My Mini-14 rant.

[DGW1949]

As some of you may remember, I've been working with one of the "improved" Mini-14's.
Other than it having to go back to Ruger for a canted front sight, and other than having it's factory rear sight continualy shoot loose, things have been going perty-good.
All in all, it has developed into a good shooting gun. I'm saying "developed" here due to my particular example having required more effort on my (and the factory's) part than I think that it should have in order to get it where it's at.

And where is it at you may ask?....Well, after sending it back for it's QC problem, and after ditching it's mickey mouse rear sight for one which doesn't require a wrench to adjust, and after bedding it's (incredably sloppy) wood stock.....what I got here is a 5.56 semi-auto carbine that WAS holding the 10-ring of an NRA pistol target at 100 yds, and doing it with LC M193 ammo no less. Sounds great eh?....so why the "WAS"?....

....because it "was" holding the 10 ring untill the somewhat improved Techsight decided to shoot loose too.
Yep, ot seems that even though Techsight added a couple of set screws to their design, the added clamping force just aint enough to make up for Ruger's mickey mouse mounting system.

So, just in case someone from Ruger is watching.......Thank you Ruger for saving me $5 off the price of the gun by not casting-on a little extra steel to the length of the rib on the reciever....which BTW, would have allowed for a simple dovetail cut so's a proper sight could be installed...which BTW, is exactly how the rear peep sight on a SERIOUS semi-auto SHOULD be mounted....NOT with a single #6 screw.
Your shareholders should realy be tickled about that particular cost cutting measure.

OK....rant over.

DGW

 

[mrmike7189]

yup my ranch rifle rear sight blew off several times. I have it locked down (i hope) with blue Loctite. crappy design!

 

[DGW1949]

yup my ranch rifle rear sight blew off several times. I have it locked down (i hope) with blue Loctite. crappy design!

On mine, the reciever ridge that the rear sight straddles is significantly more narrow than the sight base. When ya combine that with the location of the sight's (single) mounting screw, what happens is that when (not if) the screw becomes even slightly loose from the vibration of firing, it becomes a pivot point which allows the sight ass'y to move side to side.
I was hoping that the opposing set screws which Techsight added to their sight would solve the problem but it did not. All it did was slow it down. In retrospect, I shoulda known better. After all, adding set screws is just a band aid approach.

Yeah, a bit of Loctite on the screw(s) may help, but it don't inspire a lot of confidence.
As you have suggested, Loctite can't fix a crappy design.
In the mean time, I'm kicking around a couple of ideas that may work. If you're interested, I'll let you know how they pan out.

DGW

 

[mrmike7189]

anything would be an improvement....tell us your idea and post some photos

 

[K1500]

I had trouble with the factory sight shooting loose rather quickly. Purple Permatex (not blue) did the trick. It is low strength and made for threads that require occasional adjustment. I have subsequently adjusted my sights and everything has remained tight for well over 1,000 rounds. Loctite makes a purple formulation as well.

http://www.permatex.com/products-2/...matex-low-strength-threadlocker-purple-detail

 

[DGW1949]

If the screw vibrating loose was mine's only problem, yep....I'd just LocTite it and call it good.
Thing is though, it aint.

One of it's real problems is that either the "Ridge" on the reciever was cast too narrow, or it was machined too narrow, or the "saddle" on the available sight Assy's (including Ruger's) are too wide....so, what happens is....when ya install the rear sight, it don't take a lot of "bump" to the side of the sight Ass'y to move it side to side....and of course, when that happens, the aperture moves with it......to the tune of about a 6 MOA "sweep".
The same thing eventualy happens when the vibration of firing causes the screw to loosen, and it don't take much loosening for the sight to begin "walking" side to side.

On other words....from a mechanical standpoint, Ruger has created a wonderfull pivot-point for the sight Ass'y to swivel-about via their using only one (increadably small) mounting screw and then combining that with some realy-sloppy fitting. And just in passing, it don't look to me as though it would take a lot of force to simply shear that little #6 screw clean off.

All in all, about all I can realy say about it is:
At least in my case, it's gonna take a lot more than a drop of LocTite to fix this thing.
That....and...what were they thinking?

DGW

 

[mrmike7189]

If the screw vibrating loose was mine's only problem, yep....I'd just LocTite it and call it good.
Thing is though, it aint.

One of it's real problems is that either the "Ridge" on the reciever was cast too narrow, or it was machined too narrow, or the "saddle" on the available sight Assy's (including Ruger's) are too wide....so, what happens is....when ya install the rear sight, it don't take a lot of "bump" to the side of the sight Ass'y to move it side to side....and of course, when that happens, the aperture moves with it......to the tune of about a 6 MOA "sweep".
The same thing eventualy happens when the vibration of firing causes the screw to loosen, and it don't take much loosening for the sight to begin "walking" side to side.

On other words....from a mechanical standpoint, Ruger has created a wonderfull pivot-point for the sight Ass'y to swivel-about via their using only one (increadably small) mounting screw and then combining that with some realy-sloppy fitting. And just in passing, it don't look to me as though it would take a lot of force to simply shear that little #6 screw clean off.

All in all, about all I can realy say about it is:
At least in my case, it's gonna take a lot more than a drop of LocTite to fix this thing.
That....and...what were they thinking?

DGW

Has Ruger Customer Service made any suggestions? Are they willing to give you new parts or a new rifle???? I have had nothing but great service from Ruger.....my P89 and my Mini 14 have been back for repairs and they repaired and test fired, cleaned, lubed, even added some suggestions that you wont find in the owners manual. can't believe that they won't fix or replace you rifle?

 

[DGW1949]

It went back to Ruger early-on for a badly canted front sight and yep, they were very good about fixing it on their dime. As a bonus for my trouble, they even fitted a spare firing pin while they had it in their hands and refused payment.
Great customer service, no complaints there at all.
Thing is though, what we got's now is a crappy design problem which even Ruger knows there aint no easy fix for. In other words, they are aware that their rear sight design can/will shoot loose and/or sometimes come off. The solution I was offered was to try using the blue LocTite that came with the "tacticool" rail which was supplied with the rifle....or send it back in and they would "look at it".

Well, with all due respect to Ruger....the "looking at it" should have been done prior to the design being approved. :roll: .

DGW

 

[Voyager28]

Gentlemen, if you will simply obtain a .045 or .040 gas bushing and install it (takes about 10 minutes) your vibration/harmonics induced problems, such as the rear sight loosening and your brass landing in the next zip code, will disappear.

Mini-14s are notoriously over gassed and, when fired, the action cycles like a 155 Howitzer. It really needs to be tamed down. Personally, in addition to the above, I also installed a recoil buffer. Total cost for all mods was less then $25. Cycles smoothly, brass lands at my feet and I can shoot a ragged hole in the 10 ring at 100 yards all day long.

Very inexpensive and very easy to do.

Bob

 

[DGW1949]

Hello Bob,
Good to see you around again.

I agree that Ruger's Mini is way over gassed.
One of the first changes I made to mine was replacing the factory .099 bushing with a .050 bushing, and I was already experimenting with a Wilson (1911) buffer on the reciever end when the latest mishap with my rear sight occoured.

To your point....
Although the above changes did help quite a bit, I could tell just from shooting that I still hadn't gotten the action "calmed down" enough. So yep, me thinks that an even smaller bushing is in order. :wink: .

DGW
.

 

[Voyager28]

Hello Bob,
Good to see you around again.

I agree that Ruger's Mini is way over gassed.
One of the first changes I made to mine was replacing the factory .099 bushing with a .050 bushing, and I was already experimenting with a Wilson (1911) buffer on the reciever end when the latest mishap with my rear sight occoured.

To your point....
Although the above changes did help quite a bit, I could tell just from shooting that I still hadn't gotten the action "calmed down" enough. So yep, me thinks that an even smaller bushing is in order. :wink: .

DGW
.

Hey DGW,

I first went to the .045 bushing but then stepped it down further to the .040. Mush better. In fact, I'm considering a .035 just to see what happens. so far, I am very happy with the .040, recoil buffer combo. But, what the heck, why not experiment a bit more.

Bob

 

[Bearcat]

I struggled with at least 6 Mini-14s over the years between mine and my brothers. Finally bought a basic AR-15. Never looked back....except to wonder why I so stupidly tried to get the Mini-14 to shoot for so many years, so many "fixes", so much wasted ammo. I am a serious Ruger fan, but the Mini-14 has to be one of the cruelest jokes ever played on the American consumer.....

 

[DGW1949]

I struggled with at least 6 Mini-14s over the years between mine and my brothers. Finally bought a basic AR-15. Never looked back....except to wonder why I so stupidly tried to get the Mini-14 to shoot for so many years, so many "fixes", so much wasted ammo. I am a serious Ruger fan, but the Mini-14 has to be one of the cruelest jokes ever played on the American consumer.....

Your sentiment is shared by many, and is quite understandable.
Myself....I'm left to wonder why (after all of these years) Ruger still doesn't have the desire to take the couple of steps which would turn their MINI into a serious rifle. I mean realy, it's been well known for a long time that the basic platform is way over gassed AND despite their 3rd attempt at sight designs, still can't make a set worth having.....not to mention the skinny barrels, which took them what, 30 years to try to fix?

DGW

 

[Bull Barrel]

Hmmm...re the buffer.
I installed a bolt buffer and it refused to cycle consistently. Should I have given it more time?

 

[DGW1949]

Hmmm...re the buffer.
I installed a bolt buffer and it refused to cycle consistently. Should I have given it more time?

Some of them are made too thick and don't allow for enough (rearward) slide travel.
Most folks use a Wilson 1911 buffer, which is thinner than some of the buffers intended for a MINI. If that one don't work in your gun, you've got a parts-tolerence issue, and likely won't be able to use anyone's buffer.

Still though....like Voyager said, the root problem is that the system is way over gassed....so you might want to address that first.

DGW

 

[Bull Barrel]

Thank you Sir, I shall try that whenI get a round Tuit.