Thoughts on the current Mini-14...

[Borderland]

The Fightlight complete lowers are $699 plus tax, shipping, and FFL fees. Combine this with an upper, and you're at or above the (obscene) price of a new mini-14 or mini-30. You can save a couple hundred bucks by finding a used one. The mini-14/30, with all it's faults, is a known quantity. Parts are available and Ruger is a solid company, in for the long haul.

I have nothing bad to say about the Fightlight, but when a deal on a used 580 series mini-14 came up a few months ago, I grabbed it.

Yep, even with all the fleas it ain't half bad. I trimmed mine out and it shoots just fine. I don't have anything bad to say about a 580 with a trigger job and a bushing swap. I see they're still using M-14's in UKR. Imagine that. Kilt on the battle field by an M-14 or a Maxim machine gun for that matter.

The M-14 was just an improvement of the Garand. There is noting inherently bad about the design.

[john c]

I just read this. I'm in WA and own a Mini. It appears to me that it is restricted for future sale or transfer within the state. It isn't on the list but features include shrouds over the barrel which both my Mini and M-1 carbine have. That might have been added in the last few days, IDK. I'm going to consider it restricted anyway.)

I'm in CA, and living with the same restrictions for the past 23 years. Unless there is some WA specific language in the definitions in the bill, both the Mini-14 and M1 carbine have top handguards, not barrel shrouds. They should be fine.

In the end, you'll benefit from the lawsuits we've filed in CA. Our AWB is about to fall, and then get appealed back to the 9th Circuit. The Bruen decision ties their hands pretty tight. My guess is that you won't have an AWB for very long. If the antis were smart, they wouldn't appeal the CA AWB to the 9th Circuit. That would leave your AWB in place for longer while you guys had to start the whole process over.

[Borderland]

I'm in CA, and living with the same restrictions for the past 23 years. Unless there is some WA specific language in the definitions in the bill, both the Mini-14 and M1 carbine have top handguards, not barrel shrouds. They should be fine.

In the end, you'll benefit from the lawsuits we've filed in CA. Our AWB is about to fall, and then get appealed back to the 9th Circuit. The Bruen decision ties their hands pretty tight. My guess is that you won't have an AWB for very long. If the antis were smart, they wouldn't appeal the CA AWB to the 9th Circuit. That would leave your AWB in place for longer while you guys had to start the whole process over.

Here's the language in the bill.

(I) A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer's hand from heat, except a solid forearm of a stock that covers only the bottom of the barrel.

I'm not sure what that means except my guess is dealers here won't be selling anymore Mini-14's. If they do it will probably be Ranch Rifles.

I also found this which supports your definition.

https://ccdlaw.com/washington-state-...ault-firearms/

[ECVMatt]

Here's the language in the bill.



I'm not sure what that means except my guess is dealers here won't be selling anymore Mini-14's. If they do it will probably be Ranch Rifles.

I also found this which supports your definition.

https://ccdlaw.com/washington-state-...ault-firearms/

Having dealt with a lot of this BS in CA for the past few decades, I would be a dealer will simply pop off the upper handguard and sell the rifle with the handguard not attached.

I agree that these laws look to be short lived. Our "Safe Handgun List" took a big hit yesterday and we have more cases lined up that look like they will go in our favor.