Posted: 12/8/2009 8:49:15 AM EDT
| I got a WASR-10 at a gunshop the other day. A guy there proceeded to tear into me for buying such junk, and that a Mini-14 is much better made, more reliable and will last for years and years. I didn't feel arguing with him so I just said "oh well" and walked out of the shop with my awesome new toy. Why would he say that? I don't think I've ever heard of a Mini-14 being a more formidable weapon than a Kalashnikov platform rifle before. Does he know something I don't, or is he just one of those "durrr you must be a commie since you bought an AK...." types? |
|
Quoted: I got a WASR-10 at a gunshop the other day. A guy there proceeded to tear into me for buying such junk, and that a Mini-14 is much better made, more reliable and will last for years and years. I didn't feel arguing with him so I just said "oh well" and walked out of the shop with my awesome new toy. Why would he say that? I don't think I've ever heard of a Mini-14 being a more formidable weapon than a Kalashnikov platform rifle before. Does he know something I don't, or is he just one of those "durrr you must be a commie since you bought an AK...." types? He's an asshole. Who cares? |
|
Quoted:
I got a WASR-10 at a gunshop the other day. A guy there proceeded to tear into me for buying such junk, and that a Mini-14 is much better made, more reliable and will last for years and years. I didn't feel arguing with him so I just said "oh well" and walked out of the shop with my awesome new toy. Why would he say that? I don't think I've ever heard of a Mini-14 being a more formidable weapon than a Kalashnikov platform rifle before. Does he know something I don't, or is he just one of those "durrr you must be a commie since you bought an AK...." types? The WASR-10 would more accurate. 
|
|
Quoted:
I would trust a WASR more than a MINI. I would have recommended other AKs but the WASRs aren't as bad as some make them sound. I went in with the understanding that it isn't an Arsenal AK, but what exactly can an Arsenal or equivalent brand AK do that the WASR can't, besides look nicer? No slam to Arsenal, since they do make a nice AK. A good friend of mine has a Polytech Legend from the 80s, and we went shooting the other day. I brought my new WASR, he brought his Polytech. Aside from looking nicer, the Polytech didn't really do anything functional-wise that the WASR couldn't do. Accuracy was about the same. I think the WASR is one of the best deals in the firearms market, honestly. You get a rock solid reliable centerfire rifle for less than 400 bucks. I've got a feeling that my grandkids will be shooting this rifle years from now (I'm 19) I don't hate the Mini-14, I was just shocked that people make such stupid comments sometimes...USA USA USA!!!! Durrr you're a commie!!! |
|
Quoted:
Because a Ruger is USA USA USA! Durrdedurr Yup, the same Ruger that helpfully supported the '94 AWB and told the government that they'd never make a magazine for their rifles that is more than ten rounds unless it was for the government as long as their Mini14 etc was kept off the official lists of "Assault Weapons." The backlash ended that one rather quick, as did the death of the old man. They've since become a decent company, but I'm still skeptical of everything they do. Treason is a difficult thing for me to forgive. I suppose that a Mini14/30 might be a tad more accurate, but your magazines will be considerably tougher and cheaper and your gun will be extremely reliable. ROMAKS have a nasty tendency to have front sight cant where you've got to drive the front sight driven all the way to one side or another to even get it on paper and even under the best of conditions you'll struggle to keep it inside four inches at 75 to 100 yards and that's if you're lucky. I have one that wouldn't chamber rounds effectively and I had to run a reamer through the chamber because it was extremely tight though, so go shoot the rifle before you decide to call it your primary zombie rifle. |
|
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger.
Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? |
|
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Are you the same people comparing a Mini14 to a Benelli? |
|
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Are you the same people comparing a Mini14 to a Benelli? No but I am comparing a bottom-barrel clone of a Soviet conscript rifle to an American sporting rifle inspired by the M14. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. Ruger's investment cast is high quality and highly regarded across the manufacturing industry. Far more than stamped steel from a 3rd world country. The WASR was built for the commercial market as well. The fact that they're built on parts that weren't good enough for a 3rd world military speaks volumes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. Ruger's investment cast is high quality and highly regarded. Far more than stamped steel from a 3rd world country. The WASR was built for the commercial market as well. The fact that they're built on parts that weren't good enough for a 3rd world military speaks volumes. Yeah, maybe 3 years ago. Current parts used on WASRs are no different than the Romanian "G" parts kits. Sorry, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. Ruger's investment cast is high quality and highly regarded. Far more than stamped steel from a 3rd world country. The WASR was built for the commercial market as well. The fact that they're built on parts that weren't good enough for a 3rd world military speaks volumes. Yeah, maybe 3 years ago. Current parts used on WASRs are no different than the Romanian "G" parts kits. Sorry, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. Projection. You couldn't even refute my post. Both rifles aren't much more than plinkers, anyway. One is just of higher quality. |
|
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. Ruger's investment cast is high quality and highly regarded. Far more than stamped steel from a 3rd world country. The WASR was built for the commercial market as well. The fact that they're built on parts that weren't good enough for a 3rd world military speaks volumes. Yeah, maybe 3 years ago. Current parts used on WASRs are no different than the Romanian "G" parts kits. Sorry, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. Projection. You couldn't even refute my post. Both rifles aren't much more than plinkers, anyway. One is just of higher quality. In other words, it's a matter of preference, and if the man wants a WASR then everyone else should just mind what they're paying for it. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was this guy an employee or a fellow customer? Fellow customer. The Employee was taunting me for not going with an AMD-65, but I didn't like the stock Of course...now the correct answer is "get both" (the AMD and the WASR). I picked up my WASR right after the AWB ended and after some minor tweaking it's a great rifle that shoots straight and never hiccups. (I eventually refinished the wood also). If someone else doesn't like your choice, who cares as long as you're happy with it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? 
|
|
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. 
Is that why Mini-14's can't finish Gunsite 223 w/o breaking? Because of their 'quality'. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to break it to you but the guy is right. The Mini-14 is of superior quality, more accurate, and more rugged. You also get things like straight sights and a maufacturer's support on the Ruger. Are you the same people arguing that there is no reason a Benelli should cost more than a Mossberg? Hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Mini-14 is an investment cast rifle built for the commercial market. WASRs are ugly, but they are built with military surplus parts kits and aren't much different than any other AK. So, we are comparing a weapon built for battlefield use to one built for "sportmen" to go plink with at the shooting range, and you seem to think that the Mini-14 is more durable? Wow. Ruger's investment cast is high quality and highly regarded. Far more than stamped steel from a 3rd world country. The WASR was built for the commercial market as well. The fact that they're built on parts that weren't good enough for a 3rd world military speaks volumes. Yeah, maybe 3 years ago. Current parts used on WASRs are no different than the Romanian "G" parts kits. Sorry, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. Projection. You couldn't even refute my post. Both rifles aren't much more than plinkers, anyway. One is just of higher quality. In other words, it's a matter of preference, and if the man wants a WASR then everyone else should just mind what they're paying for it. True. But I felt the need to point out that that guy wasn't completely wrong. He was an idiot for calling the rifle junk(which it is NOT), but not in saying that the Ruger is better made. A more competent rifleman could use the WASR more effectively than a lesser rifleman with the Mini. The capability of either rifle is comparable. The Ruger pulls ahead a bit in accuracy and strength but not by much. It's quality where it shines in regards to the WASR. |
| I'm very happy with it...it's a great shooting rifle, and doesn't suffer from the dreaded canted sights. I was just kinda flabbergasted that a customer would go out of his way to tell me what junk I bought when the rifle he was advocating might be marginally superior in some aspects. Certainly not all though. |
|
IMO, the Mini-14 is a much better built gun than the WASR, as far as quality of manufacture goes. I would say durability goes to the WASR. Reliabilty is honestly a toss-up between the two.
Accuracy, now...the older Mini-14s gained a hard-earned reputation for being very possibly the least accurate rifle ever produced. The 2 that I tried did very well to group within a FOOT at 100yds, and that was scoped, firing through a cold barrel. Ruger has, however, finally improved on it, and from what I hear, they now have respectable accuracy, though usually still not on a par with an AR. I'll be finding out fairly soon, as I have one with a 16-inch barrel coming. Before anyone accuses me of knowing nothing about AK's, I have owned 3 of them. If the ergonomics were better, I'd still have 'em. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Corporations change, especially when leadership changes. The "they" you speak of don't exist anymore. Using that rationale, one could not hold a grudge against GM or Chrysler. As I said, I don't like either rifle. Neither rifle impressed me. I have no dog in the fight. |
|
Quoted:
I'm very happy with it...it's a great shooting rifle, and doesn't suffer from the dreaded canted sights. I was just kinda flabbergasted that a customer would go out of his way to tell me what junk I bought when the rifle he was advocating might be marginally superior in some aspects. Certainly not all though. You're right and I don't want you to think that I was saying otherwise. The guy was an ass and the WASR isn't junk. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Do you own any Smith & Wesson guns? How about Marlin? They were cool with the '94 ban as long as the Model 60 was exempted. And then of course there's Colt, who for years sold shaved bolt carriers because they didn't trust civilian owners to not convert their ARs to full auto. I could go on and on. Aside from Ronnie Barrett, there's not one gun company who hasn't sold out in order to save their skin at one point or another. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Corporations change, especially when leadership changes. The "they" you speak of don't exist anymore. Using that rationale, one could not hold a grudge against GM or Chrysler. As I said, I don't like either rifle. Neither rifle impressed me. I have no dog in the fight. Yeah, but at the end of the day Ruger's still the Saturday Night Special producing assholes that they were 10 years ago. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Do you own any Smith & Wesson guns?
How about Marlin? They were cool with the '94 ban as long as the Model 60 was exempted. And then of course there's Colt, who for years sold shaved bolt carriers because they didn't trust civilian owners to not convert their ARs to full auto. I could go on and on. Aside from Ronnie Barrett, there's not one gun company who hasn't sold out in order to save their skin at one point or another. My Smith and Marlin were inherited, I wouldn't buy them otherwise. But I do own an Colt (and an H&K), but I make an exception for those due to their quality. Colt/HK: Shitty attitude, great quality. Ruger: Shitty attitude, shitty quality. This is not hard to figure out. |
| Not sure about the new Mini-14, but the old ones are junk. I've had 2, forgot to sell my 2nd one during the panic of 09. Very inaccurate. The rear sight fell off too. The AKs I've shot, rattle around and spray shots all over at 100 yards, but they don't fall apart and are a lot more robust... especially the magazines. That right there is a deciding factor for me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Corporations change, especially when leadership changes. The "they" you speak of don't exist anymore. Using that rationale, one could not hold a grudge against GM or Chrysler. As I said, I don't like either rifle. Neither rifle impressed me. I have no dog in the fight. Not to open this can of worms again, but Ruger did just enter the AR market. And, as far as I can tell, they haven't ruined their revolvers with an internal lock yet. So what else do they have to do? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Do you own any Smith & Wesson guns? How about Marlin? They were cool with the '94 ban as long as the Model 60 was exempted. And then of course there's Colt, who for years sold shaved bolt carriers because they didn't trust civilian owners to not convert their ARs to full auto. I could go on and on. Aside from Ronnie Barrett, there's not one gun company who hasn't sold out in order to save their skin at one point or another. My Smith and Marlin were inherited, I wouldn't buy them otherwise. But I do own an Colt (and an H&K), but I make an exception for those due to their quality. Colt/HK: Shitty attitude, great quality. Ruger: Shitty attitude, shitty quality. This is not hard to figure out. Whatever.  Ruger has changed their attitude towards black guns, and they've always had high quality in my experience. Most people here who own Rugers would agree. If you don't want to buy one then you don't have to. But your reasons for not buying one are not only incorrect but silly too. |
|
I sold my POS mini.
It was finicky with mags, I was lucky to go a full mag without a misfeed. The only mag that worked 100% reliable was the factory 5rd mag 
I traded it straight up for a WASR-10 and two 30rd mags. I got the deal of a lifetime. the Gordon 2 trigger was already installed and it was many times better than what was on the ruger mini. I cleaned up the wood a bit for aesthetics...its my beater AK. It works and is as reliable as a shovel. I can hit man sized targets well past 200 yards with it.
I've got AR's if I really wanna be precise. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Current WASRs are built on military spec parts kits, how is that projection? That could be true now but the material still not up to a first world manufacturer's specs. I'm not debating the design of either rifles, just pointing out the low quality of the WASR. In both assembly and material. But, at the end of the day, the WASRs is a much better low quality rifle than the Mini-14. Bill Ruger's attitude is reason enough not to buy anything Ruger. They've been playing the "we're sportsmen, we swear!" game for so long, then the Libtard kicks the bucket and they want to be everybody's buddy again? Do you own any Smith & Wesson guns?
How about Marlin? They were cool with the '94 ban as long as the Model 60 was exempted. And then of course there's Colt, who for years sold shaved bolt carriers because they didn't trust civilian owners to not convert their ARs to full auto. I could go on and on. Aside from Ronnie Barrett, there's not one gun company who hasn't sold out in order to save their skin at one point or another. My Smith and Marlin were inherited, I wouldn't buy them otherwise. But I do own an Colt (and an H&K), but I make an exception for those due to their quality. Colt/HK: Shitty attitude, great quality. Ruger: Shitty attitude, shitty quality. This is not hard to figure out. Whatever.
Ruger has changed their attitude towards black guns, and they've always had high quality in my experience. Most people here who own Rugers would agree. If you don't want to buy one then you don't have to. But your reasons for not buying one are not only incorrect but silly too. High quality compared to what? Hi-Point and Kel-tec?
|