New mini 14 announced

Oh good. It's "tactical." :roll:
 
Make it in the 350 ledgend or 10 mm and I will buy one .I don't need another 223 .Oh I forgot thr 6.5 grendel too !
 
The Mini has been offered in 6.8 SPC and .300 AAC... so their sales data must tell them something different, because along with those bolt actions you mention, they offer these in .350 Legend:

9.5" barrel
https://www.ruger.com/products/ar556Pistol/specSheets/8571.html

16" barrel
https://www.ruger.com/products/ar556MPR/specSheets/8532.html
 
COSteve said:
dgr416 said:
Make it in the 350 ledgend or 10 mm and I will buy one .I don't need another 223 .Oh I forgot thr 6.5 grendel too !
The 10mm doesn't make a good choice in a rifle length barrel as the case capacity is too small to give enough powder to really make a difference. Like the 9mm carbines, you'd only get a couple hundred more fps out of it.

However, I'd be 1st in line for a 350 Legend chambered version to go along with my Mini-14. In fact, I sent a 'Tell the CEO' note to them when the 350 Legend was announced stating that and asking them to consider it. I got a reply from the CEO saying, "We're looking at the 350 Legend." However, they then came out with it in a few bolt guns and called it good.

I think that they realize that the 350 Legend would compete with their Mini-30 being that it's a US caliber rather than a commie one and so they passed on chambering the Mini in it even though besides a new barrel, all they'd need to do is flatten the internal ribs in the Mini-14 mag body to account for the bigger dia bullets and they'd be GTG.

I have a Mini 30 I bought to hunt deer when they first came out but the 7.62x39 is marginal on deer (believe me I tried). Not to mention it's not legal in the limited rifle zone in my state (which I don't hunt in, just saying it wouldn't be legal while the 350L would be).

I would love to see a Mini in 350L but I think Ruger's Ranch Rifles and AR in 350L is cheaper to make and has a bigger profit margin which is why I don't think we'll see a Mini in that caliber. Mini's are really expensive compared to ARs nowadays.

On the other hand the market for the 350L is pretty big and it's a pretty decent cartridge, and people like conventional styled rifles, and people will spend whatever to buy what they want so why not a 350L Mini?
 

https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/specSheets/5888.html[/quote]


I handled one of these and found it to be kind of a kludge. It looked like Bubba had dragged it thru the Tapco catalogue.
 
arfmel said:

https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/specSheets/5888.html


I handled one of these and found it to be kind of a kludge. It looked like Bubba had dragged it thru the Tapco catalogue.[/quote]
:lol: :lol: .......... That is ugly !!
 
Yeah - not my tribe.
The 223/5.56 performs best with a 22 - 24 inch barrel. I never got the 16" theory and suspect the maker figures its a shoe-in for the spray-n-pray guys ?

If I want accuracy in a sub-par-for-caliber short barrel gun, I'll go with a Contender every time. (While waiting decades for Ruger wo wise up to a HVY 22" barrel). :roll:

- And puh-lease drop that obsolete $2 birdcage whatever-it-is on the muzzle! :lol:
 
dgr416 said:
Make it in the 350 ledgend or 10 mm and I will buy one .I don't need another 223 .Oh I forgot thr 6.5 grendel too !

Agreed on the .350 or 6.5 Grendel! 10mm is a bit light for deer & hogs IMHO except at spitting distance but would be fun on the range. And would be just dandy for home defense.

I think we'll see a Mini in .350 unless there is some technical glitch with chambering the platform in a .35 caliber.
 
WAYNO said:

https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/specSheets/5889.html


https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/specSheets/5888.html

Frankly I prefer the upper one. Not sure if the stock is plastic, fiberglass, or what. Not sure how it's an improvement. What I appreciate is the number of people who have a real issue with AR BLACK RIFLES, though they have no idea what makes them so terrible, the normal Mini doesn't look like their assumptions.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top