It's like any expensive purchase. You do your research, you get ideas and advice, then you go out and check the item out in person. Just like you don't buy a new car without a test drive, you shouldn't buy a gun, knife, or any other tool you may have to rely upon without seeing it in person first and, if possible, testing it. As always, Caveat Emptor.

If you live in CA you're SOL for good options. If you live in a free state and have the option, save your money and buy a real AR such as a Bushmaster. Much more in the way of accessories, USGI parts and no worries with magazines.

I'll add that I wouldn't buy a gun from a manufacturer that won't stand behind the quality of their product. Firearms performance is just too critical not to have the best assurance possible.

My personal favorite is the FAL (as done by DSA). I can't imagine a situation in the lower 48 that it's not qualified to handle.

Having said that, I would still feel far from helpless with a good Enfield No.4 in my hands.
I actually think that if I had known what I was doing a few years ago, I would have just found a No.4 and stuck with it. IMO, military style rifles are great and everyone should have one, but I don't think they're as much of a necessity as many seem to believe.

Unfortunately, I am soured on many of the "good" name brands because of some of the lousy gun's they've turned out. In the past couple years I've had two of the "higher" quality AK's defective out of the box and SIG Sauer was unable to fix a P-226 I owned and tried to stick me with it. I had to act like a jerk to get them to pony up a replacement gun, which I promptly sold before I could get into another screaming match with their customer service people.
I'd advise testing whatever you get extensively, or better yet, finding someone locally who is selling what you want and trying the gun before you buy it.

I've been waiting decades for Ruger to come to the realization that they need to make a scaled up version of their mini-14 in 308 win/7.62 NATO cartridge. Then again, that'd just be a Springield M1-A I suppose.

Benjammin,

Ruger's original intent was to make the Mini-14 in .308. I remember in the 80's when they were floating the idea. If I remember correctly they had some sort of issues with the action and the .308 cartridge. That is why they went with the 7x39. Less OOOMPH I guess.

My two cents and foggy memory.

Check your PM's

Yes, I remember the same. I was hoping they would eventually learn to beef up the action so they could use the more powerful cartridge. I suppose they came to the same conclusion; a beefed up Mini-14 becomes an M-1a.

Oh well if Doug has a review on it then what am I thinking...

Mark,
Do you have any experience with teh SU-16 you'd like to offer?

I had an opportunity to shoot a friends Kel Tec. With cheap ammo
it was giving me 9" groups off the bench (5 shots at 100 yards).
Very light tho. My 30-30 handy gave 3" groups with open sights
at the same time.