Author Topic: Need an opinion on Mini-14/30. (Read 1471 times)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:36:11 PM »

FYI:

AR-15 Lower Receiver assembly:

Mini-14 Exploded View:

It really isn't close.

AKDejaVu

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:40:29 PM »

Damn... didn't realize it was a geocities link for the Mini-14... try this:

Gman · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2003, 06:01:18 PM »

DJ, your exploded AR15 is missing the drop in auto sear!

miko2d · « **Reply #48 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:15:17 AM »

OK, I see.

AR is somewhat more complex and made to better tolerances. Much more sencitive to type of powder used, ammo quality and mainenance conditions.

Ruger Mini is really an american analog of an AK - will shoot any crap reliably in the hands of a slovenly uneducated recruit. And accurate enough at distances where such user can realistically engage targets.

Too bad I have no choice, living in New York City. Of course if I move out, I may go for M1A (semi-auto M-14) altogether. Can hunt with it, can snipe with it, can certainly ruin someone's day with one shot.

Yeger - it's very strange that you would advocate .30 Garand but scorn 7.62x39. The latter is a much more powerfull round.

The only way .223 can do serious damage is by fragmenting - for which it needs 2700 fps. That limits the effective range for one-shot significant injury to about 150 yards from standard weapon - a bit further from a mashinegun.
Some of US troops ambushed in Somali were armed with short-barrel (11.5"?) "carbine" versions of AR and the effective range for those is under 15 yards after which a bullet does not fragment at all but leaves a tiny .22 wound channel. On numerous occasions the hostiles hit with multiple rounds were not disabled and all the US soldier has done by employing his peashooter was disclose his position.

Not that AR/.223 does not make an effective weapon - just cannot generalise.
Plenty of US soldiers in Vietnam were found dead with a cleaning rod still in the barrel of the little black "Mattel gun". I am sure the last thought of may was "I wish I had my M-14 back". Vietnamese were notorious for never cleaning their weapons. There was no other weapon on the face of the earth for them to use more effectively than AK-47. The same is true for most drafted americans, by the way - even though a .223 weapon allows to save a few dollars on training by making it unnecesarry to teach a recruit to deal with recoil.
They should have probably went with a .243 round, ~100 grain projectile thrown at about the same velocity...

miko

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #49 on:** January 14, 2003, 10:18:05 AM »

when he said .30 he was reffering to 30 calibre in general (both the AK and M1). The garand is a 30-06... and that is considerably more powerfull than an AK.

And your analogies from somolia don't really add up. Most U.S. soldiers were armed with M-16s or Car-15s... Thousands more Somalies with AKs.

AKDejaVu

miko2d · « **Reply #50 on:** January 14, 2003, 11:35:27 AM »

Sorry,

I thought that M1 Garand Tanker he referred to was a version of an M1 Carbine, rather than much more powerfull .30-06 caliber M1 Garand Semi-auto Service Rifle.

Of course venerable Garand Rifle is by no stretch of imagination an assault rifle. There was a reason people (germans first) came up with an intermediate round that could be fired from a portable rifle in automatic mode without losing control of it.

And your analogies from somolia don't really add up.

Why? He presented an anecdote about 3 AK bullets failing to disable a person, I refer you to "The Black Hawk Down" book or recent afghan impressions about multiple .223 bullets failing to knock out an adversary.
Most soldiers were armed with M-16s or impotent CQB-configured Car-15s - really a room-entry weapons - but the men in demand there were armed with scoped Win .308 weapon, IIRC.

The number of untrained and undisciplined somali civilians with average IQ of 70 - undoubtedly the result of an environment - dismally battling the handfull of US special ops - not even regular grunts - in defensive urban positions is hardly an indication of inefficiency of their weapons.

I would not buy an AK as my first choice but I used it - both 47 and 74 - to a very telling effect.
I'd probably go with SKS rather than AK if I had assurance of not ever facing enemy from a few feet - where auto fire becomes essential. But AK fully deserved it's reputation.

I imagine a 90-pound vietcong guy firing an M1-Garand instead of an AK after a swim throug a swamp - broken shoulder right there. Of course he would have been safe with an M-16 which would never fire...

I know for sure americans picked up AKs in Vietnam and used them. My mailman even brought one home.

miko

midnight Target · « **Reply #51 on:** January 14, 2003, 11:40:26 AM »

My boss witnessed the durability of the AK first hand. He was on patrol passing a group of women working a rice paddy. One of the women bent down, reached into the muck, pulled out an AK and started firing.

That is amazing.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #52 on:** January 14, 2003, 12:11:59 PM »

I'm not disputing the capabilities of the AK. Its a good rifle. When "The Tale of the Gun" did a "top 10 most impacting guns of all time" I predicted the AK would make the list. I also predicted the BAR would make it as well as the Brown Bess.

I'm still not agreeing with overal assesments on the M-16/CAR-15 though. Taking 3 bullets to drop someone in a situation where thousands were dropped... with very few getting close enough to inflict high casualties on the US soldier means that the weapons were effective.

A situation where 160 held off several thousand with less than 20 casualties does not scream "BAD WEAPON!".

A 308 is definately a more potent round, but there are pros and cons that definately applied there... in size, weight and ammo load.

I'm not trying to say its better than another gun, I'm trying to respond to "it sucks because..." posts. I'm sorry, but it does not suck. Thousands of somalies found that out for themselves.

AKDejaVu

Dune · « **Reply #53 on:** January 14, 2003, 12:18:14 PM »

The Mini 14 is ok, but the AR is a much better all-around rifle. Usually more accurate out of the box also.

But, if you want the cream of all asault rifles, save up and buy a FN-FAL.

miko2d · « **Reply #54 on:** January 14, 2003, 12:53:21 PM »

AKDejaVu: I'm not trying to say its better than another gun, I'm trying to respond to "it sucks because..." posts.

Well, that's not me than. I have quite a respect for a modern M-16/AR-15.
I wish they chose a better round, since 4.4 ft. lbs. recoil in a 7 pound rifle is way too limiting.
Even a poorly trained man can handle 7+ ft. lbs. recoil easily in an automatic weapon - AK-47 has 7.3 and most shooters are heavier than 90-pound vietnamese guerillas of both genders. That would have made for a much more versatile weapons and not much bulkier ammo, say based on .243 Winchester (our european friends would call it 6.17mm).

Of course one can get a weapon - even AR15 or a Mini rebarreled in that caliber - but the practice would be more expensive and ammo supply would be questionable in SHTF scenario.

I'm sorry, but it does not suck. Thousands of somalies found that out for themselves

I am amased what silly things people can say rendering opinions outside of their area of expertise. I see you are a "enior Research Technician", whatever it means. How many thousand untrained somalis it would take to equal you with whatever equipment they could possibly get their hands on? Supercomputers? AI? Would it make much difference in the end? Would it mean their stuff is not as good?

I am amased how little apprecialtion you people have for talent, training and expertise posessed by US military and how important those qualities are in combat....

miko

Masherbrum · « **Reply #55 on:** January 14, 2003, 02:55:30 PM »

miko,

Just get a Bushmaster. They're cheaper and just as "durable" as a AR-15/M-16. If you do get one, I recommend the readi-mag.

Karaya2

superpug1 · « **Reply #56 on:** January 14, 2003, 04:58:08 PM »

I u gotta put people down buy a 1911A1 and put a extended barrel on it with a dot scope and u are good to go. Or u could always get a FAL YES a FAL get one. I like Do U. . If u really want a nice accurate gun thats not a ar50 or grizzly big bore than get a Craig. Even thought the ammo is a bit hard to come buy.

or or u could always get a M1 Carbine, or just he M1 long rifle it self while youre at it.

If u just wanna defend ur home than a berrata is nice.

Or just a short shot gun.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #57 on:** January 14, 2003, 05:45:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
I'm sorry, but it does not suck. Thousands of somalies found that out for themselves

I am amased what silly things people can say rendering opinions outside of their area of expertise. I see you are a "enior Research Technician", whatever it means. How many thousand untrained somalis it would take to equal you with whatever equipment they could possibly get their hands on? Supercomputers? AI? Would it make much difference in the end? Would it mean their stuff is not as good?

I am amased how little apprecialtion you people have for talent, training and expertise posessed by US military and how important those qualities are in combat....

miko

I'm sorry Miko, but you are getting quite silly here yourself. They had AKs Miko... something you feel is drastically superior... and they had drastically superior numbers. The U.S. soldiers had training on their side. Training counts... but so do numbers and firepower. Neither of which you seem to be able to apreciate. It does not matter how much training you have when 20 people are coming at you if you only have a clip that will stop 10 (acording to your source)... or did military training also extend their magazine capacity?

Miko, you started off saying the Mini-14 was better than the AR.. and it was cheaper. You've since moved to some anecdotal argument that simply does not hold up, unless Americans were carrying some 20,000 rounds of ammo in Somolia as proof... though you managed to replace mini-14 with AK somewhere along the line.

I work in research, and I work with data. I work with realizing just what exactly things do and don't support. Nothing you've said here has been very convincing to me. Most has been refuted, or is so abstract as to not be remotely impacting.

BTW... any idea how many US soldiers were wounded in Somolia by gunfire? And how many died from gunshot wounds?

AKDejaVu

Airhead · « **Reply #58 on:** January 14, 2003, 06:13:42 PM »

(doing Santa Claus voice from "A Christmas Story")

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

miko2d · « **Reply #59 on:** January 14, 2003, 07:04:02 PM »

AKDejaVu: They had AKs Miko... something you feel is drastically superior...

Never said that, never will. Will never buy one if I have a choice. Just that it was a decent weapon, not drastically inferior.

Neither of which you seem to be able to apreciate. It does not matter how much training you have when 20 people are coming at you if you only have a clip that will stop 10...

Those M-16 must have been mirauculous if that was the case. Which itw as not. The somalis were not suicidal. Their culture as most primitive ones did not have a concept of pitched all-out battle. Those guys concept of warfare is skirmish or ambush with minimal risk of getting killed. Those were warlord's militia, not religious troops.

Miko, you started off saying the Mini-14 was better than the AR.. and it was cheaper.

Better in somre respects - namely reliability and legality. About the price - I admitted I was wrong. I am glad that I was shown a cheaper way to get one.

You've since moved to some anecdotal argument that simply does not hold up, unless Americans were carrying some 20,000 rounds of ammo in Somolia as proof... though you managed to replace mini-14 with AK somewhere along the line.

Not really. Just that while AK round is not always a lethal wound, neither is .223.
And I did not replace Mini with AK - it was just a side-discussion on AK ammo. I am most likely getting a Mini in .223 anyway - as I've said.

Most has been refuted, or is so abstract as to not be remotely impacting.

Probably. An talented expert is worth quite a lot of rookies in any fields - warfare, pottery, carpentry, systems design.

BTW... any idea how many US soldiers were wounded in Somolia by gunfire? And how many died from gunshot wounds?

Not really. My book list is quite long before I get to that. 50,000 were killed in Vietnam by guys with AKs. So it is at least conceivable that an AK round would kill a person. Unless charlies went in with bayonets...
I look at bullet stats - weight, energy, caliber. Without fragmentation .223 is an inferior round.

Not saying that an AR is ineffective weapon - especially in good hands.

I thought I as good as admitted my acceptance of your arguments above where I indicated my intent of buying/assembling one one I get out of NYC - based on info I got in this very thread. Even before that I indicated my willingness to consider it regardless of the price. If you think that was indication I dislike it and think it worse than AK or anything else, than your logic is surely convoluted. The more I lean towards your point of view, the more agressive and nit-picking your argument becomes. Strange.

Let me rephrase it again:

I am persuaded that AR is a fine weapon despite some drawbacks. My research was not thorough enough since I could not buy it now anyway.
I am gratefull for info how it can be obtained inexpensively.
I will most likely end up owning one or more of them.
I am gratefull to people here who came up with info, including AKDejaVu.
I have no sentimental attachment towards AK whatsoever despite personally using it quite effectively, observed teh effects of use by others and having quite a lot of first-hand anecdotal data. Also, seing the sales numbers in US. Quite a popular weapon among survival community.
I am sorry for calling M-16 "Mattel Gun". Peace.

miko