bmcgilvray

I though it odd that Ruger beat up on their own "20-year-old" product in comparing the latest and greatest incarnation of the Mini-14 to the original in the blurb in their gun rag advertisement.

Rob72

Its such common knowledge, they pretty well had to, if they hoped to sell the new $$-ier version. Harmonic stabilizers do work...but proper bedding and barrelmaking do it more efficiently.

As-is, I don't see $400 worth of new technology there, unless they did indeed decide to improve their barrel making. I wouldn't be the first kid on the block to have one. After some folks have them and report, I might spend $600 for one, but not anywhere near MSRP.

SIXTO

I went, and they did have one. It had the thumbhole stock on it. It seems that it would be ambi, it had no strange contours that would make it right hand only.
It was very front heavy, def. made for the bench and not lugging around. The trigger was much crisper than the standard ranch rifle, but it still was not as good as the RRA two stage or a 700vs.
It kind of reminded me of the 10/22T models... much better than the standard but still not as good as what you can do aftermarket.

__________________
In a land of sheep, even a toothless wolf is king.

Wake Up! The zombie invasion has begun years ago.

Captain Crunch

Bud, I know you don't read the gun rags, but there's an article about the Mini-14 Target in the August 07 issue of Guns magazine.

__________________


"Just be nice...or I'LL SHOOT"!

Terry

Doc Holliday

Ruger claims that they have beat the AR in competition. At least that is what I read in the ad that I saw about these.

Me personally, would just spend the money on an AR instead. Nothing wrong at all with Mini-14 as a plinker/self defense rifle but it is never going to split hair at 300 yards.

__________________
Give Doc the shotgun.
They'll be less apt to get nervous if he's on the street howitzer.

Why, Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave.

I have two guns, one for each of ya.