Over the decades... hell a century... the NRA has changed. Its changed so much in fact... that now.. its own publications can do things like this.
Yes Virginia... an organization created to help folks shoot accurately... just published 5 reasons for you to buy a mini-14.
This makes sense in a sick and ironic sort of way... you have an anti-gun organization marketed as gun lobby... recommending an odd piece of useless plumbing marketed as a rifle.
I think my favorite bit here is where the author starts yammering about how 2 inch groups at 100 yards "are not out of the question". Note... he didn't say you could expect them. He didn't say they'd happen regularly. He said... "they are not out of the question." In other words... the mini-14 is the same minute of paper plate piece of shit it has always been.
And actually its even worse. Remember... these guys measure their groups from the center of the group out. Meaning they look at the group they shot.. pick a center point... and measure out from there. So you have shots that are 4 inches apart... but its a 2 inch group. Because see each was only 2 inches from the center.
So when you see these guys calling something a 2 inch group... that's what guys like JAC and I call a 4 inch group. Because we find the two shots that are the furthest apart and measure one to the other... center to center. So if the two furthest are 4 inches apart... it is a 4 inch group... and well... maybe this illustration will help...
22 comments:
Wow, that's stupid. Not how I learned to measure a group. 2" means 2" between the widest holes.
Just curious, what do you think is the flaw in the mini? Is it build quality or something fundamentally wrong with the design?
I think its a piece of shit that was designed to have a certain look... and that's all.
I think they literally designed it to look like an M14 and then absolutely gave not a single fuck about anything else.
that... or its like Luke said... they are using barrels that got rejected by the 10/22 line.
I don't know what to make of articles like this. It may be that they are bored and needed something to write about. I am a gun nut, but I am tired of all the recycled articles anymore. Are there any publications recommended by the Ilk. I am not an NRA member anyway, the fuckin commies.
shooting 2" groups at 100 yds. is not out of the question.
That may be gunwriter code for "don't buy this piece of shit that I can't tell the truth about without pissing off a major advertiser in my magazine."
And I can't believe they measure groups like that. Never seen it.
Nate, do you belong to GOA or any other gun organization? Are there any worth supporting?
But you can spend $1000 accurizing and accessorizing one ....then it might shoot as good as some plain plane-jane, random brand $600 M4-gery.....might not...
" jmyron said...
Just curious, what do you think is the flaw in the mini? Is it build quality or something fundamentally wrong with the design?
7:34 AM
"
What I've read is that it has to do with how the rifle vibrates as it is firing. All rifles when seen on high speed video wiggle as they are firing, the whole gun bends. forgottenweapons.com has several high speed videos showing what I'm talking about.
Waves travel down the length of the rifle and back several times while the bullet is travelling down the barrel and as it exits the barrel. If the end of the barrel is in a different position with each shot as the bullet leaves then that rifle will not produce a good group no matter how good the shooter.
I've read, within the pages of American Rifleman magazine, of a guy that was able to get good groups out of a Mini-14. His riflle had all the normal accurizing things done to it but it had one more thing added to it, a harmonic dampener on the barrel that needed to be retuned after so many shots. In other words the gun needs an extra device to force it to vibrate predictably and probably with much less amplitude.
The basic design of the gun is bad for accuracy and Ruger knows it and they have never fixed it.
I think it always was a gun built for looks and the look they were going for went out of style in 1974.
I love the M1A1. Rugger could buy licensing for that platform and build 223's on it and have a far better product. I think guys would go for it and buy them.
Is there going to be an ATF show tonight? I've got an Opus X ready to go.
I think it always was a gun built for looks and the look they were going for went out of style in 1974.
I love the M1A1. Rugger could buy licensing for that platform and build 223's on it and have a far better product. I think guys would go for it and buy them.
Is there going to be an ATF show tonight? I've got an Opus X ready to go.
"Meaning they look at the group they shot.. pick a center point... and measure out from there. "
That's... that's idiotic. Even for Yankees.
I thought mini-14's were cool when the A-team was using them back in the 80's on TV...then again, they never actually hit anything with them, just shot them on full auto and scared the bad guys into surrendering...come to think of it, Nate kind of reminds me of a combination of Col. John "Hannibal" Smith and B.A. Baracus...he's got the mind of Hannibal with the raw badassness of MR-T in his acting career prime
"I love the M1A1. Rugger could buy licensing for that platform and build 223's on it and have a far better product..."
I prefer the 120mm it comes with.....doesn't have a flash hider tho'.....
Or did you mean the .30 Carbine or .45 Thompson ?
The Springfield Arms M1A1 aka the semi-auto M14. Ruger was attempting to cash in on mix of the M14 and the 30 carbine in 223 caliber. They also "incorporated numerous innovations and cost-saving engineering changes". Which means took shortcuts that made the final gun suck.
A 223 can shoot very accurately and about 7 years ago Ruger started making some changes that improve the guns accuracy. I've never seen one that could out shoot my off the shelf AR.
Speaking of Yankees, Nate, I was talking to a Southron the other day who is in one of the Pecan growers associations. I am working on a research project to convert pecan shells into a useful product.
He told me the pecans i get up here in Yankee land have probably been in storage for 2 years. I said "only a bunch of Yankees could mess up something good like pecans that badly...it elicited a hearty southern laugh...
bahahahaha... Excellent Scipio!
Also... I do belong to the GOA... and I am also a card carrying member of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
I shit you not.
They do take gentiles. JAC called and asked.
Y'all are missing the point of the mini-14. I have one, and I think it's a pretty good rifle for it's purpose (i.e.; it's purpose is not to be a tack driver). The design goals of this particular rifle are; to be easy to carry, easy to maintain, reliable, and easy to modify (just like the AR rifles). Accuracy, you may note, is not on the list. It puts lead down-range OK, you can usually hit a soda can at 100 yards, but that's about it. In other words, it's about as accurate as any iron-sight rifle, the big difference is that if you put glass on it and use sandbags it's still about as accurate as any iron-sight rifle.
The mini-14 has an overall length of around 38", and weigh 7 pounds, so it's really easy to carry. But more importantly, they have a really simple fixed-piston gas operated auto-loading system (so the similarities to the Garand are not just cosmetic), and an essentially tool-less break-down procedure.
This video is why the mini-14 is popular;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93XmX2IIjQQ
What other rifle is anywhere close to this, for these features?
-Bill
Ok. I read the article Nate linked to. Wow. Just. Wow. What a steaming load of fresh chili crap. I about spit out my beer at this phrase "...the ballistics of the AR15..." and then, right after I recovered from that, I was hit with "the feel of the classic M1 Garand and M14". I've shot the M1 Garand and the M14, I've probably put a thousand rounds through an M1 and at least a few hundred through an M14. The Mini-14 feels like those the way a Toyota 4-runner feels like a Chevy Suburban, I mean, it's like literally half the size and half the weight. Then, touting the virtues of the mini (of which there are many), they pick, of all things; "the Mini’s centrally located safety [The safety selector is one of the more chintzy feeling things about the rifle], its hook-rock-and-lock magazine design [arguably it's worst feature], and its beefy, integral charging handle [well, one out of three ain't bad, I dunno about "beefy", but it's kinda the same shape as the M1, just a little smaller, and hella easier to pull]". Then they say it's more accurate, as in "shooting 2" groups at 100 yds. is not out of the question". Well. Not "out of the question", eh? If you bolt one of those brace things on any of the older mini's you can get a 2" group. I don't know that I'd tout the possibility of a 2" group as a good thing. I think quick handling, and pretty good factory sights are better features. And, amazingly enough, they don't list the super-easy break-down and cleaning as key features! This is why people buy this rifle!
Morons. Just - morons.
-Bill
I see some yankees came home from the war and were deeply disturbed because the confederate soldiers shot a lot better than they did. The yankees had better rifles... but the southern boys shot more accurately.Good job.
Greetings Nate,
Screw the NRA, Bill Ruger and the crappage he sells. Hoope all is well with you and yours, it's been a while but I will stay in touch.Oh,
and screw yankees too. From one son of the blessed South to another,
John Mosby
And actually it has the more serious. Try to remember... this option assess its categories out of the center of a set outside.
I actually find quite a few yankees came out dwelling with the showdown plus ended up being sincerely displaced because confederate defense force taken much better than people have. A yankees obtained improved guns... although the south space taken extra perfectly.
Post a Comment