Survival Blog Reviews the Mini-14

Recently Pat of the Survival Blog reviewed the Mini-14, with which he has a couple of decades of experience. However, through email with that reviewer I found he has only owned and fired the older Mini-14s with the thinner barrels, and has not fired the newer model Mini-14 with thicker barrels and retooling, in production since the mid-2000s. This matters. (My review of the Mini-14 Tactical).

A few updates/corrections to the Survival Blog review:

• Newer Mini-14s get closer to 2 MOA, or better, out of the box, not the 4 MOA referred to, which is more appropriate for older, non-accurized Mini-14s.
• While some new Mini-14s are advertised in the $750+ range, CDNN sells this newer model for under $569, which is the price one of my brothers paid. Got mine from CDNN for $589. Sometimes police trade-ins of the older models are available for ~$400.
• Factory magazine are readily available for $15 less each than the $50 and $40 suggested in the Survival Blog review, for 30 and 20 rounders, respectively. Check CDNN and Cheaper Than Dirt. On sale for $5-10 less than that at times.
• New Minis now come with 5, 20, and 30 round magazines depending on the model, not just 5 round magazines as the review states.
• Contrary to the Survival blog review, firing pins available at Midway. But as the review mentions, spare parts are rarely needed with the Mini-14.

Let’s also address the myth; the Mini-14 is fine for killing varmints, but is not a combat weapon. It’s a 5.5.6mm round, same as AR variants. If it will hit/kill a small animal, it will hit a man as well. That’s just reality.

I have some experience with the AR-15 (M16 and M4). If you know how to repair/maintain an AR-15 variant, have the spare parts, have a lot of brass-cased ammo, and want to clean that direct impenitent system, then the AR is the carbine for you. They are very accurate, and reliable – when clean, oiled, and when you have all he spare parts you need.

My brothers and I chose the newer Mini-14 Tactical for a long-term survival carbine because we want an accurate weapon that’s not picky about ammo, cleaning, and won’t need a lot of maintenance.

Fitness for Survivalists

Recently Ryan and Jarhead Survivor (and Part 2) have written posts on fitness, and even though I’ve commented at both those blogs I’ll post my 2 cents here, too.

It’s a good idea to keep fit all the time and not just for survival situations. We all know that but don’t always keep in shape, including myself at times. The last few years I’ve gotten back in gear on fitness, but with a few setbacks, more below.

What sort of fitness do survivalists need? Depends on a few things, including what scenario you think is most likely and are preparing for, and age.

In my opinion, the U.S. is currently in a slow collapse that will someday trigger a fast one. I think that if we continue on our current most likely path, a fast collapse will eventually be triggered through financial collapse. I suppose and EMP (manmade or solar induced) or something else could speed that up, but unless something big changes the calculus, I think our civilization is doomed.

From that starting point I think we’ll need to be physically capable of doing a few things; 1) a lot of walking, 2) moving, lifting, and carrying heavy things, 3) doing work that requires repetitive motions over long periods of time, and 4) less often than 1-3, moving very quickly at times.

In the early stages of collapse, fire fights might be more likely and the need to move fast will be there (I’m focusing on accuracy and long-range shooting rather than close quarters situations). But I also may need to bug out on foot and push a cart (jogging stroller in my case) for weeks/months.

So some form of weight training and cardio exercise is probably what most need. I jog, rather slowly at about 6 MPH for 4-8 miles several times a week, and lift weights heavily relative to most. I’m not looking to win any speed races, run a marathon, or be a body builder, though exercising will usually cause weight loss and build muscle mass, generally improving appearance.

Ryan noted I need to add FAST to my routine. Me, not so much. Him, yes. Ryan is an officer deployed to a war zone (also younger – it matters). I don’t know details but assume he’s in a combat arms branch and therefore has a much higher probability of getting into combat where he may indeed need to run like hell, and perhaps carry a 250+lb pound buddy out of danger, etc. If I get deployed to a war zone again, then that’s a different story.

I gave up on fast – knees can no longer take the punishment of running at 9 MPH for 10+ minutes. I work with a lot of retired military and know two guys whose knees aren’t screwed. I literally see guys late 40s/50+ gimping around at work all the time (I work for a big organization with a lot of retired military, along with AD, reserves, CIV, and contractors). Running fast is why those knees are shot, and I don’t want to make mine worse.

I did fast for awhile and am not real old (pushing 40), but decided I’d take a lesser score on my physical fitness test (max two events, do middling on the run) rather than kill my knees like I had been doing in an effort to get a better score. It was the right decision.

When they lose mobility, they start to balloon up, I’ve seen it over and over. A lot of the fat retired guys aren’t lazy, they just can move anywhere near like the used to, combined with a slower metabolism as they age.

Same with lifting as we get older, I see a lot of guys (formerly in outstanding condition) blow an elbow or shoulder, and it all goes to flab.

Keep as fit as possible for your age without sabotaging yourself a couple of decades down the road, it will matter IMO.

If my joints are shot when I’m 50 (or older), having been fast now won’t have been much benefit. Balance is the key, it’s a long race.

Review: Kel-Tec SU-16C Carbine

Several months ago I saw a deal on a Kel-Tec SU-16C ($515 from Bud’s) that I couldn’t pass up. Once I got it, it took awhile to find time to get to a rifle range and shoot it. But now that I’ve shot it, had it apart a few times, and done a few basic modifications, it’s time to review this carbine.

First what this rifle is and isn’t. At 4.7 lbs unloaded and just over five with an optic, with a folding stock (can shoot folded), using cheap and plentiful AR magazines, I consider this primarily a bug out weapon in 5.56 NATO. Excellent for a pack, trunk, toolbox, etc. Relatively inexpensive, few parts to break/replace, and a clean piston system. Picatinny rail on top for easy scope mounting options. Anything for bugging out is also fine for home defense. I don’t consider it a long-term survival weapon with hard use in mind – it’s not an AK or Mini-14 – and will cover that below.

There are several variants of the SU-16. I prefer the SU-16C for the thicker barrel and folding stock. If you have any of the other SU-16 versions, a folding stock can be added, if legal in your state.

The excellent Nutnfacny review of the SU-16C noted that the carbine might need a couple hundred rounds for breaking-in. I shot about 200 rounds of PMC 55 grain FMJ and 60 of Wolf 55 grain HP through mine with no malfunctions at all, so I was probably lucky and this one didn’t seem to need that. The Wolf HP was to verify it would eat cheap steel-cased ammo. Cleaning was easy, very little fouling, very clean shooting.

As part of the break-in process, I went through three 30 round magazines in rapid fire to see if I’d get any stringing when the barrel got hot. Didn’t notice any of that, but it did get hot enough that I was worried about some of the plastic parts melting, especially where the barrel connects to the stock. I did not have this concern with the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical carbine.

Accuracy was good for a break-in, but conditions at the range weren’t ideal. I was a bit rushed, the 100 yard area was in the shade, and it had rained recently so impacts didn’t cause any dust to appear. Excuses aside, I was able to sight it in with an EOTech 512 and hit a nine inch gong at 100 yards consistently. A little more time in better conditions and I’d have the iron sights dialed in, but that’ll have to be next time.

The reason I say, IMO, the SU-16C isn’t a long-term survival carbine with hard use is that I suspect the polymer stock isn’t up to it. Let me stress couple phrases here; long-term and hard use. Glocks have stood the test of time, but an SU-16 has a lot more surface area that needs to hold up. When TSHTF, I’ll be fine with the SU-16C for bugging out. When I get to the retreat, I want my Mini-14 Tactical. The SU-16C will remain for occasional use.

I changed three things on this carbine; added a Kel-Tec compact fore end, a Yankee Hill Phantom C2 flash hider, and a single point sling attachment. The flash hider was a pain because the SU-16C threads didn’t quite lend to easy installation. Took awhile, but I got it. The sling attachment was actually for a PLR – but works perfectly for the SU-16 (note to Kel-Tec, you need to market the PLR sling attachment for the SU-16).

The compact fore end installation was a real pain. I wanted this change so I could use a fore grip and to mount a bipod, and maybe a flashlight. First, the instructions from Kel-Tec absolutely suck. As did the PLR sling attachment instructions. This is a big Kel-Tec fail. So I looked online – this guy did it all wrong, should be a lot more solid.

And getting the compact fore end solid was the real problem. If a fore grip is mounted to it, it must be solid, not come off easily. Some people may add it to look cool, I did not, I wanted some function out of the picatinny rail underneath. My solution was to drill holes and cut/drill/tap four small strips of aluminum to hold the compact fore grip together solidly from the inside with some hex bolts. Took a few hours to get everything right, used blue Loc-Tite. End result, its rock solid.

Overall this is a perfect bug out carbine in 5.56mm NATO, has a clean piston operation, takes cheap AR mags, has good optics mounting options, is ultra light, clean shooting, and inexpensive. Not a major consideration, but looks cool and is fun to shot. Probably not for long-term, hard use, but fine for home defense.

From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need

Students are asked about redistributing grade point averages (GPA), from the upper 10% to those who may not graduate unless their GPAs are raised. A typical response, “that’s not fair, I worked hard for that.” Same students asked if they favor redistributing wealth, looks like all in the video did. Many tried to deflect this obvious hypocrisy by saying the analogy isn’t good, that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. But is it?

One argument, for example, was that grades are a more accurate measure of performance than income. I say; maybe, maybe not, and so what? Income is a combination of performance and life choices. Natural ability and luck are certainly factors, but probably less so than 1) not making stupid choices and 2) working hard. That’s just the way it is.

The Atlantic picked up on this and offered some of the reasons/excuses some argued, as examples and not the position of the author. I think they all fall flat and agree with the conclusion:

They suggest that most of us just want to redistribute income because, well, we wanna . . . not because we have any particularly good reason.

Class warfare is what we’re up against when it comes to creating a sane federal budget, and the sort of hypocritical and illogical approach by the students in the video above is one reason why I have little hope there will be a solution in time to prevent a collapse.