Ok so that stock is aftermarket ...another $200?
Nice pic, I have a Garand , The BM59 was an attempt to bring the old M1 design up towards the M14 on a budget,
The M14 is better than both in every way so the best of three.
The M16 platform was cheaper to build than the M14, enabled the soldier to carry more ammo and had other advantages but when it was realized it couldn't reach out as far or penetrate mud walls in the open terrain of Iraq and Afghanistan M14s from the early 60's were pulled from storage, tuned and issued as designated marksman rifles.
Prices are affected by supply and demand.
In the 70's-80s when a Colt Sp1 was $400-$500 a $300 mini knock off of the M14 (Mini 14) made sense as a cheap plinking alternative but it is a cheap knock off of the superior M14 design and inferior to the M16/M4 in every way.
Fast fwd to today when so many co's make Ar15s that decent versions from PSA or Anderson etc are abt $450,
When Mini 14s are bringing $750 -$1k Imo it's hard to justify one especially if dropping more $ to bring it up to M4 standards and approaching the price of an M1A .
In summary:
The Mini 14 made sense when it was cheap but Ars are less today and still a better design.
If a buddy of mine hated the M16/M4 look that much they were willing to pay 2x for an inferior Mini 14 I'd tell them to spend a little more and get an M1A .
If I had to choose one rifle to bring to a hostile alien planet where the biggest threat was the size of a goat Im going M16
If the threat is bear sized but smaller than a Cape Buffalo I'm choosing the M14.
The best solution is to have one (or more) of each, all just Imo and worth every cent u paid for it.
To each his own but you seem to be missing some key points.
Ruger called it a Mini 14 when in facts it’s more like an M1 Carbine firing .223 Remington.
Compared to the Mini 14, the M14/M1A is a moose of a rifle that is significantly longer and heavier.
Edit: I was going to let the BM 59 comment slide but I just don’t do that as your comments are off the mark in a couple ways.
The US government took a decade to develop the M14 using the M1 Garand as a starting point and they did an ok job of it.
In contrast two engineers at Beretta developed the BM 59 from the M1 Garand in 18 months, and did it using mostly M1 Garand parts most in their original form, with a few requiring modification, and only a dozen or so newly manufactured parts (depending on the variant).
Italian tactical doctrine was different than US doctrine and the BM 59 was designed with a very sturdy magazine under the premise that troops would only carry 1 or 2 spare magazines and instead would top off the magazine in the rifle using stripper clips.
Yet despite this they also incorporated a full auto capability and a very effective tri compensator and attached bipod that allows the BM 59 to actually be fired effectively full auto, something that can’t be done with the M14.
In short having shot M14s and M1As in service rifle completion for almost a decade, I bought a BM 59 mostly as a novelty and with low expectations. However, the more I shot it the more I liked it. It handles very well, better than the already well balanced M1A, has been extremely reliable, and is much softer shooting and faster in recoil recovery than the M1A. While I’ll take an M1A every time when 1.5 MOA or better accuracy is required, for all other uses I’d select the BM 59 long before the M1A.
Back in the day, Winchester model 94's and Mini 14's were bought and traded a LOT where I grew up (SW Virginia). 
