Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Thread: Ruger Mini 14 for my SHTF rifle? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
05-19-2020 06:12 PM
Steve_In_29
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
7 of those videos were of 5.56/223, 1 in 6.5 creedmoor, & 4 in 308. Several of those showing both accuracy & penetrating power. If I had only shown 5.56, you would have again tried to move the goal post saying it only applies 308 or some other caliber. Fact is barrel length has very little to do with velocity, accuracy & penetrating power. if a 62 grain bullet going ~2900fps isn't accurate enough or powerful enough vs the same bullet going 3200 fps, then the problem is with either the bullet or the shooter, maybe both.
My comments were solely based on 5.56. Which is a marginal round even out of the military 14.5" barrels.

Stepping up in caliber is a well known way to gain better terminal ballistics out of a shorter barrel. Hence the 6.8SPC, 6.5G and short barreled .308s.

No the fact is that barrel length has a lot to do with velocity. That 5.56 62gr M855 giving 3025fps out of a 20" barrel is down to about 2612fps out of a 10.5" one. Most .223 rounds are down to about 2400fps at 10.5".

From a Swedish military test....
Barrel length SS109/M855 V4 bullet velocity V4 velocity loss
210 mm (8.3 in) 723 m/s (2,372 ft/s) 41 m/s (135 ft/s)
240 mm (9.4 in) 764 m/s (2,507 ft/s) 32 m/s (105 ft/s)
270 mm (10.6 in) 796 m/s (2,612 ft/s) 29 m/s (95 ft/s)
300 mm (11.8 in) 825 m/s (2,707 ft/s) 18 m/s (59 ft/s)
330 mm (13.0 in) 843 m/s (2,766 ft/s) 23 m/s (75 ft/s)
360 mm (14.2 in) 866 m/s (2,841 ft/s) 12 m/s (39 ft/s)
390 mm (15.4 in) 878 m/s (2,881 ft/s) 14 m/s (46 ft/s)
420 mm (16.5 in) 892 m/s (2,927 ft/s) 14 m/s (46 ft/s)
450 mm (17.7 in) 906 m/s (2,972 ft/s) 9 m/s (30 ft/s)
480 mm (18.9 in) 915 m/s (3,002 ft/s) 7 m/s (23 ft/s)
508 mm (20.0 in) 922 m/s (3,025 ft/s) -

And while you are correct that length has little to do with accuracy, the aforementioned loss of velocity does indeed directly affect penetration and terminal ballistics. At impact (not muzzle) velocities below 2500fps the terminal performance of M855 is lacking. Also most .223 soft/hollow point ammo will not properly expand below that threshold as well.

At impact velocities below 2500fps the M855 tends to simply punch neat .22 sized holes through a person without yawing/fragmentation (little to no wound cavity) and results in the inability to quickly put down the enemy despite multiple hits.

As I said earlier there is a huge difference between a bullet being able to punch holes in paper and actually taking the enemy out of the fight. Since this is a survival forum and not a competitive shooting one, I would venture the latter is of much higher priority then the former. Thus the weapon should be selected to achieve that.
05-19-2020 04:45 PM
billwilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_In_29 View Post
Lots of factual but irrelevant info there.

You are mixing .308 and 5.56 when they have seriously different ballistics. You are also conflating accuracy with terminal ballistics.

Yes even out of a 7.5" barrel you can hit a target at distance however the 5.56 out of such isn't going to do much damage to a bad guy at much beyond contact distances. There is a huge difference between the ability to punch a neat hole in paper (or even sheetmetal) and what is required to put a human down. That part of the video showing the neat little hole through the cinder block (instead of shattering it) shows how little energy the round has left.

Here are some (of many) videos of what kind of performance to expect when hitting bad guys instead of just targets with a 7.5" barrel.

No expansion and not much wound channel
Barnes TSX 70g AR15 pistol 7.5 in. barrel - YouTube


Again no expansion
223 Spear Gold Dot 75 gr from a 7.5 inch AR pistol - YouTube


Not much of a wound channel as it just zips through.
Remington .223 62g CTFB (7.5in. barrel) - YouTube

Up close and personal shorter barrels might get job done but as I said the 5.56 gets a bit anemic out past 300yds even from the military's 14.5" barrels.

Ballistics don't lie and how cool you want to look at the range doesn't enter into the equation.

7 of those videos were of 5.56/223, 1 in 6.5 creedmoor, & 4 in 308. Several of those showing both accuracy & penetrating power. If I had only shown 5.56, you would have again tried to move the goal post saying it only applies 308 or some other caliber. Fact is barrel length has very little to do with velocity, accuracy & penetrating power. if a 62 grain bullet going ~2900fps isn't accurate enough or powerful enough vs the same bullet going 3200 fps, then the problem is with either the bullet or the shooter, maybe both.
05-19-2020 02:56 PM
ManyFeathers Just to get everyone on the same page so to say.....

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html


No sense in beating each other up, all semi autos are formidable weapons whether PCC, Mini 14, 30, SKS, AK or AR....SBR's included

Thing is....does it go bang every time?
05-19-2020 03:34 AM
Hick Industries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Swilling View Post
^^^^^^^^^^
This is 100% wrong
The AR pistols will easily kill a man or most anything else
If you have 4:44 minutes
You might be able to learn something
Ignorance is not bliss in this instance

https://youtu.be/pzicw0Q8HRg
I have been living here in the Ozarks for 5 yrs, and humans are not the biggest threat.
I have also owned an AR for 25 yrs before moving here. I know what it will, and will not do.
So let me know when you have real world experience (not utube) to offer this thread.
05-19-2020 01:40 AM
Steve_In_29
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/02/16...-velocity-loss



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...-and-accuracy/




12.5" 308 AR Pistol at 605 yards - YouTube



10.5 vs 16 inch AR15 Accuracy - MK18 vs RECCE 16 - YouTube



AR-15 PISTOL PENETRATION TEST (300 YARDS) - YouTube


Real loud crappy music on this one, so have your speaker or ear phones down. How Far Can You Push A 10.5" SBR? - YouTube



How Barrel Length Affects Velocity - YouTube



YouTube



We Test The Accuracy and Penetrating Power of an AR with a 7" Barrel - YouTube



.308 Velocity Test - 16" vs. 20" Barrels - YouTube


10.5in AR15 Pistol "Build" to 500yds: Practical Accuracy - YouTube


12.5" ABC Rifle Company .308 AR-10 "Firearm" Out to 500 Yards - 168 Grain Sierra Matchking - YouTube


308win Short barrel vs long barrel, bullet speed testing. - YouTube


Palmetto State Armory 10.5'' Nitride 5.56 AR-15 Pistol: The Best Truck Gun? - YouTube
Lots of factual but irrelevant info there.

You are mixing .308 and 5.56 when they have seriously different ballistics. You are also conflating accuracy with terminal ballistics.

Yes even out of a 7.5" barrel you can hit a target at distance however the 5.56 out of such isn't going to do much damage to a bad guy at much beyond contact distances. There is a huge difference between the ability to punch a neat hole in paper (or even sheetmetal) and what is required to put a human down. That part of the video showing the neat little hole through the cinder block (instead of shattering it) shows how little energy the round has left.

Here are some (of many) videos of what kind of performance to expect when hitting bad guys instead of just targets with a 7.5" barrel.

No expansion and not much wound channel


Again no expansion


Not much of a wound channel as it just zips through.

Up close and personal shorter barrels might get job done but as I said the 5.56 gets a bit anemic out past 300yds even from the military's 14.5" barrels.

Ballistics don't lie and how cool you want to look at the range doesn't enter into the equation.
05-18-2020 03:38 PM
Ratpacker A delightful dozen. Quite a bit of info there.
I'll still take a chance on bringing my Mini 14 ranch rifle to a gun fight. 4 enhancements on it , make it more accurate & it is utterly reliable. 100 % functionality ,as before.

BTW. i had doubts about the Accu-Strut. Found out that it does work in mitigating vertical stringing of shots.
Folding stock suits me , as I am now well adjusted to it.
05-18-2020 03:06 PM
billwilla https://www.guns.com/news/2012/02/16...-velocity-loss



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...-and-accuracy/












Real loud crappy music on this one, so have your speaker or ear phones down.



















05-18-2020 02:50 PM
Steve_In_29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Swilling View Post
^^^^^^^^^^
This is 100% wrong
The AR pistols will easily kill a man or most anything else
If you have 4:44 minutes
You might be able to learn something
Ignorance is not bliss in this instance

https://youtu.be/pzicw0Q8HRg
Yes it will...up close. However once you move past CQB distances you want all the FPS a longer barrel provides. That test is at what 15 feet? Move that block out to 100 or 200 yds and see what you get.

I went with 11.5" on my AR pistol for the reason it is as short a barrel as you can go and still get a reliable 2500fps. My 2 AR rifles are 16".

Some serious AR guys are espousing 11.5" (up close) and 18" (for longer distances) and skipping the 16" barrels all together.

Despite my time in the Marines I am not a big fan of the AR/5.56 and only recently bought a few due to the stupid low prices and the libtards hysteria.

Personally I think an underfolding AK provides a better punch in a compact package over the 5.56. A 154gr SP 7.62x39 bullet will really get someones attention.
05-18-2020 02:37 PM
Steve_In_29
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
Going from a 16.5" barreled 223/5.56 to a 10.5" barreled 223/5.56 you lose ~150fps. If that ~150fps off of a round traveling ~2200-3200fps makes or breaks your ballistics you probably didn't have a very good projectile to begin with.
Sorry but you lose a lot more than that. Just going from 11.5" to 10.5" will lose you about 100ish+ fps.

A 16" barrel will give roughly 3000fps while a 11.5" gets it to around 2500ish and 10.5" around 2400ish. So while it might work out of a 10.5" at close distances you start to really lose terminal effectiveness as you move out. The 11.5" is found to stay above the 2500ish fps you want to have for reliable expansion once things move away from point blank range.

Even out of the military's 14.5" barrels the 5.56 starts to come up short past 300yds. With that small bullet you REALLY do need all the fps you can muster for maximum effectiveness.
05-12-2020 11:18 AM
HappyinID
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
Going from a 16.5" barreled 223/5.56 to a 10.5" barreled 223/5.56 you lose ~150fps. If that ~150fps off of a round traveling ~2200-3200fps makes or breaks your ballistics you probably didn't have a very good projectile to begin with.
The difference can be a bit higher depending on the load, as much as 400 fps+, but your point is still valid. A 10.5" 5.56 is a very viable defense option within reasonable distances, as the SF community can attest to. A 16"+ barrel just gives better performance, especially at longer ranges.
05-11-2020 01:11 PM
billwilla Going from a 16.5" barreled 223/5.56 to a 10.5" barreled 223/5.56 you lose ~150fps. If that ~150fps off of a round traveling ~2200-3200fps makes or breaks your ballistics you probably didn't have a very good projectile to begin with.
05-11-2020 07:55 AM
Jack Swilling ^^^^^^^^^^
This is 100% wrong
The AR pistols will easily kill a man or most anything else
If you have 4:44 minutes
You might be able to learn something
Ignorance is not bliss in this instance

https://youtu.be/pzicw0Q8HRg
05-10-2020 11:47 PM
Hick Industries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Str8Edge View Post
I understand the sentiment there, but save a few more bucks and get an M1a. Same idea, but a far superior instrument. I had a mini-14. It was all I could buy without registering it as an “assault weapon” at the time. It was the most “tactical” version you could buy in a traditional stock and I added a scout rail and red dot. It was fairly accurate, but malfunctioned way too much to bet my life on. I really wanted to love that rifle but I couldn’t. It was my first semi-auto rifle. Traded it last year for a CT-legal “other” AR-15, 12.5”. The AR is superior in every single way except the scary looks factor. Basically an SBR with a brace. But, I can stick it in a backpack easily to go incognito. You’re not doing that with a mini14.
The trouble with a SBR chambered in 223 Rem, is you reduce the ballistics of a marginal cartridge to a useless toy.
While I do not own a Ruger Mini-14 (I own a couple Ruger Mini-30s) at least that design allows you to swap your fixed stock for a folding one.
You get to keep the longer barrel, and it still fits into a pack.
05-10-2020 03:01 PM
fragout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herkemer View Post
Its been years. You guys gonna stop now? Here , I'll help you guys out...


Mini 14's suck ass. (Coin flip)(Although they do actually suck ass)

Lets go............You can argue about this for a few more years
You have actually shoved a Mini14 up your butt and found this out first hand?

Maybe the above explains the recent toilet paper shortage across the nation....lol


11B
05-09-2020 10:52 AM
Str8Edge
Quote:
Originally Posted by film495 View Post
I'd like to get one. With blued steel and wood stock, with smaller mag, looks like any old hunting rifle as far as the untrained eye goes. An element of stealth has value in SHTF. Anyone seeing an AR will go on high alert off the bat ..
I understand the sentiment there, but save a few more bucks and get an M1a. Same idea, but a far superior instrument. I had a mini-14. It was all I could buy without registering it as an “assault weapon” at the time. It was the most “tactical” version you could buy in a traditional stock and I added a scout rail and red dot. It was fairly accurate, but malfunctioned way too much to bet my life on. I really wanted to love that rifle but I couldn’t. It was my first semi-auto rifle. Traded it last year for a CT-legal “other” AR-15, 12.5”. The AR is superior in every single way except the scary looks factor. Basically an SBR with a brace. But, I can stick it in a backpack easily to go incognito. You’re not doing that with a mini14.
05-01-2020 10:12 PM
film495 I'd like to get one. With blued steel and wood stock, with smaller mag, looks like any old hunting rifle as far as the untrained eye goes. An element of stealth has value in SHTF. Anyone seeing an AR will go on high alert off the bat ..
05-01-2020 09:55 PM
Herkemer Its been years. You guys gonna stop now? Here , I'll help you guys out...


Mini 14's suck ass. (Coin flip)(Although they do actually suck ass)

Lets go............You can argue about this for a few more years
05-01-2020 09:49 PM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddyusmaximus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck007 View Post
I guess you are too young to know movie references.

https://youtu.be/yxQNYPYFq1c

Too young... well, I've never seen the movie. In fact never even heard of it, so I looked it up. It came out in 1997, and I was an Infantry Drill SGT at Benning back in 1990... That's not it. Just never heard of it.

I'm normally a fan of Samuel too, but that looks like a crappy film. Probably only done well because he was in it...

Sorry about the 14 year old crack. Some of the movie lines they come up with sound that way sometimes... lol.
It was his second Tarantino film
And was really good. Watch it you’ll be glad you did.
05-01-2020 09:17 PM
billwilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddyusmaximus View Post
Same time frame... watching the Gulf War on TV. Did you get to see Lee Greenwood when he was there? We took our troops. Place was rocking. I think he must have did "God bless the USA" at least 3 times... Pvts were all kinds of fired up. If I could go back in time, I'd go to that show again, and record video of it.
I got to Germany in June of '90. Only thing I got to watch was the Pink Floyd the Wall concert that summer, on TV while I had CQ duty. Oh well, every one that went said the concert sucked. Iraq invaded Kuwait start of Aug that summer, I still didn't have a TV or radio yet & had no idea till I got to formation & someone said we were going to war. Then we did EIB training & testing for a month.
05-01-2020 09:04 PM
daddyusmaximus
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
I went through D 2/54 Jan - Apr '90.
Same time frame... watching the Gulf War on TV. Did you get to see Lee Greenwood when he was there? We took our troops. Place was rocking. I think he must have did "God bless the USA" at least 3 times... Pvts were all kinds of fired up. If I could go back in time, I'd go to that show again, and record video of it.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net