G-MAN

Even though I concede the rationale behind it, I've never liked the stock handguard that covers the exposed section of the operating rod. I decided to try the Choate ventilated hanguard and I'm very pleased. Now my Mini-14 looks like it should, with all the Garand action out there for everyone to see.

Anyone ever seen the movie "The Sentinel"? Early in the movie a Secret Service agent is murdered on his front porch. While the local cops are investigating the crime scene, two Secret Service agents show up. The lead agent (Keifer Sutherland) notes that the safety on the dead agent's pistol is still on. The cop says they figured he was drawing his gun and didn't have time to flick off the safety. Keifer Sutherland then looks at the female agent (Eva Longoria) and asks her to explain why that is unlikely. She explains that the police academy teaches officers to draw their weapon and flick off the safety in two distinct moves "to avoid accidental shootings." She says the Secret Service academy teaches agents to draw and flick off the safety in one move, therefore if the dead agent's safety is still on, he did not try to draw his gun before being shot. This all sounds terribly legit, but there is just one problem. The Secret Service standard sidearm is the SIG P229 in .357 SIG. This gun HAS NO SAFETY. It is a DA/SA semi-auto with a decocker. It is carried hot with the hammer down. The SIGs used by the Secret Service in the movie are all P228s, but they are functionally identical to the P229. No safety. I've seen this movie several times and this major blooper never hit me until now because I just got a SIG P225 and started doing some research on SIG pistols.

How nice for you.

I just got back from the range and I'm in luv with this SIG P225. Look at the following target. The single stack magazine holds 8 rounds and this is the first 8 rounds I fired out of the gun. Range is 15 yards and I was using a modified Weaver stance. I have never picked up any handgun and shot it this well the first time. After a few more magazines I decided to try some semi-rapid fire. Here are two magazines fired semi-rapid fire: I fired a total of 50 rounds through it with no misfeeds of any kind. What a great gun.

I picked up this SIG P6 (P225) last week on Gun Broker. Ad said it was "like new" and "looked unfired" and that is an accurate description. I just finished striping and cleaning it and the Nitron finish isn't even worn off on the barrel feed ramp. This is one of the surplus German police pistols that are being imported. Some of these pistols saw a lot of use, others were issued to cops that rode a desk. Clearly mine was the latter. It doesn't even have any holster wear. I was super impressed with the quality of this pistol, inside and out. I can see now where SIG gets its reputation. And it's got the best SA trigger pull of a DA auto I've ever felt. And the best DA pull, period. Beats my Ruger P95 hands down. Off to the range tomorrow if the weather cooperates.

I decided on a Bushnell Banner 4x32. These scopes are popular around here on slug guns. Supposed to be tough. It looks good on the rifle. I'll sight it in at the range later this week if the weather cooperates.

It's sorta what you'd get if you wanted to turn the Mini-14 into a tactical sniper rifle. Some of the most expensive stuff are the Accuracy System mods you can't see.

Here's proof that if you spend enough money you can have a sub MOA Mini-14. This one is modified by Accuracy Systems. The scope is a custom made, one-off by U.S Optics. The scope alone was $2500.

I think this Dan Wesson barrel has got that one beat. This is from an article published in the early 80s and is one of the things that sold me on DW revolvers. Note the "no damage done to the gun or shooter."

When I was shopping around for a new Mini-14 I noticed one vendor who sells on Gun Broker said that "not many people know this" but the blue Mini-14s are really stainless. I dismissed this as puffery until I got mine, and now I think he may be right. Compared with the bluing on older, first generation Mini-14s, the bluing on my gun looks very pedestrian. In fact, it isn't blue at all; it's black. And judging from the bright spots already showing on the bolt, it wears off easily. This really looks like some kind of coating rather than bluing. And I know that Ruger can do a blackened stainless, because they sell the SR9 with a "Nitrodox Pro Black finish" on the stainless slide. Thoughts? Anyone ever heard that the newer blue Minis are stainless?

Nope. The only Mini-14 that is chambered ONLY for .223 Remington is the Target version. All others are chambered for and can shoot both 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington.

Very well stated, and I agree with you 100%. The only reason I'm going to put an [inexpensive] scope on the Mini-14 is for target shooting at the range. As I said in another post, the range I use is not set up for iron sights. You have to shoot from the bench through a long, dark concrete pipe. The targets are anywhere from 50 to 200 yds in an open field, fully illuminated by sunlight. Trying to pick out a small bullseye that is in full sunlight while looking through that dark pipe with iron sights is very difficult for my half-century old eyes. The nice thing about Ruger's scope rings is that they are quick detach, so when I bring the rifle back home and it assumes its home defense role, the scope will come off.

Noise control, maybe? I don't know. I'll take my camera next time I go and get a few pics.

I think "derived from the Garand action" would be a better way to characterize the Mini-14. The gun itself is not based on either the M1 or the M14. The bolt and carrier are pure M1/M14 with the exception of the change made to the ejector with the introduction of the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Where Ruger made a significant change from the M14 was in the gas system. Ruger uses a fixed piston and a self adjusting, moving gas cylinder. I have read that if Ruger had begun development of the AC556/Mini-14 ten years before they did, there is a very good chance the rifle you see our troops carrying today would be some version of the Mini-14 instead of some version of Eugene Stoner's AR15.

I took it to the range today. I was shooting 2" groups with it at 50 yards once I got it sighted in. Same problem as I had with the Mini-14: eyes watering like crazy because of the wind blasting down the pipe you have to shoot through. I'm becoming convinced that this range is just not set up for shooting iron sights. You're under a cover, looking down that dark pipe, trying to pick out a small target in an open field that is in full sun light. Your eyes are adjusted to the shade and darkness so the target just whites out when you try to put the sights on it.

Here's some pics:

I enjoy shooting with a scope, so I'm going to put an inexpensive one on there just for "target plinking." But the nice thing about Ruger's scope mounts is that they're relatively easy to take on and off.

I'm not going to obsess over accuracy. I got the gun for home defense in a worst case scenario situation (rule of law breaks down) and for plinking. Another thing to keep in mind is that 3x3 group is not only open sights staring into a frigid 20 knot wind, but there are 20 holes in that target. That was an entire magazine. The last 5 rounds fired are all within 1.5" of the center.

.223 Remington. I'm starting to wish I'd gotten it in 7.62x39. If it's as accurate in that caliber as the one in .243 the guy shoots on YouTube it would make a decent deer rifle.

This a really nice gun for the money. The spiral hammer forged barrel is really unique. The oil finished walnut stock is gorgeous with lots of graining. I had read some reviews of these guns that said the trigger was stiff and heavy with a lot of creep. Not this one. It breaks clean with virtually no take up. I'd say the pull is about 4 lbs. I'll take it to the range tomorrow and see how it shoots.

Yes. I don't think that's too bad for iron sights under the conditions I was trying to shoot. Heck, my eyes were watering so badly I could just barely make out the target, much less the bullseye. Plus it's the first time I've shot this rifle--or any Mini-14. (And it's more like a 3x3 group.) I think with a scope this gun will be capable of <2 MOA at 100 yds.

Took my new Mini-14 to the range this morning to sight in the iron sights. It was cold and the wind was blowing. Plus, you fire through about a 20 foot length of concrete pipe that is buried in the berm. The wind was blasting down that pipe right into my face and my eyes were watering the whole time so it was hard to see the target. Anyhow, enough excuses... It took 20 rounds to sight it in. I used Monarch brass, 55 gr FMJBT to sight it in. Then I fired 20 rounds of Monarch steel, 55 gr FMJ. No misfeeds of any kind. This is the 20 rounds of Monarch steel at 40 yards:

I've never had or fired a pump shotgun, so learning trap and an unfamiliar action style at the same time would not be a good idea, IMO. So I think it will either be an O/U or an auto. What about a used Beretta 390 Super Trap with an adjustable stock?

So do you want a straight comb for a trap gun?

Another thing I noticed: The Mini-14 has a free floating firing pin just like the Garand and M14. This is one of the reasons it's generally recomended that you only fire military ball with hard primers in these guns. But Ruger says you can fire standard .223 Remington or 5.56 military in the Mini-14. So why is the Mini-14 immune to slam fires from std ammo and the Garand and M14 are not?