I recently purchased a used Mini-14 (583 series) that was very difficult to lock the trigger guard back in place during reassembly. I found a raised surface on the underside of the receiver, which I suspect was a gate from the investment casting process which had not been properly blended to the underside of the receiver's surface, which lies flat against the top of the stock. The raised surface was 0.012" above the underside of the receiver. The extra height made it extremely difficult to lock the trigger guard. Having been a machinist for over 20 years, and not having access to equipment to remove the raised surface on the receiver's underside, I elected to notch out the top of the stock to accommodate the raised surface and allow the underside of the receiver to seat properly to the top of the stock. This solved the problem. Now the trigger guard locks properly with reasonable force from my hand. What I failed to mention is that the unblended gate was/is a factory defect that should have been caught by Ruger's Quality Control. It should never have left the factory.
Yea I had to file burrs of my gun as well as send it back due to charging handle groove too deep allowing the bolt to ride so far to the left the extractor would ride up side of brass and wedging shot casing Ruger did however quickly make it right But I think I should apply for a quality control job there
Check head space with a "test bolt"??? A test bolt really! No wonder my Mini 14 will closed on a "NO GO Gauge" and had to send back to the factory. Ruger what you have shown in this video is that you are missing a critical step in your manufacturing process. What you should do is fit the actual bolt to the rifle, than check the head space with the bolt that the rifle will leave the factory with. If the bolt will not headspace, grab a different bolt from a different tolerance bin and check headspace till it is a GO. As a gunsmith and a M1 Garand manufacture historian. I would like to see this problem corrected.
I'm a retired machinist/design drafter. In the early 90's I worked for a small OEM company that had a contract to rechamber old 1909 Argentinian Mausers to an American caliber since the bores were compatible. I designed the gaging to match up the bolts with the chambers. As I recall, the tolerance of the go/no-go gaging for the casings was 0.004". We had a roughing reamer and finishing reamer to do the rechambering. The gauge I designed used a zero-to-one inch indicator (0.001" increments) to control the tolerance. Each bolt was measured from the bolt face to the back of the bolt locking lug and the dimension was recorded. The depth of the chamber was calculated from the taper of the chamber to the back of the groove in the receiver where the back of the bolt locking lug mated when the bolt was closed. We calculated that distance during the roughing/finishing reaming process. That allowed us to tailor each reamed chamber to a particular rifle's bolt. We seldom had to exchange bolts from one rifle to another, unless we reamed the chambers too deep. Out of 1,600 rifles we rechambered, we had just 2 rejects. Had we had a larger contract, we probably would have been able to switch out bolts and save the two rejects. Our method was likely not the same as what Ruger uses for bolt/chamber spacing, but the result was the same. I would hope that Ruger maintains a close enough tolerance between mating parts... Bolt, receiver and chamber so as not to have to resort in switching bolts in order to obtain the correct head spacing tolerance. BTW, could you tell me the go/no-go tolerance of the Mini-14 chamber gaging? Is 0.004" a standard, or does it vary with caliber and design? Thanks!
It seems from the comments here and elsewhere that the quality went downhill for the minis. When, what year roughly has the quality started going down would you guys say?
@@andymorales6907There should be interchangeability between all parts in any mass produced weapon. That includes bolts and chambers. Head spacing should not be tailored on production rifles. Any bolt and chamber should meet the head spacing tolerances of the rifle. Unless you're tailor making a rifle or rechambering from a foreign round with a common bore to an American round with a similar but different casing, off-the-shelf components should be interchangeable.
AH HAA So your the DUDE that machined my charge handle with too deep a groove so case wont eject and jambed Leading me to send it back in for a proper part
The receivers are "Investment Casstings". They're made from the "Lost Wax Process" and are very expensive to make. The castings are made to tighter tolerances, .005 inches per inch than sand castings. That said, any casting can warp because of internal stresses before/after heat treating, and may require "straightening" by hand or machine if they don't meet the required tolerances. Whether or not these extra steps are done to the receivers to insure dimensional accuracy I do not know. I don't think these videos show every step in the manufacturing process, just the major steps.
I've owned 4 Mini 14 rifles and 2 Mini 30s over the years. The quality of the Mini 14 rifle I purchased earlier this month is much lower than the earlier rifles. The finish is poor and the cast receiver is essentially left in the raw state. The interior machining in the bolt raceway is rough. The blueing isn't nearly as nice or as durable. They removed the heat shield from the handguard. The casting seams are visible everywhere. The new 10, 20 and 30 round magazines are junk. The design has changed, and the magazines can no longer be topped off and locked into battery with the bolt closed. My old 20 round magazine locks right in when fully loaded, with the bolt closed. The rear sight is also garbage. You have to apply blue locktite to the attachment screw and the windage screws or they'll come loose after prolonged firing. It's difficult to adjust. Many folks just give up and purchase the Tech Sight Mini200. Ruger has cut corners on everything to cheapen production, and has taken so much quality out of the weapon. Yet the MSRP is still $999.00. They're not worth half what they charge. I'm selling this POS and purchase an M1 Carbine copy from Fulton Armory. They're expensive, but they're very high quality, and their magazines function properly. I've owned my last Ruger product.
Trouble with American made is that it's all about profit. Where the manufacturer cheats you on quality and price. This is to ensure executive pay is in the millions of dollars. Buy European, pay once, cry once.
It is impossoble to give quality working so fast, and with only profit in mind. Thats why european guns are better, in general. You have to pay more, too. But cheap things are expensive in the long run. Last Ruger revolver I shot, a Single six, was not accurate.
This video isn't very flattering to your process... It looks like they're thrown together as fast as possible without much TLC. Between that and the overall cast construction I'm curious why new Minis are $1000+. Mine is an old 181 series stainless and it's gorgeous with no issues. Presumably back in the day they put more time into them but also charged much less.
Feels like whoever "inspected" my mini must have forgot how to do their job. Everything from the receiver to trigger to barrel to gas assembly still has leftover metal on it. For 1200$ that.. thats painful. Love my rifle but the poor quality along with the rear site being garbage makes it hard to justify that price.
From utubetommy: Mine shoots shitty, too. It can't hold better than a 6-8" group at 100 yards, yet is one of the newer 583 series with 16" barrel they claim is "more accurate". That's shooting from a bench with rifle rest and brand new Sig Sauer Romeo 5 Red Dot using PMC Bronze ammo, which works great in my AR. Spent casings jam about 25% of the time, even after I called Ruger and they sent me a free Ejector, Ejector Spring and Ejector Pin. As a former Jarhead who was teethed on M-14's, I bought this POS because I couldn't afford an M-14 and liked the 14's action. Thought this was a good compromise with my AR, because here in VT the Dems are trying to take our AR's away, and both the AR & Mini take the same ammo. Very disappointed in this rifle and with Ruger. Was a machinist for over 20 years making parts for Gatling guns so this propaganda video from Ruger isn't impressive at all. It may fool the general public, but anyone working in a precision machine shop can see through the BS.
I recently purchased a used Mini-14 (583 series) that was very difficult to lock the trigger guard back in place during reassembly. I found a raised surface on the underside of the receiver, which I suspect was a gate from the investment casting process which had not been properly blended to the underside of the receiver's surface, which lies flat against the top of the stock. The raised surface was 0.012" above the underside of the receiver. The extra height made it extremely difficult to lock the trigger guard. Having been a machinist for over 20 years, and not having access to equipment to remove the raised surface on the receiver's underside, I elected to notch out the top of the stock to accommodate the raised surface and allow the underside of the receiver to seat properly to the top of the stock. This solved the problem. Now the trigger guard locks properly with reasonable force from my hand. What I failed to mention is that the unblended gate was/is a factory defect that should have been caught by Ruger's Quality Control. It should never have left the factory.
Yea I had to file burrs of my gun as well as send it back due to charging handle groove too deep allowing the bolt to ride so far to the left the extractor would ride up side of brass and wedging shot casing
Ruger did however quickly make it right
But I think I should apply for a quality control job there
It's possible to instal T105E1 rear sight (M1 Garand) in the Mini-14?
Check head space with a "test bolt"??? A test bolt really! No wonder my Mini 14 will closed on a "NO GO Gauge" and had to send back to the factory. Ruger what you have shown in this video is that you are missing a critical step in your manufacturing process. What you should do is fit the actual bolt to the rifle, than check the head space with the bolt that the rifle will leave the factory with. If the bolt will not headspace, grab a different bolt from a different tolerance bin and check headspace till it is a GO. As a gunsmith and a M1 Garand manufacture historian. I would like to see this problem corrected.
I'm a retired machinist/design drafter. In the early 90's I worked for a small OEM company that had a contract to rechamber old 1909 Argentinian Mausers to an American caliber since the bores were compatible. I designed the gaging to match up the bolts with the chambers. As I recall, the tolerance of the go/no-go gaging for the casings was 0.004". We had a roughing reamer and finishing reamer to do the rechambering. The gauge I designed used a zero-to-one inch indicator (0.001" increments) to control the tolerance. Each bolt was measured from the bolt face to the back of the bolt locking lug and the dimension was recorded. The depth of the chamber was calculated from the taper of the chamber to the back of the groove in the receiver where the back of the bolt locking lug mated when the bolt was closed. We calculated that distance during the roughing/finishing reaming process. That allowed us to tailor each reamed chamber to a particular rifle's bolt. We seldom had to exchange bolts from one rifle to another, unless we reamed the chambers too deep. Out of 1,600 rifles we rechambered, we had just 2 rejects. Had we had a larger contract, we probably would have been able to switch out bolts and save the two rejects. Our method was likely not the same as what Ruger uses for bolt/chamber spacing, but the result was the same. I would hope that Ruger maintains a close enough tolerance between mating parts... Bolt, receiver and chamber so as not to have to resort in switching bolts in order to obtain the correct head spacing tolerance. BTW, could you tell me the go/no-go tolerance of the Mini-14 chamber gaging? Is 0.004" a standard, or does it vary with caliber and design? Thanks!
It seems from the comments here and elsewhere that the quality went downhill for the minis. When, what year roughly has the quality started going down would you guys say?
@@andymorales6907There should be interchangeability between all parts in any mass produced weapon. That includes bolts and chambers. Head spacing should not be tailored on production rifles. Any bolt and chamber should meet the head spacing tolerances of the rifle. Unless you're tailor making a rifle or rechambering from a foreign round with a common bore to an American round with a similar but different casing, off-the-shelf components should be interchangeable.
Very cool.
AH HAA So your the DUDE that machined my charge handle with too deep a groove so case wont eject and jambed
Leading me to send it back in for a proper part
sweet!
Are those receivers cast?
Virtually everything on a Ruger starts from a casting. It's how they're so inexpensive, and they're probably the best company at casting things.
The receivers are "Investment Casstings". They're made from the "Lost Wax Process" and are very expensive to make. The castings are made to tighter tolerances, .005 inches per inch than sand castings. That said, any casting can warp because of internal stresses before/after heat treating, and may require "straightening" by hand or machine if they don't meet the required tolerances. Whether or not these extra steps are done to the receivers to insure dimensional accuracy I do not know. I don't think these videos show every step in the manufacturing process, just the major steps.
Where can I find one
This a serious question??
I've owned 4 Mini 14 rifles and 2 Mini 30s over the years.
The quality of the Mini 14 rifle I purchased earlier this month is much lower than the earlier rifles. The finish is poor and the cast receiver is essentially left in the raw state. The interior machining in the bolt raceway is rough.
The blueing isn't nearly as nice or as durable. They removed the heat shield from the handguard. The casting seams are visible everywhere.
The new 10, 20 and 30 round magazines are junk. The design has changed, and the magazines can no longer be topped off and locked into battery with the bolt closed. My old 20 round magazine locks right in when fully loaded, with the bolt closed.
The rear sight is also garbage. You have to apply blue locktite to the attachment screw and the windage screws or they'll come loose after prolonged firing. It's difficult to adjust. Many folks just give up and purchase the Tech Sight Mini200.
Ruger has cut corners on everything to cheapen production, and has taken so much quality out of the weapon.
Yet the MSRP is still $999.00. They're not worth half what they charge.
I'm selling this POS and purchase an M1 Carbine copy from Fulton Armory. They're expensive, but they're very high quality, and their magazines function properly.
I've owned my last Ruger product.
Shame
Trouble with American made is that it's all about profit. Where the manufacturer cheats you on quality and price. This is to ensure executive pay is in the millions of dollars. Buy European, pay once, cry once.
It is impossoble to give quality working so fast, and with only profit in mind. Thats why european guns are better, in general. You have to pay more, too. But cheap things are expensive in the long run. Last Ruger revolver I shot, a Single six, was not accurate.
Suns out guns out
This video isn't very flattering to your process... It looks like they're thrown together as fast as possible without much TLC. Between that and the overall cast construction I'm curious why new Minis are $1000+. Mine is an old 181 series stainless and it's gorgeous with no issues. Presumably back in the day they put more time into them but also charged much less.
Feels like whoever "inspected" my mini must have forgot how to do their job. Everything from the receiver to trigger to barrel to gas assembly still has leftover metal on it. For 1200$ that.. thats painful. Love my rifle but the poor quality along with the rear site being garbage makes it hard to justify that price.
Investment Casting is a poor choice for firearms. So many of these Mini-14s manufactured over the last decade+ have failed catastrophically.
This isn’t a flattering video for Ruger. It looks like a slap dash job of getting product out the door. No wonder my new mini shoots so shitty.
From utubetommy: Mine shoots shitty, too. It can't hold better than a 6-8" group at 100 yards, yet is one of the newer 583 series with 16" barrel they claim is "more accurate". That's shooting from a bench with rifle rest and brand new Sig Sauer Romeo 5 Red Dot using PMC Bronze ammo, which works great in my AR. Spent casings jam about 25% of the time, even after I called Ruger and they sent me a free Ejector, Ejector Spring and Ejector Pin. As a former Jarhead who was teethed on M-14's, I bought this POS because I couldn't afford an M-14 and liked the 14's action. Thought this was a good compromise with my AR, because here in VT the Dems are trying to take our AR's away, and both the AR & Mini take the same ammo. Very disappointed in this rifle and with Ruger. Was a machinist for over 20 years making parts for Gatling guns so this propaganda video from Ruger isn't impressive at all. It may fool the general public, but anyone working in a precision machine shop can see through the BS.
Mini 14 fails like sh*t!
$1000 to buy, another $1000 to fix it😰