From: email@example.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Reasons why Mini-14s are not accurate?
Date: 25 Feb 1999 16:49:40 -0500
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
David M. Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
#I guess I don't understand either.
#The Garand M-1 and subsequent M-14 M1A designs are known for their
Not initially, they weren't - after 30 to 50 years of competition and tuning,
#Why should the mini-14, using basically an adaptation of the above have
#such a reputation for being inaccurate?
There's where you went off into the weeds.
The Mini-14 has little, beyond the receiver profile, in common with
the M1/M14 - the gas system is different, the disconnect is different,
the trigger system is different, the barrel is very light, the
sights are poor, the bedding is difficult to fix, etc.
Don't be fooled by the name. It is a totally different weapon,
designed for easy manufacture using precision casting and CNC. The M1
and M14 were designed for forging and hand machining and gauging in
government arsenals by Army Ordnance, hang the cost.
#P.S. In these days of "Assault weapon" Hysteria, I feel that a
#traditionally stocked weapon is more "politically correct " and less likely
#to get people scared ("My God, Alice, he has a Machine Gun").
Don't count on it - we had a full police mobilization on a report of a
"sniper with a high-powered rifle next to the freeway" a couple of
Two hours of searching turned up a homeless guy, hunting pigeons and
sparrows in the brush for food, using a BB gun.
Moral - the public, by and large, can't distinguish firearms types, and
takes the easy out of "any gun bad."
[I don't speak for Sequent.]