Depending on what the AR’s or Mini’s are used for, we can all agree that the AR’s is better for most situations. (SHTF, home defense, hunting, etc..) But, if we talk about the costs to have either a low end or tricked out piece of hardware, I guess the discussions can go on almost forever with the die hard AR’s and Mini-14 folks. Or, better yet which one is most accurate?
For the Mini-14 fans here are 8 reasons why its better than the AR15.
Poison_Tequila: the truth is a little different. An AR can be picky or reliable, a mini is probably more accurate than 95% of shooters. Comparing an AR to a mini is a little like comparing an iPhone to some Android device. There are plenty of great android devices but with a million manufacturers and so forth it can be hard to decide who is good and who is bad.
I like wooden stocks so I have a mini. I love it, it throws brass a long way. It throws steel a long way. I can hit a paper plate at 200 yards. That said the AR is cheaper (maybe) more fun to build (really) and just about as much fun as you can have with a gun.
If you want an out the door cheapish shooting gun, go mini. If you want a great experience the, you want to be one with the rifle, (if your range time is limited) go AR. Though I don’t think you can really go wrong either way.
LCDJosh: Unbiased appreciator and user of Ak,AR15,Mini14 platforms here: The new Mini 14’s have a different, heavier barrel and are significantly more accurate. This change was made around 2005.
The newer Minis are also not as finicky about mags as the older models. I like Ruger factory mags the most, but I’ve never had a faliure to feed from the cheap plastic eagle mags(not the greatest feed lips though), the polymer thermolds(though I do not recommend thermolds because I couldn’t insert the mag with the bolt closed), or even the pro mags.
AdmiralTiberius: Biggest advantage is if you were either living in a place you have to be 21 to purchase a “military style rifle” (i.e. Minnesota et al.) or need a permit to purchase a “military style rifle”. Also, mini is cheaper, and looks more classic, grunt, m1 style badass instead of modern, stealth, badass.
Edit: also I don’t buy the accuracy argument. $100 says 95% of shooters can’t put rounds down accurately enough to matter. If you can, that’s awesome, but I haven’t invested the time to be an expert marksman; I just love guns.
Edit 2: just thought of this. Mini is a simple gun. If it were a “survival” or brush situation or whatnot, I would absolutely pick the mini. Quick and dirty teardown, can get dirty, rugged in my opinion. But… If you plan to oper8, obviously pick ar.
Edit 3: mounts on mini are shit. Biggest weakness imho.
LCDJosh: I neither live in a state that has regarding age or needing a permit. I actually thought the Mini-14 would have been A- cheaper then the because its made with wood furniture or B- More accurate than the AR.
DaSilence: I inherited the Mini-14, and rarely shoot it.
The AR is the barbie doll of guns. You can do literally anything you want to it.
They’re both fine rifles, and either would be a good choice.
white17509: The minis are OK as long as you get a ranch rifle. They are later in production and have a better rear sight and known to be more accurate. You will have a harder time finding mags.
AR-15 style rifles are as good as the parts they are built from. Comparing a cheap poly AR and a ranch rifle, the ranch rifle wins. But generally and decent AR beats a mini in adaptability, parts availability/price, magazine availability, accuracy and ease of use. Your wife may benefit from the adjustable stock. Also, you can swap out uppers intended for different applications.
9millaThrilla: I got a mini due to a local AWB. Every day I wish I could get an AR. I really like the action of the mini, but mag changes and the ergos of the AR are much smoother. Plus the fact that every part you’ll ever need for an AR is readily available locally while mini parts need to be found online makes it a more versatile weapon and easier to maintain in a pinch.
mewarmo990: OP, whichever rifle you pick I don’t think you will regret it. But here’s my two cents:
After some consideration, I went with the AR-15 because I wanted to put it together myself, and learn a thing or two about rifles while I was at it.
Since I parted it together a little bit at a time over most of last year, I was able to build a considerably nicer rifle (maybe $1300?) than I would’ve had if I had bought a complete rifle on an immediate budget of around $800.
That said, I have shot my friend’s Mini-14 a bit and have only good things to say about it. The only thing that could have been better were the “ghost ring” iron sights – if I bought a Mini I would personally put the excellent Tech Sights on it for the (American) service rifle aperture sight picture I am used to.
As others have said, the mechanical accuracy of the Mini-14 is going to be somewhat less than an AR-15 — especially if you’ve built the AR to be more accurate than stock M4 style setup — but unless you are seriously into rifle marksmanship you will never see the difference.
Fozzy: I’d go with the AK. My mini 14 is the least accurate and least reliable gun I own. Granted it is an older model one, so it ‘s expected to be a little inaccurate, but I also have not found any mags that are reliable enough for me to trust the rifle if SHTF. If I were you, I’d tell him to get the AK, or be a good friend and spend some time talking him in to an AR.
PredatorWhacker: I’ve had several minis over the years and currently have one of the newer ones. They are ok rifles if expectations are not that high. They are robust. With my handloads it is pretty accurate. (for a mini) Right at 1 1/2″ groups. With ball ammo it is typical mini accuracy. About 6″….with a scope. I haven’t employed any of the touted accurizing techniques other than retourqing(sp) the gasblock, which did help.
My complaints with the mini-14
Spare parts availability.
Mag price and availability (although much better in recent years).
Long term durability.
Hard usage durability, like extended firing. Not designed to be drug around in conflict long term.
At the moment for AK pattern rifles I only have a Norinco 7.62×39, Arsenal 5.45×39 and IMI Galil 5.56. All these will shoot more accurately than the ball ammo fueled mini.
Moondog: Take your friend to the range, and demonstrate the reliability of the AR platform. Also, give him a history lesson about how the AR has been improved in the last 45 or so years, and part of the problem in Vietnam was bad ammo.
The arguments goes on and on, tell us what your experiences with either and what you prefer.
Source: AR15.com/Forum and Reddit/guns/, TFB TV Youtube
I was recently sent a Magpul “Hunter” stock for the Remington 700 series riﬂes to test. Now, admittedly, I’m not much of a hunter. I choose to spend my shooting time a bit more tactically, but with that said, I really do like this stock.
The version I received was in basic black, but other available colors include ﬂat dark earth, stealth gray and olive drab green. This stock features reinforced polymer construction, and includes such unique features as a spacer adjustable length of pull with a range of adjustment from 13 to 15 inches in half-inch increments. That is a wonderful addition to any stock, in my opinion. I think of myself as an average-sized guy (5-foot-9, 170 pounds), but I’ve yet to ﬁnd a stock that ﬁts me out of the box. The ability to simply add or remove spacers to get the gun to ﬁt me the way I like it is an excellent improvement over a “standard” stock.
Another unique addition is the ability to adjust the height of the cheek piece. A high cheek riser kit is available that enables users to modify the height of the stock comb and allow a proper cheek weld behind a scope. Most “hunter” stocks seem to be set for iron sight use, and adding even a low mounted scope forces the shooter to compromise a good cheek weld to use the scope. This leads to less accuracy and a slower shot, as the shooter has to ﬁnd the eye box behind the scope. Not with this set-up. Simply mount the gun to your shoulder, get a solid cheek weld and the crosshairs are right in front of your eye. Nice!
The stock comes out of the box it set up to use both the OEM bottom metal and the blind magazine standard on the Remington 700 series riﬂes. There is, however, an option to replace that with detachable AICS-pattern magazines. A section of M-LOK compatible slots in the forend make attaching accessories easy and fast. This is a “drop-in” product. No ﬁtting or inletting is required.
Here’s some sentiments on the Magpul Hunter 700 stock from Reddit and AR15 Forum:
heathenyak: picked up an older 700 bdl the other day in .338 win mag because why not. The action is smooth as glass. I’ll be taking it out to the range next weekend or the following
nomadicbohunk: It shoots sub moa no problem. We’re actually pretty impressed with it. The only work I’ve done to it was to stiffen the stock and bed it. He wishes he’d have bought a few of them.
tomj762: Yeah I thought it was the Remington 770 that gets a lot of hate. The 700 gets accreditation for being a rifle you can buy for under $1,000 and get out of the box 1,000 yard precision.
Chowley_1: Or spend $650 for a Tikka and have a vastly superior rifle.
wags_01: Bolt gun mags aren’t cheap. AICS .308 mags run ~$70 too.
Isenwod: Considering it’s been the platform for every military sniper rifle since the 70s, I would say not.
morehousemusicplease: grip angle is excessive for my liking price isnt bad at 260 which puts it in line with the b&c.
The_Eternal_Badger: Admittedly no one has really handled or used the Magpul stock yet, but if it’s up to their current standards I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a better deal with equal or better performance out of the box.
THellURider: Honestly – I’ve wondered why they hadn’t released this many years ago. And then I remember that they’re more a marketing and design company than a manufacturer of anything with more than 1 moving part.
Hunting rifle: Going to be tough to beat a B&C Alaskan (I or II) or if you’re going to go spendy, McMillan Edge.
KC45: I’ve never been much of an aftermarket stock guy. I bet for 99% of shooters here a decent factory stock will do just as well and the money they save would be better spent getting some good precision shooting training/instructions and on ammo (or components). It’s the indian…not the arrow
JohnBurns: Mid-priced platform for bench shooting? Sure. That style of hunting, that guy’s set up is all wrong. Ultra light hunters want small, light, compact rifles with small, light scopes. Leupold VX6 2.5-10, McMillan Edge, on a light profile 260 rem – yes.
Lost_River: Great video quality. However it pretty much showed nothing in regards to technical information.
Bubbatheredneck: What does it offer vs the AICS? And no mountain hunter is gonna lug that beast around very long if it is as heavy as it looks..
Dash_ISpy: I like my Magpul 870 stock. Id probably get one of these as well. I wonder if itll be easier to integrate a mag. Im not excited to spend $300 extra just for a mag.
bulldog1967: it doesn’t do anything my Tikka T3 in .270 WSM doesn’t do.
Foxtrot08: That set up will be my next rifle. My current rifle is an older M700 long action, in 300WM on a B&C Alaskan II stock. Barrel has been blue printed, and bolt has been fitted. Not 100% light weight, but I haven’t needed it yet, as I only do day hunts on the western slope of Colorado.
LuvBUSHmaster: My .300 WinMag 700 BDL could use some MAGpul love but I need specs and a Long Action Model.
RePp: I don’t need another stock but for that price it will be very hard to beat. Now those magazines I will buy a shitload of. A polymer AICS mag like that will be a huge hit.
If you are looking to upgrade your Remington 700 stock, be that of your favorite deer riﬂe in .308 Win, a suppressed 700 SD in 300 Blackout or any other short- or long-action 700, you should give this option a good long look. ASJ