
07-14-2012, 12:53
It's still a limitation regardless. Reliability is a meaningless word when it's only limited to ideal conditions.
By those silly (and actually ignorant) remarks, ALL FIREARMS will suffer from reliability in "real world" conditions to varying degrees. Since they all suffer, they must all be deficient, correct?

JDSTG58
08-17-2012, 19:52
.........

RottnJP
08-17-2012, 20:55
It's still a limitation regardless. Reliability is a meaningless word when it's only limited to ideal conditions.

With all due respect, that sounds pretty ignorant. You're complaining about a particular result from an early test of a system before it was learned out.

Properly maintained, the reliability of those rifles later in the war and through grueling service in Korea, was legendary.

Your argument is like saying the P-51 Mustang was an under-performing fighter based on the early results with the Allison engine. The reality is that once the system was learned out with with the Merlin, it was a top-notch aircraft.

ETA: Even simpler, perhaps superior analogy:

What if I said the Ford F250 Diesel engine isn't reliable because when you put in 5W30 it craps out?

Well, duh- Wrong lubricant => sub-optimal performance.

I don't have a mini-14/30/etc., but I do have a few Garands and M-14's, and once you grease those puppies up they just run and run.

FireForged
08-18-2012, 09:22
Take the mini 14 out of that bunch and dont worry about knowing anything about it, you'll be just fine. I own a Mini and have used it as a camp rifle, just in case I need to defend myself within the firelight. I consider it a big pistol rather than a rifle.

AZ Jeff
08-18-2012, 11:24
Your run of the mill older-style Mini=14 is no less accurate than your typical Chicom AK clone when it's firing Combloc milsurp ammo. No one seems to complain about THEM not beeing suitable for "minute of bad guy".

Bob Hafler
08-18-2012, 14:22
Anyone who who says the new 580 mini 14's are junk obviously has never shot one. I'd gladly take it over any AK or AR in it's price range.
THe M1 Garand fought in ever battle during WWII and we won folks. Think about that for a minute folks and what that really means. Ever battle from Germany to Japan and a whole lot of places in between. The Garand was hated by our foes because it was so superior to everthing else the average soldier was carrying at the time. The parts could be switched from one rifle to another reguardless who made it. No it was not perfect but for it's time it was about as perfect as you were going to get. I have a lot of friends who I went to high school with who served in the early days of VN and I do not know to many who were happy to give up there M14 for M16.

We should always remember we have the freedoms we have because of the M1 Garand and the men who used them.

countrygun
08-18-2012, 14:34
Boy do the last three posts make my old heart glad:supergrin:

"Big pistol" is indeed a very good way to look at, and apply, one.

Indeed a run of the mill older mini is the equal of the AK, and SKS at least. I have all of them.

The M-1 indeed led this Country from the "cutting edge" and served well. It is still a great choice for the individual who knows what he is about, the M-14 being the next step for those who feel they need it.