PLEASE, I NEED HELP!!! Info on Mini-14 vs. AR-15. . . .

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I bought a Ruger Mini-14 about 2 months ago but have not been able to find magazines ANYWHERE that fit! On top of that, several times, the bullet did not fully chamber after a previous round had been fired. I REALLY didn't want to get an AR-15 mainly because of it's geurilla/psychodoomer look, but also because of it's price...however, not I am reconsidering. Should I consider going with the AR-15? Does it have the same problems with incompatible clips and jamming as the mini-14? Also, does it come equipped with scope mounts? I have to buy something in 223 ammo seeing as I already bought several hundred rounds. Any other info GREATLY appreciated.

P.S.-to the anti-gun pollies---I am NOT planning on killing people with it...rather I wanted a gun that I would be able to use for hunting as WELL as personal protection in case God forbid, the worst does come to pass.

Thanks, Doomy

-- Rational Doomer (wells@whitebulb.com), November 22, 1999

Answers

I just sold a Mini-14. It is fine as a "general-combat" rifle, but otherwise the accuracy *sucks* - at least in my experience and that of two other shooters I've talked to.

If you want short-range "torso-shots," the mini is fine. If you want more precision (like for hunting), the AR family is better.

Last time I checked, Cheaper Than Dirt had *plenty* of Mini- mags in stock. ( http://www.cheaperthandirt.com )

--Michael

-- The Outlands (firewing@juno.com), November 22, 1999.


if the magazine says it is for amini 14 it should fit..perhaps this is human error? Try ruger 20 round mags. or usa made 30 rounders, do not use plastic,thermold eagle brand or ramline they all suck. asfor ammo... if it is a new gun it may need to be broken in... several hundred rounds worth. the rifling on a mini14 is not always for heavy grained bullets,stick to 55 grain, thatshould do it i've never hadtrouble with a mini14 it is one of hte best battle rifles you can get lube the gun up and make sure the gas system is not tuned wrong.

-- NobiscumDeus (gunnut@killcommies.org), November 22, 1999.

Nah. Stick with the mini-14. I bought one earlier this year and also had problems finding clips and such.

Best source i could find was here:

Cheaper Than Dirt

The other problem i solved was with the rounds jamming. i solved this by making sure that i "tapped" my clips. By tapping, i mean that as one loads the clips, one must tap the back end of the clip against a reasonably firm surface to help seat the rounds. That, and you have to make SURE that your chamber is clean and properly lubricated.

It IS a good rifle though. And it is almost "exempt" from most gun legislation. A VERY popular rifle.

If the link doesn't work, just go to www.cheaperthandirt.com

(I bet you find ALL sorts of goodies there!! :) )

-- DavePrime (the_tv_guy@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999.


At work we are issued both the mini 14, and the AR-15. We qualify with them every year. To be honest, the scores on the mini 14 are always far less than on the AR-15. I don't really know why. I myself absolutly adore the AR-15 except for one thing...It gets hot quick. The price is a bit high, but in my opinion well worth it. However, if you really want a rifle you can use for multi-purpose, might I suggest an SKS ? This weapon will take anything you can dish out, is very affordable, and rarely jams.

-- Cody (mindcrime@uswest.net), November 22, 1999.

RD. Is your ammo clean? Also, thoroughly brush out chamber. Might even wrap some 600 grit around the brush and gently backend brush the chamber with a flexline coupler. Advice to run a couple of hundred is excellent.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), November 22, 1999.


Too bad someone knowledgeable doesn't post on emergency procedures for gunshot wounds. You know, just in case a spikey-haired mutant or a starving Democratic Party fund-raiser gets desperate.

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armagedon.com), November 22, 1999.

I have one of each. The best magazines for the mini-14 are factory magazines and will probably cost you $60 - $100 each for either 20 or 30 round magazines.

If you buy an AR15 get as many USGI magazines as you think you'll need. They can still be found in decent shape for $15 - $30 each.

I like the AR15 better. It's easier to clean, easier to buy parts for, and if you're going to buy several magazines it's cheaper. I have seen vendors selling NIB Bushmasters for as little as $655 this month.

For magazines (or a new rifle) check out the message boards at:

subguns.com

AR15.com

Sturmgewehr.com

HTH

-- mick (rm2@sourcetec.com), November 22, 1999.


When looking for something that I might use to save my life money is far from the major concern. I feel the Mini-14 is a sub par rifle. They are not accurate and do malfunction. Should TSHTF you are much more likely to find parts for the AR since most M16 parts are interchangeable. Stay away from the 7.62x39 as well. It is not a NATO round so US troops do not carry it. Again, much more likely to find .223 if TSHTF. I chose the AR and have been happy with it from day one.

-- anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.com), November 22, 1999.

Is there a posibility of operator error here?

Most magazine guns (AR-15, M-1 Carbines, HK's, etc.) you just shove the magazine 'straight' in.

The Mini-14, you have to "rock" the magazine in. Tilt the magazine so the bottom is further forward than the top. Push magazine in until the pin in the front of the magazine well hooks into the hole on the front of the magazine, then "rock" the magazine bottom towards the rear until it clicks.

I have had trouble with various mags and several models of Mini's. Some mag/gun combinations did give me troubles.

Any gun show has mags, or try "Cheaper than Dirt" or Shotgun news

-- shooter (gun@bang.mil), November 22, 1999.


I agree with your origional asessment of the Mini-14. I personally know no one who has had any luck getting even mediocre accuracy out of one straight from the box. I spent over a year battling with mine , a new in the box Ranch rifle. Switched scopes 3 times, locktited mounts, recrowned barrell, shimmed stock, refit the piece on the gas block that hooks the stock. End result was groups that went from 14 inches at 100 yards to 2 inches at 100 yards. for about three shots. Then the barell would get hot and the hits would start walking up and to the right as each shot was fired until they were completely off the paper after about ten rounds. I traded the thing in disgusted, and got a Colt H-bar AR-15. Now I'm in love. this thing shot sub minute of angle groups right out of the box with a 3x9 scope attached, the mags were less than half the price, and I picked up a spare carbine uper at a gun show for 150.00 that gives me a lot more versatility and a bunch of spare parts. My wife liked the gun so much I went and bought her an M-4 version of the CAR-15 and to my surprise even this sawed off version of the AR will shoot less than 2 inch groups with good ammo. AR-15 no contest.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 22, 1999.


Yeah, sort of like "Y2K Pro" versus the ridiculous dribble that he posts....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 22, 1999.

I would say to get rid of the Mini-14 and get the AR-15. Mini-14 is a piece of trash in my experience. Very inaccurate, and not too reliable. Getting spare parts can be iffy too, as Ruger will only sell certain ones (firing pin comes to mind, as does spare bolt) on an exchange basis. Reliable mags are hard to find (avoid USA brand), and more expensive.

AR-15 family on the other hand has much easier parts availability, MUCH better accuracy. Nearly all parts (except maybe recent Colts) have parts interchangeabilty with GI rifles, and ditto with heavier military ammo. Mags are plentiful even now, and are cheaper.

I've seen people spend hundreds on a Mini-14 (rebarrelling, trigger work, new sights), and still not get the accuracy of the AR-15 series. Why bother making a non-combat gun combat worthy?

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), November 22, 1999.


I have multiple high-cap aftermarket mags for the mini-14. Roughly 50% required the use of a Dremel tool on the "anchor-hole" to get them to fit properly. After that, I noticed that many jammed or misfed. Had to bend in the feed lip on the RIGHT side (looking at the mag from the rear), so that the lips were staggered somewhat. Once these tasks were complete, the mags ALL fit and feed perfectly.

And it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get Ruger high-cap mags. Theye're only sold to LEA's, and the street price for a 20 rd mag is about $100, and $150 for a 30 rd.

And the mini's aren't terribly accurate "out of the box", but they're relatively cheap, and can handle a fairly high rate of fire. My two mini's shoot about 6 MOA at 100 yds. Not great, but adequate for any "non-sniping" combat situation. Besides, if I want a "sniper rifle", I'd use my scoped .300 WinMag.

(BTW, most people do NOT hunt with a .223. The bullet is easily deflected by the tiniest twig. Plus, the bullet just doesn't have the stopping power of the "standard" hunting calibres.)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), November 22, 1999.


I have a Mini-14 and love it. I am dead on center with 1 in groups at 200yds and 1in high at 100 yds. The only thing I have had done a $60.00 trigger job done and added a Bushnell Turkey scope. I have 4 30rnd mags for it that I got from Cheaper than Dirt and have had no problems. They were USA Mags. I have shot my friend's AR and find I like my Mini better for comfort and ease of maintainence. If you decide to sell it though, email me and I will take it.

Greg

-- Greg (skipy1@prodigy.net), November 22, 1999.


I wouldn't trade just for y2k-too expensive; if you want a rifle to hunt with, I'd prefer a "regular" rifle over a AR-15. The main reason to have an AR-15, IMHO, is either (1) it's good on the range for target practice (2) it's good for y2k-type scenarios because of the hi-cap magazines.

I've never shot the mini-14, but I have an AR-15 and love it. It's very accurate out to 300-500 meters, so my feeling is that you don't need a scope. If you really want a scope, however, buy the A-3 flattop version; otherwise, there are a few scopes to mount on the handle.

Here's an AR-15 forum where you can learn some more. There's a search engine, too, for looking up past posts on particular subjects.

http://forums.ar15.com/cgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

-- impala (impala@wild.com), November 22, 1999.



If it were my decision, I would stay away from both the Mini-14 and the AR-15. Have used both and think they are both pretty rough. IMHO, the Mini-14 simply doesn't make it on a number of counts...including ruptured cases, extraction problems, feed problems and mediocre accuracy. The AR-15 is marginally better, but you must have the forward assist on the bolt or you will have problems. It should be mentioned that the AR series of weapons are illegal in many states under the "assault weapons" laws.

In my experience, the SKS can't be beat for common applications. They function very well, are surprisingly accurate and are tough beyond your reasonable expectations.

I don't buy the theory about the 7.62x39 being foreign and thus not a good choice. It has more power than the .223 and somewhat better range. NEITHER the .223 or the 7.62x39 are true hunting rounds, so that isn't really a good consideration.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Irving

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), November 22, 1999.


Don't throw your mini out yet. You might have an ammo problem and not a gun problem.

Your comment about having .223 ammo feed problems strikes a chord. I went through the same situation just yesterday with an AR-15 and some factory-fresh Remington FMJ. Seems that their new .223 ammo is a flat point varmint round instead of the traditional spire point load.

That little flat point (maybe 1/16") will simply grab on the transition from the bolt face into the chamber and stop cold. And using the forward assist only drove the cartridge forward while the bullet stayed stopped. I have a momento of that effort. It's a .223 case with just the front third of the bullet sticking out of the cartridge neck.

Tried a different magazine, same problem. Switched to traditional fully pointed ammo and there were no feeding problems. Guess the new Remington is strictly for the Rem 700.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), November 22, 1999.


The mini has gotten some bad press, I think, mostly because of cheap after-market magazines that don't feed right. You can't go wrong with the factory 5-round mags, but they of course have limited capacity. I tried USA mags on my dad's mini and got one misfeed for every three rounds. I bought PMI (Precision Mag Industries)stainless steel magazines for mine and have never had a misfeed or a jam. I understand that Thermold mags are reliable also, regardless of the post above. I don't know if you can still get PMI mags. I bought mine a year ago at several gun shows and they cost about $35.00 each.

I shot the M-16 in the Army and it's everything that everyone here has said it is: accurate, reliable, easy to shoot, and just about idiot proof (you should have seen some of the guys who shot expert with it in basic training - very scary.) The magazines are cheaper also.

I do have to say, however, that I have no complaints with my mini and it gets decent groups (2-4") at 100 yds. For me it's a purely self- defense weapon that I would only use at close range, so match-grade accuracy is not one of my requirements. If I want to nail a long shot, I'll use my .308.

What the one person above said about the ammo is correct. You don't want to use SS-109 (62 grn) bullets in a mini. The 1 in 12 twist in the barrel doesn't impart a fast enough spin for the heavier bullet, causing them to tumble and leading to some pretty awful accuracy at any distance. Just stick with the cheaper 55 grain M-193 equivalent ammo and you'll do fine.

The mini isn't as idiot proof as the AR-15; just baby it a little and it will perform for you.

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.


sell your military rifle,use money to buy sporting shotgun&rifle.they can be used to your advantage to kill food.it only takes 1 well placed shot to kill a deer, with 1 shot from a hunting rifle you will still have some meat that is ruined around wound,why shoot it 5,10 times? you can still use it for protection. do we really need full metal jackets flying around?i have killed deer with rifle bow&shotgun with sporting rifle being the most humane way to doit.an air rifle can kill small game&birds with a well placed shot also.another thought might be to sell the gun&buy suplies

-- harry huges (daddyo56 @hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

Harry Hughes:

You can use the .223 for deer quite sucessfully. FMJ will work if you take head shots. I know, it spoils the trophy, but in a survival situation, who cares? Winchester and PMC sell 64gr SP loads that are decent for deer if you hit them just so. Probably some other company does too.

No, if you just hit a deer anywhere with a .223, it may not go down, but that is also true of larger calibers. Do your job in the accuracy dept, and it'll work ok.

Hunting rifles are made for hunting, not combat. I know for sure that I don't want to get into a firefight armed with only a bolt gun (or lever action). Especially at closer ranges (sub-100 yards).

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), November 24, 1999.


I've had a mini-14 for about two years now with zero problems. I hear everyone saying that they shoot so wide, but mine regularly groups within 2 inches at 100 yards. What are these people shooting at that has a kill zone bigger than 2 inches?

Regarding one of the other letters, the most accurate load in my rifle happens to be a cheap Russian 62 grain hollowpoint. I cannot even remember the brand name of the load, but I see it in almost every gun store. Another very accurate load is the Ultramax 52 grain hollopoint. That load in particular is devastating on varmints and as reliable as any FMJ that I've used.

By far the most reliable magazines are the two five-round Ruger magazines, but I also plink with a 30 round USA magazine with few problems.

So far as combat goes, I'm as much an advocate on being prepared as anyone, and I think that my mini-14 will be there if I ever needed it. The AR-15 is probably a little better in this department, but they are both semi-auto .223's that will perform exactly the same task should the need arise. The mini-14 is reliable and accurate enough that I wouldn't hesitate to depend on it.

I hunt (coyotes, groundhogs, and other little critters) with my mini- 14 all of the time, and the mini is a great rifle for closer range varmint shooting, especially predators that are called to within 100- 200 yards. I'm not too sure what some of the people I hunt on would say if they saw me carrying an AR-15 through the field, as anyone who watches only a little television can instantly recognize an AR as a "machine gun."

Do what you want with your mini-14, maybe clean it a little better and fire a few more (hundred) rounds to break it in, and I'll keep mine and continue to enjoy it.

-- Will Brantley (uncle_willy70@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.


as far as your mini-14 jamming, if the gun is new take it back, if you bought it used it sounds as if someone has messed up your gas. with the gas this keeps your gun firmly yet smoothly spitting out cartridges without jamming. you should have a gun-smith take a look at that. new or not, the gun shouldnt jam, and despite popular belief, does not need broken in to fire dependably. either way you go about it with AR-15, or a mini-14, you are shooting 223 ammo. for accuracy you may look into a longer extension barrel for your mini, the price would still be cheaper than buying an AR-15, and far more accurate. also try finding a certain type of ammo that groups better, wolf has been known to be bad ammo, the price should tell you that. the smaller grain bullet the easier it will be to be knocked of course of your target. getting clips, check your cabelas magazine, or any military surplus. hopefully this may be of some help, email me back if you have any questions, chaz6__8@hotmail.com

-- jason, fromkentucky (chaz6__8@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

hello,once again. to add to my previous response, do not use FMJ(full metal jacket) bullets for hunting, for most states i know it is illegal, check your local listings for more info. also about the clips, do not buy used clips, they have springs in them that weaken with time, especially if you keep your magazine loaded at all times. majority of the mini-14 clips run you anywhere from 28-30 dollars for a 30 rounder, or 18-20 dollars for a twenty rounder. expect to pay atleast a dollar a round for the clip. if you need more info. contact me, and i can have new clips sent to you, or as i earler stated look in cabelas magazine. a statement a person made was the magazine, cheaper than dirt, stray from them if at all possible, a lot of the times the freight of your shipping will cost you a pretty penny.

-- jason fromkentucky (chaz6__8@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

AK 47 in 223 sar three will give at least as good of results within 300 yrds as the ar or the mini for the price of the mini 14 and mags are cheaper then they are for the ar .

-- ely hoiland (elyhoiland@hotmail.com), December 25, 2001.

I loved my GB model Mini-14. It was marginally heavier than an AR15-A1, but more pleasant to shoot. I miss the distinctive "chink- chink" sound it made when shooting it. I still have eight Ramline 30- rd mags that all worked perfectly every time. (They are for sale.) I had no luck at all with six or seven USA mags, and neither did one buddy in his standard Mini-14, nor another buddy in his Ranch Rifle version.

-- John Roberts (jraptor@juno.com), January 01, 2002.

one problem with after market mags is that they are just plain junk! the ar 15 m 16 is a superb rifle once you take the time to learn this very unique fire arm.the u.s.g.i mags our highly thought after and can still be obtained for a reasonable sum.this is big part of battle getting all the mags you need.everything else is out their in large numbers as parts go.the jews put out a good mag for their rifle.orlite 30 rounder wich feeds the ar like a swiss clock.from what I understand about the THERMOULDS -Ther (melt) used by our canadian friend they melt when fired repeatly.the lips on the mag would get soft and would jam.the hot composite would start to stick to the rounds as they fed.cheaper then dirt doe,s carry a nice line up.but i recomend looking through shot gun news or gun list magazine wich has many sources you could look into for your needs.I own a ar 15 and two ak 47 rifles along with a few others.never had a mini 14.I had thought about it but thought i just should go for the gold,and glad i did.ar 15 can intimadate at first but give a little time and it,s just like the rest of them............................

-- d.m.davis (pinkstar168@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

D.M.Davis I was going back over what other had to say about the ar 15 and sks rifles.I to would suggest junking the mini-14 and looking into other options for a defensive weopon.I was just at a show over the weekend and also subscribe to numerous sources for guns and supply.recently varation of the SKS-Simminov rifle has come to the united states from yugoslavia.And can be purchased for around $165.00 .It already had a fixed mussle break and a neat little grenade launcher plus a fixed bayonet underneath.That uses the soviet 7x62x39 round wich is cheap and plentyfull.I mentioned in my last article my Ar-15 carbine and two Romainian Ak-47 rifles.But i also own a Romainian sks rifle and russian version wich was my first semi auto rifle.I can say that they are as others have told you a very good rifle.Plus can be adapted to use high Capacity Ak-47 magazines.You could also purchase them in the chinese tanker version already adapted for use with high capacity mags.There is even one with a fixed 20 round mag.Normally you will find them with the 10 round fixed mag.you can still find the romainian sks rifle for a sane price.But the yugo sks is pretty nice for the money and I don,t think they will last long.Another thought would be is a import M1 carbine with blue sky on barrel.30. cal carbine is a handy little rifle and is perfect for home defense.I own a m1 postal meter but rarelly fire it any more.But for around what you paid for the mini 14 you could pick one up.And you could use a 30 round G.I. mag in it for the m1.these still sell for under $20 and for about $8 YOU CAN USE G.I 15 rounder wich are in plenty.These rifle were issued to supply,cooks,and other support units for self protection.But as a combat weopon it has it,s draw backs.But I thought I make the suggestion.I,m a big eastern bloc weopons fan and think the 7x62x39 round is very effective.At the gun shows you can pick up the Ak 74 wich came after the Ak 47 wich uses the 5x45 round wich the russian federal troops use today.SAR 2 for around $380.00 plus 47 around the same price. SAR 1 7x62x39 ak ,sks use this round.Not the best target rifle but very effective in the urban sense.Takes practice and you can get plety of that for the price of the ammo.$84.00 for 1000 round $2.10 for twenty round.Cannot go wrong and 30 and 40 mags are plenty and plenty cheap.Never had a feed problem with any ever.And i have dozens of ak mags.just look around and ask questions and you will find what you need......My old ladies web site dave davis.....

-- David M.Davis (pinkstar168@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

I was going back over what other had to say about the ar 15 and sks rifles.I to would suggest junking the mini-14 and looking into other options for a defensive weopon.I was just at a show over the weekend and also subscribe to numerous sources for guns and supply.recently varation of the SKS-Simminov rifle has come to the united states from yugoslavia.And can be purchased for around $165.00 .It already had a fixed mussle break and a neat little grenade launcher plus a fixed bayonet underneath.That uses the soviet 7x62x39 round wich is cheap and plentyfull.I mentioned in my last article my Ar-15 carbine and two Romainian Ak-47 rifles.But i also own a Romainian sks rifle and russian version wich was my first semi auto rifle.I can say that they are as others have told you a very good rifle.Plus can be adapted to use high Capacity Ak-47 magazines.You could also purchase them in the chinese tanker version already adapted for use with high capacity mags.There is even one with a fixed 20 round mag.Normally you will find them with the 10 round fixed mag.you can still find the romainian sks rifle for a sane price.But the yugo sks is pretty nice for the money and I don,t think they will last long.Another thought would be is a import M1 carbine with blue sky on barrel.30. cal carbine is a handy little rifle and is perfect for home defense.I own a m1 postal meter but rarelly fire it any more.But for around what you paid for the mini 14 you could pick one up.And you could use a 30 round G.I. mag in it for the m1.these still sell for under $20 and for about $8 YOU CAN USE G.I 15 rounder wich are in plenty.These rifle were issued to supply,cooks,and other support units for self protection.But as a combat weopon it has it,s draw backs.But I thought I make the suggestion.I,m a big eastern bloc weopons fan and think the 7x62x39 round is very effective.At the gun shows you can pick up the Ak 74 wich came after the Ak 47 wich uses the 5x45 round wich the russian federal troops use today.SAR 2 for around $380.00 plus 47 around the same price. SAR 1 7x62x39 ak ,sks use this round.Not the best target rifle but very effective in the urban sense.Takes practice and you can get plety of that for the price of the ammo.$84.00 for 1000 round $2.10 for twenty round.Cannot go wrong and 30 and 40 mags are plenty and plenty cheap.Never had a feed problem with any ever.And i have dozens of ak mags.just look around and ask questions and you will find what you need......My old ladies web site dave davis.....

-- gunner dd (darkstar223@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

Hello, I am too looking for clips for my mini 14, I am Active Airforce and have had the opratunity to shoot many diffrent rifles, including M16-a2, AR15, and i own a mini 14. Ruger is known for making some of the finest quality metals in the industry, everyone that really know guns knows RUGER and MARLIN for their 22s. But neither one really make any larger caliber automatics except rugers Mini series.

FIRST LETS COMPARE APPLES WITH APPLES, On my opinion that mini 14 for the size it is, is the best gun there for a civilian shooter, they do make ARs more accurate, but then again they have 24 inch barrels, I can honnestly say that my Mini 14 (which is a carbine) is exactly the same length as M16 carbine and AR15 carbine and is more accurate than both because the barrel is 2 1/2 inches longer which makes a diffrence in stablizing the bullet for flight. They all seem to be comparing the bigger guns which are more accurate, but are not even in the same class as the ruger 14.

BESIDES when you walk down a street with a Mini 14, people dont pay too much attention to ya cause it looks like a hunting weapon, if you had an M16 or AR 15, people tend to get edgy because you have a WAR WEAPON in 223 caliber that is not commonly used to hunt deer or anything really.

223 is pretty accurate in alot of diffrent guns bot as far as the carbines go, AR15 And M16 have a 16 inch barrel, where as your Mini 14 has a 18 1/2 inch barrel for the same size (37 1/2inch) gun.

Check out GunAccessories.com for mags, keep in mind that ya get what you pay for, if you buy a cheap clip for any gun, it may jam, find a good one and stick with it!

See yas

Michael 7th CRS/LGMVR "DEATH FROM ABOVE"

-- Michael (MorsAbAlto@Hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.


I have had a stainless steel K-Mini14 for many years, i had a trigger job done for about 50 bucks and then after wearing the barrel out after about 15k rounds, i decided to put a carbon fiber barrel i had custom made for it, it shoots 1/4moa at 100 yards, and i woulndt trade it for an ar15 any day. mini14's are tricky when they are new, but once you get a few hundred rounds through one, you really notice a difference, i dont run a scope, just a peep site on the back and a ramp on the front, very simple, but there isnt a coyote one that i cant shoot in the eye with it, so im pretty pleased with what its become so far. as for the clips, i know they are hard to find when your looking for the ruger brand but there are plenty of aftermarket clips out there and i havent had any problems with my clips. i rutinly shoot 1 hole 5 round groups with it. so i dont care what anybody tells you, a mini14 is an accurate gun if you treat him right.

-John Stephens Longview, Tx

-- John Stephens (MrSnick292@aol.com), January 18, 2002.


Go to www.gunaccessories.com and buy the good John Mason 30rd.blue clips for 35 bucks each, the best mini clips. Bang them against your hand to seat the shells to the back of the clip as you load them.Rock the clip into place.Buy a Bullpup stock and have a short,decently accurate rifle that shoots well. Stay away from cheap clips.I have a mini and a 7.62 Ar15. I had the same problem with cheap mags in the Ar. both are good rifles but with the bullpup stock on the mini its half the length of the Ar and still has a full length barrel.Precision mag industries also make good mags but are about 50 bucks for stainless 30rds,they don't rust and can be stored....havent had any ammo problems with Wolf Russkie rounds. P.s. skip the bullpup if its post-ban and stay out of trouble.... Good luck.

-- kelliott (Jakel13814@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

Rift Between US Government and US Special Forces Rumsfeld orders "British" torture for Afghan prisoners of war Copyright Joe Vialls, 19 January 2002 May be reproduced unedited in the public interest Torturing Hooded Afghan Rumsfeld Torturing John Walker Did you ever wonder who provided you with the startling video of American John Walker being tortured by CIA operative Mike Spann, or those sickening pictures of hooded, chained, and drugged prisoners being herded onto American military aircraft at Kandahar Airport? Extraordinary though it may seem, these and other horrific images were deliberately leaked to you by members of US Special Forces, who had direct control of the areas where the images were produced. Considerably concerned by the actions of local CIA operatives, and certain illegal orders from Washington, members of Special Forces responded by leaking highly sensitive information to the public. Do not misunderstand me. American and other western Special Forces are not a crowd of harp-playing angels determined to protect the “human rights” of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Most members of Special Forces are seriously heavy duty soldiers who go about their business loaded for bear, and God help anyone who gets in their way. Nor are Special Forces averse to knocking captured members of the enemy around on the battlefield, if they believe that the enemy in question has tactical information that might reduce risks to their own unit. Many years ago I was stupid enough to volunteer for a “practice interrogation” at the hands of these folk; a mistake I remember vividly to this day because the details are etched in my memory. The main point to note is that although painful, my “practice interrogation” was swift and soon over. In a tactical battlefield situation, a soldier or airman is only reckoned to have information relevant for about 48 hours after capture, because grass roots military folk are never privy to long term strategic planning. Thus if a battlefield prisoner hasn’t spilled the beans inside 48 hours, chances are there are no useful beans left to spill. At that stage, Special Forces and other military units ship the captured enemy off to a normal prisoner-of-war facility. Put simply, soldiers are not “into” extended sensory deprivation, and other obscene forms of torture favored by psychiatrists and psychologists working for most of the intelligence agencies and security services. Details of this torture and its effects will be provided later in the report, but first we need to examine the ways in which the American military in faraway Afghanistan, alerted the American public at home by using members of the media as unwitting tools. Early on in the “War on Terror”, four hundred Taliban prisoners were transported by warlords to a fort outside Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan. The only cameras and long-range shotgun microphones present were in the hands of US Special Forces, who used them to film and catch the sound of CIA operative Mike Spann torturing “American Taliban” John Walker. Not long after that, someone chucked the so-called Taliban a few grenades which they used to stage a revolt against their captors, who at that time were gleefully pouring oil on the Taliban prisoners and lighting it with matches. A little later, the CIA’s Mike Spann was reportedly beaten to death, and the survivors of the revolt were shipped off to another prison camp. Under normal circumstances the footage and sound captured by Special Forces would be considered as top secret material, for Pentagon eyes only, especially as this footage showed the CIA torturing a prisoner. But these were not normal circumstances. A member of the CIA was torturing an American citizen in the presence of “allied” warlords, the latter directly responsible for supplying seventy percent of America’s heroin until 1995 (UN Estimate). So instead of sending the footage off in a diplomatic pouch to the Pentagon, Special Forces “lost it” in the immediate vicinity of the Kabul media pack. If action had not been taken when it was, there is a high probability John Walker would not have survived his “interrogation” by Mike Spann, and without the critical video footage you would never have known Walker ever existed. Next up we have the equally astonishing footage of so-called Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being led hooded, chained, and medically sedated, to an American C17 transport aircraft parked at Kandahar Airport at the dead of night. It was this footage in particular that caused such a huge fuss by human rights groups all over the world. This is not surprising, because without this video footage, few people would believe that Americans from the “Land of the Free” would indulge themselves in such barbaric behavior. So, were members of Special Forces responsible for taking this footage as well? No they were not, but Special Forces did have complete control of Kandahar Airport, meaning that they and only they controlled the flow of people in and out of the Airport proper. In this particular case, Special Forces “gave the nod” to the media, telling them what time to arrive, and where to point their cameras in order to get the best shots of the prisoners. This activity took place completely outside the US Government chain of command, and it was a while before Washington found out what had happened. Then US Government officials went ballistic. Unable to retrieve the footage from the various news organizations, officers nominated personally by Donald Rumsfeld frantically asked members of the media pack to sign an “undertaking” that they would not show the footage until they received permission. Too late! By then some of the footage had been transmitted by satellite, and had already been shown to a startled and outraged western public on international television. The Defense Secretary, officials, psychiatrists, and psychologists in Washington had several valid reasons to be alarmed, not least of which was the fact that this footage in isolation proves exactly what sort of torture was, and still is, intended for these prisoners. Military contacts have confirmed that far from being the “very, very dangerous” men claimed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, most of the prisoners taken to Cuba are low grade fighters and others, i.e. those most likely to “crack” under sustained cruelty, and sign false confessions of the kind needed by Washington to ramp up its flagging “War on Terror”. Interrogators have been told the confessions must be ready by September at the latest. Exactly how psychological torture will be used to extract the required confessions is explained further down this page, but first we have to consider why the US Government needs confessions all. At present the US Government is using inference, innuendo, and outright lies to bolster its ridiculous claim that a bunch of Arab Terrorists were responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, story here. . There has never been any hard evidence to support this wild and inaccurate claim, so as usual, the US Government is planning one of its more spectacular “Trials by Media” later this year. In the dock on 14 October [shortly after the first anniversary of the World Trade center attack] will be one Zacarius Moussaoui, who was arrested on immigration charges on 17 August 2001, nearly a month before the attacks, and who has now been charged with “conspiracy” in those attacks. The case against Moussaoui is pitifully weak, with no hard or even corroborative evidence that he knew what al Qaeda was, much less that he was part of the alleged organization. In any case, how can a man firmly in US custody at the time of the attacks be a suspect? Zacarious Moussaoui Richard Colvin Reid In a court nearby will be Richard Colvin Reid, the alleged “Shoe Bomber” on American Airlines Flight 63, said to have tried to light his shoe in flight in order to blow up the aircraft. The US Government is now trying to invent “links” to al Qaeda, the principle claim being that Reid worshipped at the same London Mosque as Moussaoui during late 1998. So what? I visited Westminster Abbey the same year as Queen Elizabeth the Second, but I never met Her Majesty personally, and neither of us are members of the mysterious al Qaeda. You can see the way this is going, can’t you? One creative false link at a time, until we have enough creative false links to finally convince a skeptical American public that the official lie of October 2001, should be accepted as the actual truth in October 2002. But the huge problem facing the US Government is that neither Moussaoui or Reid have actually been seen in the company of Osama Bin Laden, or even in Afghanistan, though we do know the Israelis shipped Reid to Israel for a week aboard one of their very own El Al jets. This total absence of any proof that either man was connected to al Qaeda is where the prisoners kidnapped to Cuba finally come into the picture – God help them. Before September is out, the American Federal Prosecution will have signed confessions which “prove” some of the men held in Cuba personally helped to train Moussaoui and Reid in terrorist techniques, with others possibly providing flight instruction, bomb making, and so on. All lies of course, but the US Government doesn’t care about that. Think about it people, think about it! What other possible reason can there be for importing these Afghans and Arabs into Cuba, after kidnapping them overseas? If they were the “very, very dangerous” men claimed by Rumsfeld, they would have been left to the tender mercies of the drug-running warlords recently restored to power by the CIA. Believe me when I say that justice would then have been incredibly swift, incredibly terminal, and no drain on the American taxpayer at all. To discover exactly how the “disappeared” will be made to “confess”, we need to go back in history to the seventies, when the British Government made a conscious decision to psychologically torture twelve suspected members of the Irish Republican Army. Remember very carefully here that, like the prisoners in Cuba, those tortured in Ireland had not been convicted of any crime. Indeed, none had even been charged with a crime. Also like the prisoners in Cuba, hoods, restraints and noise all played a significant part. Here are some subjective comments from one of the tortured Irishmen:- “Plain-clothes men beside us. Four blue bags produced and put over our heads. Short of breath because of bag. Then released from handcuffs which connected one to the others and hands handcuffed in front individually. Then run across field to 'copter. Landed, did not know where. Lorry backed up to 'copter. Taken out and thrown into back of lorry, like a sack of potatoes. Lorry smelt of cow dung. Driven in lorry for about 100 yards. Pulled out of lorry (bag still over head) marched into some sort of building. Stripped naked, examined by doctor. Bag still over head. Put lying on bed and examined. Overalls (I later discovered) put on me, taken into room. Noise like compressed-air engine in room. Very loud, deafening. “Hands put against wall. Legs spread apart. Head pulled up by bag and backside pushed in. Stayed there for about four hours. Could no longer hold up arms. Fell down. Arms put up again. Hands hammered until circulation restored. This happened continually for twelve or fourteen hours, until I eventually collapsed. Thinking how that Paisley had seized power in some way and that I would be executed or tortured to death. Started to pray very hard. Mouth dried up. Couldn't get moisture in mouth. Pulse taken. Thought of a youngster who had died at six months old, started to pray that God would give me strength that I would not go insane. Fell down several times more. Slapped back up again. This must have gone on for two or three days; I lost track of time. No sleep. No food. Knew I had gone unconscious several times, but did not know for how long. One time I thought, or imagined, I had died…” Detainees disembarking RAF helicopter sans hoods, Northern Ireland Dr. O'Malley was the first medical man to see any of the men who had undergone the SD [sensory deprivation] torture. He saw two of the original twelve men in Crumlin Road jail sixteen days after their ordeal, and one other somewhat later. He estimated that all three had developed a psychosis within the first day of interrogation. “The psychosis consisted of loss of sense of time, perceptual disturbances leading to visual and auditory hallucinations, profound apprehension and depression, and delusional beliefs – e.g. hearing Paisley [A Protestant Minister] lead an evangelical choir intent on slaughtering Catholics.” Of the three men, O'Malley gave as his opinion that one would recover completely, one would possibly recover but the process would be lengthy, and one was in need of urgent psychiatric assistance if he was to make a full recovery. Despite the doctor's recommendations, nothing was done and all were subsequently moved from Crumlin jail to Long Kesh [an internment camp]. In his book “The Guinea Pigs” (1974), author John McGuffin goes a long way towards explaining exactly how this type of psychological torture works. “Sensory deprivation (SD) refers literally to the artificial deprivation of the senses – auditory, visual, tactile and kinesthetic. In connection with the Northern Ireland 'guineapigs' it meant (1) hooding prisoners prior to their interrogation; (2) constant use of a sound machine which produces white noise', a high pitched hissing, mushy sound; (3) long periods of immobilization, being forced to lean against a wall, legs wide apart with only the fingertips touching the wall; (4) little or no food or drink; and (5) being forced to wear loose overalls, several sizes too big. In addition, (6) prisoners were deprived of sleep for days on end; while not technically SD this accentuates the process. "There is a purpose behind all these actions. Measures (1), (2), (3) and (5) cause visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile deprivation while measures (4) and (6) deprive the brain of oxygen and sugar necessary for normal functioning. In addition, measures (1), (4) and (6) may disturb the normal body metabolism. Hooding causes an imbalance in the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the air breathed and this causes mental confusion. The wall-standing, which is deliberately made to sound so innocuous by apologists like Sir Edmund Compton is extremely painful – especially when accompanied by beatings – and causes, in addition to fatigue and swollen wrists and ankles, poor circulation of the blood which leads to a reduced supply of oxygen and sugar to the brain. The restricted and in some cases almost non-existent diet was also sugar-free (Storr has pointed out that the brain needs three things if it is to function efficiently: sensory stimulation, sugar and oxygen).” The Irish Government later made a formal complaint to the European Commission for Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The Commission found Britain guilty of torture. Where the prisoners in Cuba are concerned, the US Government is already guilty on more than a single count. In 1975 the United Nations defined torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons…Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The US Government’s use of isolation units in Cuba breaks two United Nations Covenants against Torture, and the UN Covenant for the Treatment of Prisoners, both of which the United States has signed. By now, most readers will appreciate the incredibly awkward position Special Forces placed the US Government in when it allowed the prisoners to be filmed boarding the C17 Transport at Kandahar Airport, and leaked details about the sedatives administered to them. Here was almost a carbon copy of the torture conducted in Northern Ireland: The same hoods, the same restraints, and 30 hours or more of high pitched aircraft noise on the way to Cuba substituting for the “White Noise” used by British security psychiatrists and psychologists. Though detailed information about the psychological torture in Northern Ireland has largely receded into the back rooms of Irish pubs and remote corners of the Internet, the US Government is very aware that, back in the seventies, the British Government faced an avalanche of adverse publicity. Hated though the IRA was in many quarters, there was no excuse for this shocking use of psychological torture against mere suspects of terrorism – some of them only teenagers. No doubt in the fullness of time the US Government will face its own avalanche of adverse publicity, which will be richly deserved. In judging its progress to date where the “War on Terror” is concerned, it seems likely that Washington is listening more to the fawning comments of external supporters in the “International Community” than it is to its own citizens, which in the long term could prove to be a fatal error of judgement. One such fawning external country is Australia, where the Attorney General, Queens Counsel Mr Daryl Williams, has recently made it quite clear that whatever the Americans want to do to their illegal prisoners, that’s OK by Australia. With reference to “Australian Taliban” David Hicks, Mr Williams stated: "You have to be realistic about the nature of the potential threat that the prisoners who have been transferred to Cuba represent …. they have been trained to be terrorists and to act in accordance with the objectives of al Qaeda. That makes them about as dangerous as a person can be in modern times." Trained? By whom, when, where, and what are the charges? Apparently in their “Queens Counsel 101” courses, Australian law schools neglect to mention the need for evidence. The prisoners kidnapped and flown under strict sensory deprivation conditions to Cuba, where they are now housed in diminutive cages open to the elements, are not dangerous persons at all. More dangerous by far are politicians of any nation who try to invent fictional “terrorists” in order to further their own political careers or other ambitions, and others who cite the conveniently invented “terrorists” to force additional Draconian controls over ordinary members of the public. It seems likely that David Hicks will be released into Australian custody sometime during the next few months, in order to be tried on some trumped-up charge around October 2002, the same time as the mammoth “Trial by Media” of Moussaoui and Reid in America. Combined with other trials in countries including Great Britain, the last quarter of 2002 promises to break all records for pure media hype and social engineering. Regardless of what Australia or other obsequious countries might say or do, now or in the future, where the Afghan prisoners are concerned the US Government is acting specifically “in the name of the American people”. Many Americans are of Irish descent, and many took deep offence to British behavior in Northern Ireland. There is no credible reason to believe that American citizens in general will condone Rumsfeld’s torture of the Afghans simply because they are “not Irish”, nor because they are Muslims rather than Catholics or Protestants. Perhaps most important of all, the US Government is forcing members of the US military to behave in ways which offend their rigid training and discipline. It is perfectly alright to shoot a man dead in combat if he is shooting at you, and it is perfectly alright to wound a man in combat if he is trying to wound you. On the flip side of the coin, torturing suspects for purely political reasons is not alright under any military code ever written, and it seems likely there will be more “breaches of discipline” if the United States Government is not very careful in the future.



-- Rumsfeld orders "British" torture for Afghan prisoners of war (Rumsfeld@orders.com), January 19, 2002.


I recently bought a mini14 myself,and noticed that when new, the slide wont lock forward unless you let it "slap" forward. The mini is a great gun. especially for those of us who live in "cant have shit" california, where if you even mention the words "AR", or "30rd clip" you'll probably get arrested! I hate livin here. I got the mini 14 because its practically the only halfway tactical rifle you can get.It looks sporty,the caliber is nice, and for the most part, after breaking it in it is a very reliable firearm.I comend those of you fortunate enough to live in the states that allow you to have the lovely M-4 carbine, the ar-15 and all of her sisters.I'm looking to make my m14 a little sharper with a nice tactical stock, but the only ones I find aren't that nice. I also don't want to use a bullpup stock because I am a left hand shooter. If any one has info on thesetopics, or if you know of a LEGAL way for me to own an AR-15 in Cali, please email me back. thanks Niccolo.

-- Niccolo Banks (castortroy442@hotmail.com), June 15, 2002.

Hey Niccolo~

I know a way for you to legally acquire and own an AR-type rifle with high capacity magazines in California. Join the police department!

I'm with you. This state sucks. I'm lucky enough to have purchased my Bushmaster AR with numerous real magazines before the ban. My mom has a Ruger mini-14 and it sucks next to my AR. The AR feels better and is far more reliable and accurate. I can go on about the beauty of the AR, but I don't want to make you or myself cry.

Here's what you need to do:

Make sure you're registered to vote and vote for Bill Simon for governor in the Novemeber election. I know, he looks like a dumbass, but I'm voting for him simply because Gray Davis signed the "Assault Weopon" ban. If a governor like Davis lost an election because of gun control issues, it would probably kill gun control in California. Think about it! Can you imagine if an idiot crook like Simon won in Ca just because people feared more gun control from Davis! Politicians would be terrified of gun control!

So, gather up as many voters as you can and join me on Nov 5, 2002 to help vote gun control out of California politics. And joining the CRPA wouldn't hurt either!

Sergio

behind enemy lines

-- Sergio Lobina (junior223@aol.com), July 20, 2002.


Hey everybody I dont type well and dont normaly awnser on these things just read and learn. I have to write on this one because I own both a mini14 and an ar15 w/16 inch barrel. The mini out of the box was flawless in function accuracy wasnt to bad either 2-3 inch groups with about any ammo and 0 jams with factory mags. The barrel does heat up fairly quick but it is thin/light. The gun is simple and solid. The magazines are much easier to change on the ar and much easier to find good ones. For the mini 14, it seems to be little known on the web, look for john mason mags and try a couple. I have had a couple of them that did not fit in the gun properly. However the people I bought them from at the gun shows traded them out for me other than that the several I have rat holed work and look identical to the factory ones. I do agree that my ar 15 is more accurate than my mini 14 but once you get good magazines they both function flawlessly. I think as far as a complete cleaning I much prefer the mini, alot less parts. To work on in the field the ar breaks in the middle and is very easy to see down the barrel and do a quick clean job on. The accuracy of the mini 14 is acceptable now. Right around an inch now. The modifications were read every article the search engines could find on it and then some draw conclussions then got out the tools mainly lapping the gas block to the barrel and re torquing it and fitting the op rod to seat squarely on the gas block when it comes back forward. If you search the net enough, I dont remember where I found them there were pictures showing what Im talking about. My ar was about twice as expensive as my mini but after spending a little not alot of time on the mini it is my opinion I could trust my life to either. The key to making the mini 14 reliable is in finding high qualit mags. I paid 23 each for the john mason ones at a table just last month normally i had seen them for about twice that. Good luck and if money is the thing do some research before you spend it on the mini or you will end up wasting enough to by an ar. p.s. Both guns are a blast and on the ammo thing all the newer minis have been changed to a barrel twist of 1 in 10

-- Matt Shepherd (mattandcamie@netzero.com), December 22, 2003.

My experience with the mini 14 is limited but I do own several other similar firearms. I love the AR 15. I have a DPMS Panther Car version that cost me around $650.00. But it can be somewhat picky about ammo and is a bit more time consuming to clean. I also feel that .223 (5.45x39) is at the bottom end of an acceptable anti- personnel round and you will definitley need to make well-placed shots on large game. I have both a Romanian AK 47 varient and a MAK 90. The Mak 90 was about $150 more for an excellent condition used rifle but the quality is vastly superior to the Romanian. These are some of the most durable, simple and reliable rifles made. I prefer the stopping power of 7.62 x39 (.30 caliber). However, if you are worried about ammunition availability they are available in .223. I also suspect if we were invaded by a foriegn power it would be highly likey that the AK would be the weapon of choice. It is probably the most popular military rifle in the world. I also have a CETME, which is similar to the HK 91 and uses the same NATO round as the M-14 which is the .308 or 7.62x51. This is a high- powered, .30 caliber, round that is accurate for at least 500 meters and can be used to hunt large game such as deer. There is also an AK variant that uses this round as well as the AR 10 wich is nearly identical to the Ar 15. The .308 is an excellent all purpose round and is available in a number of quality rifles including everything from single shots and bolt actions to full blown military assault rifles. All variations are generally more expensive. But you should be able to find a good CETME for under $400.00 Also the magazines are readily available and dirt cheap. I talking often less than $10 a magazine. They use a delayed roller blow back system which is incredibly durable and reliable even under extreme conditions or when the rifle is very dirty. The only real downside to any .308 assault rifle, IMHO, is that they are slightly larger and heavier, generally 20-round magazines are far more plentiful than 30-rounders, ammo is more expensive and there would not likely be as much of it laying around a battlefield. It is however a fairly old round and is used by most governments, frequently as a sniper round. As you can see there a large number of available options all of which are good. You just have to weight all of the alternatives and pick the rifle that best fits your needs and desires. Good Luck

-- D Mar (codek289@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ