In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Date of Manufacture, Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle

RancheroPaulRancheroPaul Member Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited September 2002 in Ask the Experts
Need an idea of the manufacture date for a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle in .223 caliber.....serial number 188-19XXX. I am not familiar with Ruger's dating so need someone to help out. Much appreciated and Thanks in advance...



Fish Shudder at the sound of my Name!

Comments

  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    It was made 1990-1991, in that range.

    Keep in mind that just because it was made prior to 1994 doesn't make it a pre-ban. If it wasn't already configured as an assault weapon prior to the ban, it can't be converted now.

    But if it had the assault weapon goodies prior to Sept. 1994, it would be a legit assault weapon now.

    To err is human, to moo is bovine.
  • NighthawkNighthawk Member Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If I may add to Paul's question without starting a new thread.What year or years was the 186 series Manufactured??Is it the higher the first 3 serial no.s are the newer the gun?

    Thanks in Advance!!

    Rugster


    Toujours Pret

    Edited by - Rugster on 09/21/2002 22:23:57
  • RancheroPaulRancheroPaul Member Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    OKay...this brings up more questions for me. I'm dumb as a rock about one of these Ranch Rifles. This is just an extremely nice stainless gun with a flash hider and a black/tan laminated stock. Has Factory scope rings, a Ruger Marked 5 Round and a Ruger marked 30 round magazine. What would be considered accessories which would be "assault weapon" variety on this gun? What can or cannot be added to this gun? Thanks again!


    Fish Shudder at the sound of my Name!
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    rugster,

    Let me give you a link,

    http://www.sportables.com/ruger_rifles.htm

    Ruger once had this on their web page, but it was removed because, it was said, they determined there were some exceptions to this list. That is, it isn't 100% accurate. It's probably 99.999% accurate, but they took it off their site anyway. A few people had the foresight to copy it before it was removed. It has shown up on a couple of sites I know of, and hope someone had the foresight to copy it again, and save it for future use.

    Please, if you have the technical ability and computer storage space, do me a favor and save this somewhere. If nothiong else, print it off. The one site I used to access this info on is no longer available. It took me quite a while seaching other sites before I stumbled on top this one.

    I have found this information very helpful when I come across 10/22's, Mini-14s and Mini-30's in gun shops and pawn shops that have an abundance of assault weapons features. Such guns are still fairly common in the midwest. I always like to check the serial number range before buying such guns.

    In buying these types of guns, I like to have documentation that it had the "evil" assault features at the time I bought it. I'll have the shop owner make a note on the receipt "with Butler Creek folding stock" or such. In doing that, I believe it will serve to prove that the gun was already in assault weapon's configuration before I bought it, that I checked the serial numbers and they were in the proper range to be a legitimate "pre-ban" modified firearm, and that I bought it in good faith.

    This Monday, I'm going to go back through a town I visited on one of my trips. A pawn shop there had a 10/22 with a BC folding stock, with serial numbers in the 232 range. When I looked at it the first time, I thought those numbers were kinda high for pre-'94 numbers, but it turns out they were made a year or so before the ban. The shop owner wanted $160.00, asking price, and it was really was a nice rifle. Gonna go back and see what I can do to drive the price down some....

    To err is human, to moo is bovine.
  • RancheroPaulRancheroPaul Member Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Boeboe.....many thanks! Now let me be of service. First of all, this link takes very little space on a hard drive.... I have it saved. I will be happy to e-mail it to you. All you have to do if save the file, open your internet browser, click on file and go to the directory where this file is, highlight it and say OK. It will display in your browser, you can print it from there or whatever. If you are unable to do that, I can simply post it on a website where it is "hidden" so to speak and give you an address to type in and it will come up.....Let me know what I can do for you with this..... padams@aros.net

    Here's a web address and a link....copy it, keep it, this site has been up for about 5 years now and I expect it will be up for many more......
    http://www.silverkennel.com/ruger_rifles.htm

    Thanks again!!!


    Fish Shudder at the sound of my Name!

    Edited by - RancheroPaul on 09/21/2002 23:17:23
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    Paul,

    Thanks! I have it saved. I had it saved on my old computer, which went down last summer, and hadn't been able to save it on my new one. It's done now.

    To answer your other question, for a rifle to be considered an "assault weapon", it has to have the ability to accept detatchable magazines and have TWO or more of the following:

    Folding Stock
    Pistol Grip
    Bayonet Lug
    Grenade Launcher
    Flash Hider, or a threaded barrel that can accomodate a flash hider.

    Any two of the above five items puts it in the assault rifle class. A Mini-14 with a Butler Creek folding stock is an assault weapon, because it has the folding stock plus pistol grip. Also, a Mini-14 which has had a flash hider/bayonet lug installed is an assault rifle.

    If the Mini-14 had two of these installed before the Sept. '94 ban, it is a legal assault rifle. If you take any Mini-14 which was not already converted and add two of the five, it would be considered "manufacturing an assault weapon" by the ATF, regardless of the fact that the original rifle may have been made prior to the ban. So those that were "assault rifles" before the ban as legal. Those converted after the ban are not.

    Of course, the question is, how can anyone prove when these features were added? Ruger has no record of that (except in the case of the GB models). If the original rifle was made prior to the '94 ban, only the person who owned it prior to the ban would know if it was really configured as an assault weapon prior to that date.

    There are, no doubt, lots of people who have taken pre-1994 made Mini-14s and added Butler Creek or Ram-Line folding stocks. If that person owned it prior to the ban, it would be difficult to say it wasn't like that by the required time (unless he confesses). And, it is quite possible he may admit he added such things after the ban, because these laws are so confusing he may not know what is legal and what is not.

    For anyone to now take a pre-1994 Ruger and convert it to assault weapon configuration would be a felony, however, again, the only other person who would really know was the person who owned it as of Sept. 1994.

    If you bought such a rifle and converted it, are you sure the ATF would never ask the original owner what was done to it before he sold it? Maybe, if the ATF was really, really wanting to get you for something, they would track that person down and ask him.

    So what are the odds?

    Myself, I just don't care to take any chances or break any laws. There are still several such guns floating around in gun shops and pawn shops, and at reasonable prices. I just prefer to buy them that way in the first place.

    Beside, like on the 10/22 I was talking about, by the time I bough a good used 10/22, and a Butler Creek folding stock, I'd have more in it than I would pay for one at a pawn shop. Same is true of the Mini-14. I bought one at a gunshow about a year ago, Butler Creek folding stock, with scope for less that $400.00. Why would I care to spend the money for a pre-'94 Ruger, then buy a folding stock for around $100.00 (or more) when I can buy a rifle already like that for less money?

    Sure, there are those who put higher prices on them, I've seen them sell for around $600. But if you keep your eyes open, you could probably find what you want for a very reasonable price.

    Oh, by the way, if it already had two assault features prior to the '94 ban, you could add more if you like, it would be legal. So you could take a legit Mini-14 with a BC folder, and add the flash hider and bayonet lug, if you wanted.

    You can change the configuration of a legit pre-94 assault weapon, but legally, you can't be the person who turns it into an assault weapon (by adding two of the five features).

    To err is human, to moo is bovine.
  • seamusseamus Member Posts: 96 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Boeboe and Rugster: Advise me if I'm wrong, for it's been quite awhile since I have read over the law referred to as the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). However, when you (Boeboe) said that for a rifle to be classifed as an assault weapon under the AWB, it must have had "two or more of the following ....", you did not mention that, first off, the rifle must be an auto loader, have a detachable mag, and (as I recall but don't quote me) be a center-fire weapon. Of course, because the question first related to a Mini 14, the foregoing was understood. But we should not lose sight of the details when talking about the AWB. If I'm right about the center-fire aspect, then (Rugster) the AWB does not apply to a 10/22.
  • NighthawkNighthawk Member Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks for devoteing your time to answer this guys.Paul I hope it didnt add confusion to your question.It sounds 99% like you have a post ban weapon.

    Best!!!

    Rugster


    Toujours Pret
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    seamus,

    I failed to mention the auto-loader part, but mentioned the detatchable magazines (just above the list of five qualifiers). It does need to be semi-auto. The way the ban is worded states the semi-auto part along with the detatchable magazine part in paragraph form, then it lists the five qualifiers as "bullets". I also failed to include collapsible stocks with folding stocks.

    There was a push to exclude rimfire cartridges, but that failed. A .22 rimfire can be classed as an assault weapon under the provisions of the federal ban. As an illustration, the Calico .22 rimfires rifles with folding stocks were discontinued, as was the Intratec Tec-22 Scorpion. The Tec-22 was classified as an assault pistol. It was re-introduced as the "Sport" version without the threaded barrel to satisfy the ban requirements. I'm thinking that AMT made a 10/22 clone with a folding stock, which was also discontinued as the result of the ban.

    There are different assault weaopn qualifiers for pistols, rifles, and shotguns, they are not all the same. I don't want to get into the shotgun and pistol definitions, since we are talking about Ruger rifles.

    There are a few states that have their own definitions of assault weapons, such as Kalifornia and NJ. It could be that some of these states excluded the .22 rimfires from their definitions. Really, these state laws have more to do with possession and transfer than manufacture. So, I'm thinking there are probably states that allow .22 rimfires with assault weapon features, but not the centerfires. Unfortunately, on the federal level, the .22 rimfire was not excluded, and the manufacture was banned.



    To err is human, to moo is bovine.
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    Seamus,

    You got me looking, following is a link that describes assault weapons on the federal level pretty well. It also includes a list of several such weapons. Note the Calico 22's, the AMT Lightning 25 (10/22 clone with 25 round mag) and the Intratec Tec-22 are on the list.

    http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=80

    To err is human, to moo is bovine.
  • seamusseamus Member Posts: 96 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sounds like you guys know a lot more about the subject than I do. Thanks, boeboe and rugster, I appreciate your imput.
Sign In or Register to comment.