ar 15 vs mini 14 prices

[Gunner3456]

I was at bi mart the other day, mini 14 ss/syn was $619.00

ya i know i saw that but here you can find a used one for 650 minimum

Off topic I know, but I haven't been able to buy a gun here for a long time. Too many people want the same or more for a used gun than I can buy it new at Bi Mart or elsewhere.

$02

 

[deen_ad]

That's his signature, by the looks.

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[deen_ad]

Off topic I know, but I haven't been able to buy a gun here for a long time. Too many people want the same or more for a used gun than I can buy it new at Bi Mart or elsewhere.

$02

just want a gun that isn't on some gov't agency list and will pay more to get it!! Or, maybe, just maybe they can't buy or own a gun at all if they go through "normal" channels!! Ask for a CHL or CPL and a DL to be sure you're selling to someone that can legally own a weapon. Anyone, even an illegal alien can get a drivers license, they (hopefully) won't have a CHL or CPL!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[dario541]

I love the Mini-14! I like its looks and handling. I do not believe that it is as accurate as an AR, but it is accurate enough for its purpose.
Back in the 70's, whaen I first started thinking about suvivalism, the Mini seemed to be the gun of choice. You never heard much about the AR (I have a large stack of survival magazines from that era.)
But, for whatever reason, Ruger did not follow up on their early lead. They were slow to offer it the public and for years refused to offer hi-cap magazines for it. They make it difficult to get spare parts.
In the meantime, a large number of gun makers started offering the AR. This gun has tons of development behind it. Therefore, the AR is probably a more dependable gun. And, being manufactured by many companies (as opposed to ONE for the Mini), prices for the AR are coming down. You can find good AR's are very reasonable nowadays.
I'll take BOTH OF THEM!

 

[salmonriverjohn]

M4, M16 and 5.65mm NATO cartridge: A Disgrace?

Found this while reading at Chuck Hawks site, interesting.

 

[gwhitney]

I've got a SS Mini-30 and it's a great gun. Simple and light. I can't understand why the mini-14 price is going up and is actaully surpassing the mini-30 which is much more difficult to find.

I think to the majority of people who want a semi-auto all purpose rifle but not a war rifle then the mini is the first thing that comes to mind. Wood stock, light, semi-auto, american made, cheap ammo, easy to shoot. The alternatives would be to get a heavier and longer hunting rifle or drop the semi-auto requirement.

 

[spengo]

M4, M16 and 5.65mm NATO cartridge: A Disgrace?

Found this while reading at Chuck Hawks site, interesting.

Are you going to post that stupid article in every thread where the AR is mentioned? Stop trolling. I'll rip into everything wrong with it if you want, but make a new thread or something.

 

[1bigfoot]

I agree. That is just more gun writer BS and that is a time proven fact. All too often there is a major lack of substance to such articles and the result is just a bunch of words that amount to nonsense on a page. I'll be glad to help on the ripping as well.

I actually read this post, did you? I don't think Chuck Hawks would allow a BS anti anything article to be posted anywhere in anything he does, he has far more experience than most outdoor writers and is a class act.

You and the previous poster tear into the other poster for posting an article that he stated as "interesting" yet I didnt notice anywhere that he agreed with or against it.
Go ahead and tear into the mini 14/30 all you want, I happen to own both a Colt and a bushmaster and love them both, but also have an older and newer mini and can actually say they are more reliable if less accurate. But with all the after market accessories available today that kind of becomes a mute point.
Have at her boys if that's what makes you feel better, but what I took from the article was more than a bunch of words that amount to nonsense. Why have special forces from our military and around the world went away from it?

 

[AMT]

i saw a new model mini 14 at a gun show a while back on the used table for $495. If I had the $$ I probably would have picked it up. I don't know why, but I really like the mini. Its a decent all round rifle, yeah the older ones sucked for accuracy, but with a little tuning they can get better. One of these days I will get a mini again. Its low on the list, but I will get one again. especially since factory mags have come down in price a bit.

In what way do you mean "the older ones sucked for accuracy"? I inherited a SS/wood mini-14 from my dad. He purchased it a gs in PDX close to 20 years ago for $250 (still has the sticker price on it). I'd consider that "old".

With absolutely no mods or tweeks and I can hit a quarter at 100 yds with a basic 3x9 scope. My family and I have put thousands of rounds through it without any problems.

I ask again, what is meant by "the older ones sucked for accuracy"? I'm not a gunsmith or maker. I don't have a photographic memory and know all the specs and articles written for 95% of the firearms ever made. I am just an average "Joe" who is curious as to what other people classify as inaccurate.

Thank you.

 

[spengo]

I actually read this post, did you? I don't think Chuck Hawks would allow a BS anti anything article to be posted anywhere in anything he does, he has far more experience than most outdoor writers and is a class act.

You and the previous poster tear into the other poster for posting an article that he stated as "interesting" yet I didnt notice anywhere that he agreed with or against it.
Go ahead and tear into the mini 14/30 all you want, I happen to own both a Colt and a bushmaster and love them both, but also have an older and newer mini and can actually say they are more reliable if less accurate. But with all the after market accessories available today that kind of becomes a mute point.
Have at her boys if that's what makes you feel better, but what I took from the article was more than a bunch of words that amount to nonsense. Why have special forces from our military and around the world went away from it?

Sigh. It's obviously a troll man, he's just posting it in every thread related to the AR-15 to try and get people to fight about it. This thread is old and finished anyway so I guess I'll take the bait and fuss about it.

1) The author has no understanding of why we switched to 5.56. The primary reason was WEIGHT. You can carry way more 5.56 than you can .308. It has an effective range comparable to .308 and has arguably even better terminal ballistics when in fragmentation range. Outside fragmentation range it does have some less than optimal terminal ballistics, but it still puts holes in bad guys. If you use specialty ammo like the SEALs' 77gr Black Hills Mk 262 or 75gr Hornandy TAP, you will get much farther fragmentation range and outside fragmentation range you will still get rapid yawing and terminal ballistics similar to the Soviet 5.45x45 cartridge. We haven't ditched .308 either, we still use it in DMR roles because even though it may not be as good as 5.56 close up, it does really shine when you get farther out.

6.8SPC is cool. It does offer more consistent terminal ballistics and has better penetration than 5.56 even though it has less range (more like a 7.62x39 or 30-30 ballistically). Switching everything to a new round would be **** logistically though, and all the other NATO countries would still be using 5.56 unless we forced them to switch too. I guess the consensus is it isn't worth it when the benefits are marginal at best.



2) LOL @ complaining about the M4 barrel. Yes we switched to the tougher M4A1 barrel but then the author goes around and starts talking about how the SCAR is an awesome magical fairy weapon that never jams and completely forgets to mention that the SCAR has a PENCIL BARREL. Not that there's anything wrong with a pencil barrel on something that isn't intended to be a machine gun, personally I think we should have never left that profile, but it's just kind of funny.

3) Forgets to mention that we actually ditched the SCAR (L anyway) because it had lots of problems with bolts breaking. They still like the SCAR-H though, not because it's somehow more reliable, but because it is MUCH cheaper than the KAC SR-25 for a nice DMR. (See? .308 being used here...) Perhaps the SCAR-L can still shoot when it is more gummed up with dirt and junk inside than the M4 which is one kind of reliability (got that big heavy bolt carrier to chew through that stuff). On the other hand, it suffers more catastrophic failures. So... take your pick.

4) HK416 is plagued with problems. Norwegian soldiers have it as standard issue now and they are hating it. It freezes up in their cold weather. The gas regulator also sometimes randomly switches modes when you're shooting. And then there's all the inherent issues with using a piston in a gun with no internal carrier rails. Also the lower receiver is stupid and has a messed up mag well for no apparent reason. Pretty much no one likes this gun anymore.

5) XM8 was a dumb gun. It looked like a fish and fit no accessories known to man. Also it melts when you fire it full auto a lot. Which isn't that important to me since it also isn't intended to be a machine gun, but again, remember the author complaining about the old M4 barrel? HK shoulda just competed with the G36, at least it fits normal accessories.


6) He puts statistics and numbers down on how much more reliable these other guns are compared to the AR-15 without actually citing them. He just says "army tests" which more than likely means those BS tests where they got new magazines for all the new guns and used bubblegumty ancient magazines from vietnam for the M4.

I would love to see a new gun that's better than the AR-15. None of these really fit the bill though imo. The SCAR is promising, the others... meh. Perhaps in the future if the SCAR becomes as prolific as AR-15s it will have more customization and SCAR-specific accessories and upgrades. There already are a few (PRI rail, magpul selector). Probably the bolt breaking issue (which isn't really that big of a problem, especially for civilian use, it just does it more than the AR) can be fixed too and it will be a contender in the NEXT infantry rifle trials again.