Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
(Post 11639510)
I have two 20 and one 10 round mag. Washington just banned magazines over ten rounds. My sons and every other shooter we all know are running out and stocking up before out July 21st deadline. I'm not. I cannot imagine "needing" more magazines than that, for how I use the rifle. I actually prefer the flush mounted ten round, it makes the rifle a whole lot nicer to carry. In other words, this is a non-issue for me.
There is no such thing as a "good" trigger on any of these rifles, so I won't even bother. Just a waste of money in my opinion. And yes, I am a certifiable "trigger snob". "Good" triggers are found on single shot match rifles, bolt action match or varmint rifles, well tuned S&W or Colt revolvers, and stuff like that. Granted, one can install a "better" trigger on these "black rifles", but they will never have a "good" trigger. So, another non-issue for me.
When I want a new caliber, I buy a new rifle. Barrel interchangeability means nothing to me. Especially not in the narrow range of calibers and their performance envelopes available in these platforms. Actually, beyond their original .223 (or .308 in the bigger platforms), none of the other offerings interest me in the least. They are all exceedingly compromised to meet packaging requirements in these rifles, with far better offerings in all of the same bore diameters available in bolt actions, single shots, and lever guns that will accept longer cartridges. So, again, non-issue for me.
I would never treat any firearm with such disrespect and subject it to that kind of abuse. I have shot barrels out on a number of firearms, mainly bolt action varmint rifles. The worst has been my #1 in .220 Swift. I shoot it with the utmost care, never letting it heat up, but it still uses up barrels in about 2,000 rounds. Just way too much powder in way too small of a bore. That's different, though, and I'm willing to put up with that for the performance it offers. I just bring it to my favorite local gunsmith and have him rebarrel it. As far as the Mini 14, however, I don't anticipate ever shooting it out. I don't abuse it, and I don't shoot it that much anyway. So, again - non-issue for me.
How many guns have you sent to Ruger for repair? In over 40 years of owning more Rugers than I can remember, I've only had to send two. Both were back in my grubby little hands in less than two weeks, fully repaired and functional.
Lots of gun companies have no expressed warrantee of any kind. This is pretty common in this industry. My favorite shooting sports related repair story was with Leupold. I had bought a Vari-X II 3-9x at a gun show and, after some ten years of ownership and use, it failed. I sent it to Leupold for repair one Monday morning, with a letter explaining how I had purchased it used a decade prior, and asking them to just bill me for the repairs. I had it back that Friday, five days later. For free. They even paid return shipping. I called to explain to them their mistake and ask for a bill, but the nice lady on the phone simply explained "sir, it's a Leupold that didn't work. We can't have that. Have a nice day". A buddy rolled his old Blazer down a sidehill out elk hunting one day, with his rifle in a side window rack. Broke the Leupold mounted to it in half. Same thing - Leupold, even when told what happened, replaced it for free. Yet no written warrantee...
So, with my first hand experience with Ruger (and a number of other reputable manufacturers), this lack of a warrantee is, again, a non-issue.
It was all service related, stemming from its early use in Vietnam, and its current use in "the sandbox". In Vietnam, its wood stock proved problematic in the constant wet. That has since been addressed with a switch to composite. The other complaint, in both theaters, is the open nature of the action. In the former, it collected mud and debris. In the latter, sand and debris, affecting reliability. Both generations complain about its inherent inaccuracy, with that big heavy operating rod jarring the whole works every time it cycles. That, and apparently it is very sensitive to bedding, to the point that when the action is removed from the stock they see significant changes in the point of impact upon reassembly.
Springfield Armory attempts to address this accuracy issue on their National Match rifles by very tightly glass bedding the action into the stock. Tight enough that they recommend you do not try to separate the two - you will likely break (wood stocks) or otherwise damage (composite stocks) the stock in so doing.
I've never worried about any of this. For me, it's just a "fun gun". I'm not carrying it into battle. It shoots as well as I would expect such a rifle to shoot. If I want (or need) better, I have plenty to choose from.
|
