Originally Posted by jarhead_h

You forgot one - the M14. The one that the M16 wrongly replaced. The one that was every bit as accurate, that the SEALS can trust to fire directly after being submerged in salt water for extended periods, that never develops a "wobble" where the upper and lower receiver joins because the M14 doesn't have that design flaw, and finally makes a very good club in the event that you run out of ammo. That rifle looks to be making a comeback in a big way, and this Marine approves.

I would gladly break every AR-15/M16/CAR16/M4 with my bare hands. And before you call BS, trust me, it's not that hard to do.

Originally Posted by Suave

As an armchair commando I agree! Perhaps "battle rifles" are better in general than "assault rifles"!

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Because it tends to unreliability, is less accurate than the AR by quite a ways (and MilSpec for the M4 and M16 is 4MOA; most of the inherant accuracy advantage lies in the AR's superb sights and trigger), doesn't accept optics well because of the open receiver, gets filled with crap for the same reason, it's trigger sucks compared to the AR/M16, lacks aftermarket support, lacks suitable numbers of standard-capacity magazines, the controls suck, and will spew hot gases and such directly back into the users' face in the event of a slamfire, again due to the open receiver. I'm not an AR fan, but it's a vastly superior weapon to the Mini.

Originally Posted by blade02

I don't know guns that well, but I was under the impression that the Mini-14 set-up was copied after the M1 and M-14 rifles. I haven't heard too many people complain about M1s or M-14s so I figured the Mini-14 would be pretty good too.

Originally Posted by ziadel

The only actual difference between the two is caliber. And I am extremely skeptical of claims about AR's handling immersion in anything. I'm not saying its impossible from a worked over weapon, but no way thats happening in anything you pull off the rack.