Ranch vs. Standard

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rgs1975

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
382
Location
the belly of the beast
Ruger makes the Mini-14 in the Standard and Ranch versions. What's the difference? Does Ruger currently make both versions or just the Ranch? I've looked at the Ruger website and only see references to the Ranch.
 
The ranch comes with dedicated scope rings. Don' know if they're only making the Ranch now, or not. Unless you live in California, Mini shouldn't be an option, anywho.
 
ruger

Ranch only i believe now,diffs standard had fixed sturdier rear peep with ejected shell up and forward ,violantly and will tear the hail out of a scope.
Ranch set up with intergral scope mounts and a flimsy fold down peep site comes with ruger rings and will eject out the side more will not tear the scope up as fast.
Both rae too exp for what u git ,and i am fo teen po'
Mags are still expensive and ruger wont supply em,u can find them in pawn shops and gun stores from 30 to 100 dollars
 
I do happen to live in California unfortunately. I'm pretty much torn between the Ruger Mini-14, Kel Tec SU16CA and an M1 Carbine. Not a big fan of the SKS and it's all based solely on it's looks so I won't knock it's capability, just a personal thing I guess. The SOCOM's and Garand's are just plain out of my league financially and I wouldn't be able to hold one of those crippled AR's that they mutilated so it couldn't accept a detachable magazine (what a shame, it's like castorating a champion race horse). Very frustrating.
 
Ruger currently only produces the Ranch version of the Mini-14. The older Ranch rifles had flip up rear sights that were not the best, but it was easier to mount a scope on the rifle. The Standard Mini had better rear sights, but mounting a scope was difficult. The current production Ranch rifles have put a much better and robust rear sight on the rifle, along with the ability to mount a scope. If you are going to get a new production Mini, whether to get a Standard or Ranch will not be an issue. If you buy a used Mini, then you will have to decide which one to get. Of the choices you have listed I would get the SU-16CA, but that is my opinion. In my very subjective and unscientific opinion the SU-16 kicks a bit more than the Mini, and the Mini has a better feel to it. The SU-16 has the magazine advantage, and is arguably a bit more accurate out of the box. I have a SU-16A and I love it, but that is not to say that the Mini is not necessarily a bad choice either.
 
I do happen to live in California unfortunately. I'm pretty much torn between the Ruger Mini-14, Kel Tec SU16CA and an M1 Carbine. Not a big fan of the SKS and it's all based solely on it's looks so I won't knock it's capability, just a personal thing I guess.
Click to expand...

wait- did you just knock the SKS for looks and in the same paragraph say that you want a SU16CA or a Mini 14?
:confused:

I guess my tastes in how a rifle looks are different than other peoples'
 
It depends on if you want a scope or not. I consider them a short-medium range carbine type, so IMO iron sights is more appropriate, so I got the standard.

And despite what some folks say, with a bit of work (cutting the barrel to 16", add a muzzle break, bed the action), you can get AR level accuracy with better reliability.
 
The SOCOM's and Garand's are just plain out of my league financially
Click to expand...

CMP Garands are not that expensive compared to mini-14's. New or resale guns are probably not cheap though.

With those mag prices, by the time I would get all the mags I want, I could probably buy an inexpensive AR. At least in Texas.
 
wait- did you just knock the SKS for looks and in the same paragraph say that you want a SU16CA or a Mini 14?
Click to expand...
I won't comment on the SU16, but the Mini-14 looks lot like a cross between and M14 and an M1 carbine. Why would you say that's not attractive? (I guess I like the looks of older US military autoloaders.)
 
The closest thing to an AR in California is called a FAB 10 I think. It's pretty much castorated with the magazine sleeve welded closed and you have to hand load rounds in through the top after partially taking the rifle apart. Needless to say I'll pass on that one.

About the SKS looks thing...what I think sets me off with it is the look of the back of the reciever, how it is so square and blocked off. No real reason, just don't like it. I think the SU16 looks good but is borderline on the Sci-Fi cheesy side. The Mini-14 is ok looks wise, nothing fancy but not boring either (although I can't stand the OEM upper handguard on them). Now the M1 Carbine...that is a fine looking rifle in my opinion. :)
 
what I think sets me off with it is the look of the back of the reciever, how it is so square and blocked off.
Click to expand...

You can partially solve that problem by getting a set of Tech-Sights, that attach to the rear of the receiver. They look pretty good on the rifle and are arguably better sights than the standard sights.

http://www.tech-sights.com/
 
Is this rifle for looking at or shooting? For the price of a new mini-14, I think you could easily get a CMP Garand and a Yugo SKS and some ammo for each. I have both and love them. I also own an old '89 mini-14 stainless that I actually like, but wouldn't pay more than 350$ for one (what I paid 7 years ago). I have fired the SU-16C (not CA) and it seems to be at least as good as the mini-14 and a whole lot handier and reliable AR-15 mags are much more afffordable. Plus if you ever get out of commie land and want to get an AR, you will already have mags. My beef with the mini is the usual, thin barrel and very expensive mags. M1 carbine is ok but pricy and relatively anemic, might as well get a used 357/44 lever action for less money. I would personally get the Garand and the SKS. Good luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top