Mini 14 Ranch info, input, & leads wanted---barrel length

[1RugerFan_33]

Acquired a 2nd mini 14 223 Ranch awhile back (sold the 1st, an older model, due to lack of accuracy, what else?). Following posts here---Voyager28 & DGW, specifically, thanks for the fresh info/perspective!---am pleased so far with this newer one, and have started tweaking it, for better accuracy. Almost done, but need some input, and maybe a lead or two.

Having installed a Weigand mount & rings (recommend his stuff highly), as the peep sights are of no use to these eyes, I intend to go a little further. The bushings for one, MAYBE a buffer---dunno bout that. But, I am thinking about reducing the barrel length, to 16 1/2"---or?---and maybe have it threaded (you never know; might come in handy someday). For me---and a disability---weight is everything; every little bit helps/counts (just ask a backpacker). But I have also read that taking off 1" or 2" actually helps the mini, due to harmonics.

What I want to know is, have any of you done this? Results? I know I said I have read stuff elsewhere...but I don't use those boards like this one...I trust the input here; feel like I "know" some of you enough to trust the feedback...hope that makes sense.

I consider the mini as it sets to be a 200yrd piece...more than that, I dunno; I think the gun is more capable than me/my eyes, so I don't think the velocity loss matters much, from what I know of such...thoughts?

And as to having the work done...would like to have it done, if indeed it does get done, without shipping it...In WI, so am just wondering if anyone knows of a local (in the state) 'smith that maybe they have worked with/have experience that might be up to the task?

As an aside...tested this mini out just before the snow flew...no malfunctions in 200 rds, and have a photo to post, if ever I am able, of the girlfriend's shots @ a 3" SHOOT-N-C target @ 68 yrds, from a rest (what was there to work with), with the factory peep sights. Using LOTS of "Kentucky windage (forgot the allen wrench :roll: ) ...& she, much better shot than I...could put four/five rounds inside that circle, once she had it "figured" :wink:

And that was nice, steady, aimed fire with cheap 55gr ball (trying heavier/"better" stuff later, once it's all "together"/as i'd like it)...no long rest between shots.

The new-improved Mini WILL shoot

 

[Voyager28]

Congrats on the new Rancher. It sounds like you on the right track with the tweaks. For me, the most significant thing I did was install a reduced size Gas Bushing. Very easy to do and really reduces vibration and harmonics. Plus, the brass now fall at my feet instead of the next zip code.

Recoil buffer also reduced vibration and keeps the bolt from contacting the rear of the receiver when cycling which has to greatly reduce wear and tear.

After these tweaks I am holding 2" patterns at 200 yards. Like you, the old eyes aren't what they used to be so I put on a 4-12 X 42 Redfield Battle Zone scope. Last few times to the range I've left several AR shooters scratching their heads. :lol:

Keep us informed as you progress and let us know how everything works. Haven't see or heard of anyone cutting the barrel but would be really to read the results if you decide to do it.

Bob

 

[DGW1949]

Just to hit the high spots:

I'm not up on all of the in's 'n out's of barrel length relative to harmonics on the Mini but I do know that the things are allready perty-dern loud as it is :lol: .

Can't help with a local gunsmith either....but...if it was me, this is the guy I'd be getting ahold of:
http://www.greatwestgunsmithing.com/mini14.htm
406-266-4224....ask for Mr Baker.

The barrel gas vent hole on my 582-series 5.56 Ranch Rifle measures .070 and it came with a .099 gas bushing. I replaced that one with a .050 bushing which calmed-down the action quite a lot.

I'm presently experimenting with a Wilson 1911 buffer just to see for myself how much firing it can withstand. About all I can say so far is that the gun runs 100% with it or without it, so having it in there hasn't hurt anything.

I don't know anything about Ruger's plastic or laminated stocks but if your's has the regular wooden stock, I'd almost bet a paycheck that it'll need to be bedded before you can get all of the accuracy that the gun is capable of.

All I shoot out of my own Mini is Lake City Mil-spec ammo. It likes the 62 Grn better than the 55 .

Hope this helped.

DGW

 

[blume357]

I cut the barrel down on a Mini... actually paid for it and it really did not help on that one... neither did the high end bedding that made it a total pain to take down and clean.

 

[Voyager28]

Just to hit the high spots:

The barrel gas vent hole on my 582-series 5.56 Ranch Rifle measures .070 and it came with a .099 gas bushing. I replaced that one with a .050 bushing which calmed-down the action quite a lot.

All I shoot out of my own Mini is Lake City Mil-spec ammo. It likes the 62 Grn better than the 55 .

DGW

In the beginning I also went with a .050 Gas Bushing but then stepped it down even further to a .045. Now, I'm considering going even further to a .040. the difference between the .050 and the .045 was amazing so I might just try a smaller one just to see what happens.

My best results, ammo wise, is with Remington 62 grain Core-Lockt. I also get very good accuracy with Hornady 55 grain V-Max but the Remington is what my Rancher likes the best.

Bob

 

[DGW1949]

Just to hit the high spots:

The barrel gas vent hole on my 582-series 5.56 Ranch Rifle measures .070 and it came with a .099 gas bushing. I replaced that one with a .050 bushing which calmed-down the action quite a lot.

All I shoot out of my own Mini is Lake City Mil-spec ammo. It likes the 62 Grn better than the 55 .

DGW

In the beginning I also went with a .050 Gas Bushing but then stepped it down even further to a .045. Now, I'm considering going even further to a .040. the difference between the .050 and the .045 was amazing so I might just try a smaller one just to see what happens.

My best results, ammo wise, is with Remington 62 grain Core-Lockt. I also get very good accuracy with Hornady 55 grain V-Max but the Remington is what my Rancher likes the best.

Bob

I'm planning to try a .045 in mine, just to see how my particular rifle reacts to it. No doubt that it would tame the action down more than the .050 has.....but...I'm real-big on absolute reliability, and I'm liking the fact that mine is still launching it's brass out of the fox hole (so to speak). I guess that I'll see what I see after I make the switch, and go from there.

I think that I remember you mentioning that Remington 62 Core-Lockt ammo before. FWIW, I've heard that Winchester's version shoots very well also. Thing is though, none of my local outlets have had either in stock on the days that I've dropped in to look, so I'm still banging away with the same mil-surp stuff that I began my "development work" with.

Thanks for the input.

DGW

 

[1RugerFan_33]

Thanks all, for the input.

As to loud....well, yes...but I was using hearing protection way b4 it was cool/had all the stuff we have now, so i'm not worried.

But, as it sets, this little rifle is a winter project. As such...after thinking a bit...I guess i'm gonna wait on the shortening of barrel, for now.

As it sets...trigger & bushings from Great West Gunsmithing are next, in a few weeks. I MIGHT bed the stock (synthetic, btw)...but to be honest, i'll wait till after "testing", and as it sets now, probably call it good...

As an aside, concerning ammo...found some good deals (at least, IMHO) on PPU, FIOCCHI, & HORNADY---69 and 75gr fodder, recently, and have plenty in the shootin' box to wring out. Some of it low as $10.92 a box. These are not fmj, but full on "MATCH"/hunting loads. I hope one or some of it shoots well, as I do tend to follow the old school of thought concerning bullets...I like them heavy...heavier the better. Especially for hunting...But there is stuff all the way down to 50gr to try as well, just to be sure it (hopefully) dials in well :wink:

If any of you have any experience with these heavier bullets, i'd be glad to hear it...

It will be awhile before I get out to try it all, but when I do, I hope to post a thread with pics. We will see.

 

[sliclee]

I dont get it. Ruger sends gas block .070 and a higher one and u change it to .40. WHY do they make it like that are they getting rid of all old ones???? or why, Lee

 

[Voyager28]

I dont get it. Ruger sends gas block .070 and a higher one and u change it to .40. WHY do they make it like that are they getting rid of all old ones???? or why, Lee

I'm sure they have their reasons, obscure though they may be. I do know that Mini's in general are way over gassed and cycle like a 155 Howitzer. Reducing the gas bushing to .045 made a HUGE difference in how my Mini Rancher shoots.

Also, as for bullet types and weights, I have shot LOTS of different ammo through my Rancher and it most definitely likes the 62 grain the best. With the 1-9 twist heavier bullets just don't seem to stabilize very well and tend to wander off POA. I'm sure each one is different but that's how mine reacts. 55 grainers shoot fairly well but my very best and most consistent results are with 62 grain.

Bob

 

[DGW1949]

I dont get it. Ruger sends gas block .070 and a higher one and u change it to .40. WHY do they make it like that are they getting rid of all old ones???? or why, Lee

Like Bob said...I'm sure that they have their reasons.
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that it has something to do with compressing a gas (as-in being forced from a .223 cal bore into.through a .070 orfice) causes it to heat up, and letting it expand (into that .090+ bushing) causes it to cool down....or it could be that they wanted more than enough gas just to insure that there's plenty for any condidtion....or it could just be that they don't know any better :lol: .

Regardless though, whatever Ruger's reasons might be.....it's still rather obvious that the result is a grossly over-gassed operating system.
The good news is that the "fix" is both easy and cheap.

DGW

 

[sliclee]

Thanks but Im calling Ruger tomorrow to find out WHY THE PURPOSE thanks again, Lee