I have a Ruger Mini 14 that I bought new in late 1975 or early 1976. It has a serial # that starts with 180. I have not shot it for years. It is the least accurate .223 that I own. I was talking to someone recently who told me that some of the early Mini 14s are now desired by collectors and are more valuable than the newer ones. I have heard variations of this before, but do not know any real Ruger collectors. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? I do not want to sell the gun. I had did not think much of the gun when it was new, but I am curious about this.

I have three mini 14s including a 180 series. I covered some of the differences here:

http://http://smith-wessonforum.com/140924531-post20.html


In general im a lot more positive about the 180 series than most. My impression is that Ruger beefed up the slide and over gassed the 181 series and later as a response to the issues with the full auto version. In the semi auto version the changes just added weight and bulk and reduced accuracy.

All of the skinny barrel mini 14s shoot better with some weight on the muzzle in the form of a muzzle device and the Choate devices that combine front sight and brake are just about perfect.

All of them are also over gassed, especially the 181 and later series.

For the 180 I found adding a muzzle device got the accuracy into the 2 MOA range with a tech sight rear sight. My others have gotten the full accu strut, smaller gas port bushing, shock buffer, tech sights rear sight and choate flash hider treatment they they both shoot 1.5 MOA.

That said all three of mine have the early 1-10 twist rifling and shoot very well with 55 gr FMJ loads that more or less mimic the M193 ball load.

If a mini 14 owner has the mid production 1-7 twist barrel or the late production 1-9 twist barrel it affects their ammo choices - or at least should.

I would like a Ranch Model Ruger Mini-14, but the only ones available now have the reddish plastic stock, I just cannot do that. I might even take the Mannlicher model if I saw one.

In my considerable experience the Mini-14 is an excellent weapon for what it does. It is not a 1 MOA rifle, not even a 2 MOA rifle except by accident. My department (Cal DOC) uses it as a tower gun and has done so for many years. It is easy to train with and shoots to minute-of-felon at 100 yards with no trouble. I was a firearms instructor and armor for some significant period of time and fired, and saw fired, a BUNCH of rounds thru them. They did the job we wanted them to do with great reliability.

Here’s my take on my 180 series Mini 14 back when I bought it - my third Mini 14 after a 184 series Mini 14 and a 187 series Ranch Rifle.



The general consensus is that 180's should be avoided as Ruger no longer supports them. However, Jack First has started making extractors, extractor springs, extractor plungers and recoil springs, so the most commonly worn or broken non 181 compatible parts are now available.

All Mini 14s are over gassed and that both reduces accuracy and increases wear on them. That said, the 180 series with its .063” gas bushing is over gassed a lot less than the later Mini 14s with their .080” gas bushings.

However, I saw no need to let a 180 beat itself up, so I went out in the garage and turned a .043" gas port bushing for it on my lathe. After some function testing and one round that short stroked, I turned a .052" gas port bushing and took for a spin again. It functioned perfectly with positive ejection, and feeding but without excessive slide velocity or vibration.



I had planned to just do a function test, but the Tech Sight RR200 rear sight I had ordered the previous Saturday arrived in the mail, so I installed it and figured I just as well zero it while function testing.



I also came across a John Masen slip over flash hider sitting in a box so I installed it as well. (I had a Browning style Choate flash hider/front sight on order and subsequently installed it - it looks better, improves the front sight picture and is near ideal for barrel harmonics.) Pencil barrel mini 14s almost always shoot better with a bit of weight on the muzzle and the Choate front sights are a much better front sight so it’s a win-win.

I zeroed at 25 yards to ensure it was on the paper. My calibrated eyeball worked pretty well for the initial sight adjustment, as it was only about 3" low and a 1/2" right. I corrected, shot another 3 shot group to confirm, then moved the A-23-5 target out to the 50 yard line. It shot just right of point of aim, so I added 4 MOA of elevation to get it 2" above a 6 o'clock hold and added 1/2 MOA of left windage. Then I shot this 5 shot 1" group (2 rounds through the lowest hole, hard to see in the photo):



The load is my standard more or less M193 clone load, where I use a Hornady 55 gr FMJBT that is closer to the slicker, higher BC "Type B" bullet that Stoner intended, than the "Type A" Remington ultimately used in M193. With a velocity of 3150 fps and a .243 BC, zeroing 2" high at 50 yards brings the rifle back on target at 275 yards.

At 2 MOA with iron sights, this 180 series Mini 14 is almost as accurate as my fully massaged (Accu Strut gas port bushing, Browning style Choate flash hider/front sight, Tech Sighted, and shock buffered) 184 Mini 14 and 187 Ranch Rifle, both of which shoot 1.5 MOA.

I was very pleased, but not all that surprised. Most of the reviews I have read or seen have suggested the 180 series shot better than the 181 through 196 series. I suspect the smaller gas port bushing and FH help a bit, but it's still way ahead of where my 184 and 187 Mini 14s were at with the same treatment. The slide is a lot lighter and there is less reciprocating mass in the 180 series.

As such it didn’t get an Accu Strut but I did install the Choate flash hider and front sight, and I thinned the front blade slightly to get a NM sight picture. The Ruger blade front is pretty crude in comparison as is true for the rear sight as well. Better sights on Mini 14s do help.

I ended that second range session by checking to see where it was shooting farther down range and put 20 rounds on a plate at 200 yards:



The hold was center of mass and the basic group was good. The fliers were due to me and that huge, not well defined and not quite level front blade that was still on it at the time in about equal measure. The group was a bit to the right and it could have used another 1/2 MOA left windage. However the rest was a combination of low angle light from the right, and some wind from left to right.

Given that it was 20 rounds rapid fire ending with a barrel way too hot to touch, the lack of significant vertical stringing was a very positive sign regarding the stability and proper stress relief of the barrel.

----

Subjectively speaking the trigger is very nice by Mini 14 standards. It's a nice two stage trigger with a sharp break at about 4.5 pounds, no gritty feel, and tolerable over travel.

I also like the bolt stop arrangement. It won't win any beauty contests but you can pull the slide back with your index finger, then reach around the heel with you thumb and depress the slide lock to lock it back - making it a very slick one hand operation, easily done with the rifle on your shoulder and your left hand never leaving the forearm. The slide release portion of the arrangement also offers plenty of leverage to press it down and release the slide even with an empty magazine in place. The 181 thru 584 slide lock looks better, but it is not nearly as functional.

The 180 series uses the same gas pipe and slide arrangement as the 181 through 584 series, (which has more in common with the gas tappet and slide system on the M1 Carbine, than it does with the gas cylinder and gas piston operating rod on the M1 or the gas tappet and operating rod on the M14) but retains the roller on the bolt, reminiscent of the M14. The M1 / M1 Carbine style roller-less lug on the later Mini 14s no doubt cost less to produce, but the Mini 14s lost some smoothness and elegance with that change.

I also like the M1 and M14 style metal clip over the handguard. It's more secure than the M1 Carbine style clip under the handguard used on the later Minis, and it is more iconic. To be fair however, it does put some limits on handguard shape and I can see where Ruger wanted to make a change. Plus it eliminates at least two machining steps on the barrel.

All in all I'm pleased with it and it's a nice, and still very practical, addition to my Mini 14 collection.

I had always wondered exactly what was different between the 180 series Mini 14s and the later 181-197 series Mini 14s. One morning I took them apart and made a detailed comparison.

The most obvious external change is the bolt hold open arrangement, but that's actually mostly cosmetic, although I do think that the older 180 series arrangement is more functional. You can pull the bolt back with your index finger and then reach around the heel of the receiver and press the bolt hold open down. The slide release also has has enough leverage to release the bolt even against magazine follower pressure.



I discovered the major change is in the slide/operating rod, and that drives most of the other parts changes in the later Mini 14s.



The operating rod on the 180 series weighs 303 grams while the 181 series slide/operating rod weighs 382 grams. The 181 slide/operating rod is noticeably deeper in the belly, which is where the additional weight is located. That deeper profile then is what requires the deeper profile on the 181 stock's forened, and in turn it requires the bottom half of the gas block assembly to be longer.



There are some detail changes to the shape of the gas pipe, but the diameter and length are the same. The top piece of the gas block assembly appears to be identical in the 180 and 181. The recoil spring guide rod is slightly larger in diameter in the 181 series, and in turn so is the recoil spring and the hole in the slide/operating rod for the spring. The gas port bushing on the 180 series is about .063" in diameter, considerably smaller than the .080" in the 181 series.




In short, Ruger made the 181 series slide/operating rod heavier, installed a slightly heavier guide rod and a larger internal diameter spring and fed it a bit more gas.

The front tangs on the 181 receiver are consequently slightly longer to accommodate the deeper belly on the slide/operating rod, and the receiver is arguably a bit stronger in this area.

Interestingly, the slide/operating rods are otherwise interchangeable. Theoretically, if you broke the slide/operating rod in a 180 series Mini 14, you could use a 181 operating rod, provided you put the rifle in a 181 series stock, along with the lower half of a 181 series gas block, and switched the recoil spring guide rod and spring for 181 series parts to manage the additional reciprocating weight. The 180's .063" gas port bushing should be fine.

Similarly, if you owned a 180 series Mini 14 it could be used in a 181 series (or later) stock, if you also change the lower half of the gas block assembly to match the deeper stock profile. There would just be more clearance for the smaller 180 slide/operating rod inside the stock. There would be some room under the front tangs, but it would not be significant.

The stock liners are identical. The 180 liner is used in the 181 series, it just doesn't go all the sway up the sides of the stock, and the resulting gap in the 181 stock, shows the increase in depth of the stock.



The same is true at the receiver. The forward tab on the 181 insert was simply shortened slightly to connect with the now lower stock liner in the deeper stock. Consequently, the front tab on a 181 series insert could be bent and shortened to fit the 180 series.



The bolts are obviously different in that the 180 has a roller and the 181 series just has a round lug - that is shaped just like the roller. There is some minor differences in the extractor but the bolt face, cut for the ejector, and the lug arrangement and dimensions, and length and firing pin arrangements are identical. The major difference is that the tip on the back of the bolt is higher on the 181 series, and there is a bit more meat in the back of the 181 series bolt.







It would take a little work, but the rear portion of a 181 series bolt could be filed down to fit a 180 series rifle. Head spacing would however be a large question mark. Too little is an easy fix. To much would require setting the barrel back and that would quickly snowball (gas port and gas block location, etc). Fortunately bolts don't seem to break and Jack First makes improved 180 extractors so that won't make a 180 bolt unusable.

In addition to the longer forward tangs on the 181 receiver, the receivers are different in terms of the bolt stop arrangement. But the bolt stop related differences are all above the stock line and don't affect the fit of a stock in that area. One of the big rumors is that the 180's receiver is longer. It's not. Maybe that's a confusion with the longer heel on the AC556 to accommodate the fire selector.

I could find no differences at all in the trigger groups, and they are interchangeable on the two rifles.