what are these simple ass rifles $800+?

>>31173876
Because Ruger owns the rights to them and there's no competition, so the same forces that made ARs become cheap can't apply.

>>31173876
covers the cost of keeping Bill Ruger on life support long enough so he can shit out the actual receivers of the guns.

>>31174149
Kek

The higher cost of machining the receivers and the lack of demand compared to the AR-15.

As much as I like garand style action and prefer wood furniture, it's not enough for me to pick it over the AR-15. If they made one that accepted AR mags then maybe.

>>31173876
Because dumb fudds like to overpay for shitty rifles.

>>31173876
I kinda dig that all weather ranch rifle

They aren't babby killing salt wepons so they can command a premium in certain states.

File: 47565907_p0.jpg (296KB, 1200x1450px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1200x1450px

>>31173876
Lack of demand, higher costs to make the receivers, no one but Ruger makes them.

Still, that high cost with almost no added value doesn't stop some people. My dumbass uncle got one over an AR-15 because, and these are his exact words

>It shoots .223, not 5.56 like an AR-15. I don't wanna ruin the meat, son.

So I guess those are the people they are going for.

I bought one as my first 223 rifle about 6 years ago. I was being a faggot gun hipster with the "everyone has ARs I want something different" idea

It was a decent gun, and I enjoyed it. But it was objectively worse than an AR in every category. Ended up selling during Sandy Hook scare and buying an AR once shit calmed down.

File: Mini-14GB 5.56x45mm.jpg (86KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 612x612px

>>31173876
>smaller economy of scale
>proprietary design and magazines
>inherently expensive design
You can get a new one for less than $700.
You can get an old one for as little as $300, though it's obviously not even close to as good. Accuracy can be quite improved on the old rifles with a barrel strut, but you'd still be better off with a newer one than an older one.

They aren't bad for what you get, I like it, but an AR-15 for a similar price will be objectively better as an all around weapon.
It's a fun and pleasurable gun though, and for civilian purposes, it works

>>31174149
Must be really hard to keep him on life support when he's been rotting six feet under for like a decade.

>>31174382
Your uncle didn't make a bad purchase, but he's indeed a fucking potatobrain. I assume he didn't believe you when you told him it's pretty much the same thing?

File: 3985096-1349890246.jpg (157KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1280x800px

>>31174149
>10 round limiiiiit

>>31173876

Wood sporting stocks don't make something mechanically simpler than AR15s. They're more expensive to make.

I'll sell you one used if you want one OP, let's make a deal.
[email protected]