This is a comparison of a Stag 16 inch barrel M4 clone (Model 1) and a composite Superior Arms lower/Armalite A2 upper AR15 A2 flat top rifle to two Ruger Mini-14 Series 580 rifles. Both Mini-14s are stainless steel, one is in a wood stock, the other in a synthetic stock.
For accuracy testing the load used is a Hornady 55 grain FMJBT over 27 grains of Winchester 748. The cartridge cases are commercial Winchester, the primers CCI.
I will rate the rifles on field durability, ergonomics, handling qualities, sight picture, accuracy (hot and cold) and reparability.
Both Mini-14 rifles have each fired just over 2,000 rounds. The Stag M4 has fired just over 2,500 rounds. The Armalite has seen only 200 rounds.
Field durability:
The Mini-14s are almost impervious to the amount of lubricant, they run well dry or lubricated. I did not pour dirt or sand into my rifles, nor did I abuse them by running them with improper lubricant. The observation: My Mini-14s will run with no lubrication or cleaning for well over a thousand rounds of Wolf ammunition with no problem. There was no failure, I cleaned them because I felt at about 1,200-1,400 rounds the gun needed it to insure there was no damage caused by a gross need for cleaning and lubrication. The AR15 rifles have never fired Wolf, just the above reload. The Stag requires lubrication (minimal, a drop or two of CLP to the carrier holes) about every 400-500 rounds to allow the bolt carrier to travel properly in the firing cycle; otherwise it will start to allow failure of the bolt carrier to properly lock open on the last shot. A decent cleaning seems to be required every 1,000 rounds or so. If this is overlooked, bolt hold open failure and a failure to eject once or twice per magazine is likely to occur. The Armalite has not been fired enough to postulate an opinion on long term cleaning, but the rifle has required no cleaning or lubrication for its first 200 rounds.
Sights:
The Mini-14 sights remind me of the old M1 Carbine sight picture; pretty good for 100 to 150 yards, but not great for longer distances.
AR15 sights have a large close in aperture for 100 yards or so and closer. There is a finer aperture for 200yards and 300 meter shooting (the distances at which I mostly shoot offhand). For my eyes, these apertures in combination with the front sight blade/protective ears picture form an almost perfect aiming reference for the use intended. I truly feel the sights on the AR15 are some of the finest ever issued on a combat rifle, giving an excellent sight picture for close in (under 100 yards) and distance shooting scenarios, which to me, is 200 yards to a max of 300 meters with irons.
Ergonomics:
Both the AR15 and Mini-14 platforms have very good ergonomics. They each require familiarization time, with the AR requiring just a little more so IMO. To me, both represent very good ergonomic platforms, on a par with the best of any military type firearms.
Handling qualities:
All of these comments are based on some varmint hunting field carry, but mostly on offhand shooting at the ranges indicated.
The Mini-14s are lighter and faster to shoulder for me. At 100 yards and under their sights present very well. The AR15 A2 and the M4 present their sites very well at 100 yards, they just do not shoulder as fast. For me, it is the pistol grip that slows it down. Thus, for close in shooting the Mini-14 wins for me.
Now, let’s move to 200 yards and 300 meters. For me, at these ranges, the faster handling qualities of the Mini-14s is more than offset by the decent handling qualities of the AR15s and their superior long distance sights. For me, in offhand snap shots, the 300 meter capabilities of the AR platform far exceed those of the Mini-14, whereas at 200 yards the two are not that far apart, but at this range the AR still wins for me.
Reparability:
Both rifles are easy to field strip; neither has an advantage over the other in my opinion. The ease with which one can get at the major components for field cleaning and maintenance is on a par with any other military rifle. For parts replacement the AR has the edge, as very little hand fitting is required and all subcomponents can be removed with relative ease in comparison with some parts in the Mini-14.
Accuracy:
The following accuracy observations were made following 100 yard bench rest group shots over sandbags. The Mini-14s and the ARs both got 4x scopes, a Burris on the Minis and a Leupold on the ARs. This is the only time I’ve scoped these rifles, so I am not commenting on their handling qualities when scoped from extensive experience with them in this mode. However, a quick impression (and a long history of scope use on standard hunting rifles) gives the Mini-14 the edge for me in regards to rifle/sight system handling qualities (rapidity of shouldering, ease of target acquisition) when scoped.
Cold barrel:
These are ten shot groups fired in two subgroups with at least 1 minute between shots in each 5 shot group, then a 5 minute cool down and the second 5 shot string.
The wood stocked Mini-14 is as good as any standard AR. The ARs and this Mini give consistent 2 MOA when fired in this fashion with the load cited above. The synthetic stocked Mini gives 2.5-3 MOA.
Warm barrel:
The warmth of the barrel is determined by placing the index finger cuticle area either on or as near to the barrel as is feasible without a burn.
This is 10 shots with 30 seconds between shots. Here the big loser is the synthetic stocked Mini. Somewhere between shots 5 and 7 it opens up on the vertical and shifts a little right to double its group size to 5-6 MOA.
The wood stocked Mini and both ARs tested do not change their groups POI at all, both open a little to average around 2.5-3 MOA. One can see warming of the barrel does have an influence on all the rifles tested.
Hot barrel:
Here I fire twenty shots as fast as I can obtain a decent sight picture. I then reload and fire 20 more shots in the same fashion. This actually comes out to a shot about every 10-15 seconds. At the end of firing, all the rifle barrels are hot to the touch, but the Ruger barrels are slightly darker in hue and would immediately burn the hand that touched them. The AR15 barrels are also capable of burning your hand, but are not quite as hot. Interestingly, the Ruger barrels are cooler to the touch 15 minutes after cessation of firing than the AR barrels. In the second magazine, the synthetic stocked Mini-14 throws 2-3 rounds into the flyer category, departing the 5-6 MOA group by 2-3 inches, usually to the right and high. The wood stocked Mini and both ARs open their groups to about 4 MOA, with the Mini having 1-2 outside shots that could make the overall group one of 6 MOA. To me, there is no question that for sustained fire, the AR is the platform of choice.
SUMMARY:
Strengths of the Mini-14
1] Lighter than the ARs.
2] Shoulders very quickly.
3] Requires less care and cleaning to keep it running.
4] Ease of handling when scoped.
Strengths of AR15
1] Excellent iron sight system, provides for better long range accuracy.
2] Capable of retaining accuracy as barrel heats.
Which firearm would I retain over the other?
For hunting I want a Mini. However, forced to make a choice of the two, and realizing this is not only a hunting scenario but also an “in general” one, I would state the following.
I would keep my ARs. The only situation in which I would relinquish an AR for a Mini would be protracted situations where the care and cleaning of the firearm becomes impossible (a log term wilderness camping situation or use as an aircraft survival weapon). For me, its accuracy potential makes the Mini-14 a 200 yard weapon. For general weapons applications where care and cleaning can be kept up, the AR provides a better platform IMO; its iron sighting system truly effective at 300 meters is coupled with its ability to provide sustained accurate fire. Also, while it does not handle a scope as well as a Mini-14 for me, the scoped AR platform is quite usable, and the handling qualities of such would improve with use.
