The Ranch Rifle is, as I understand it, simply a civilian branding for what was designed to be --- and has seen wide use professionally as --- a tactical rifle.
The big confusticator here is that tactical rifles --- and I'll keep calling them that, because that's what both the Mini-14 and the AR-15 were designed to be! --- turn out to be pretty well suited to sporting and some kinds of hunting, and have pretty much taken over those markets. So in observing that there's no meaningful difference between a Mini-14 ranch and a military tactical rifle, I'm not saying that a Ranch Rifle isn't intended for shooting coyotes or range shooting, or even that that's not what they're mostly used for.
But public policy should focus on the weapon's capabilities, not what their packaging suggests they be used for. The people that play the Ranch Rifle card in firearms debates seem to believe the packaging is dispositive --- or not? I never really understand what it is they're trying to prove. But of course, to regulators, there's no distinction to be made here.
I saw the one they marketed as "tactical" and I'd def call it "tacti-cool" instead because it looks nonfunctional.
To compare the two, its Broccoli vs Potato.
Its marketed as a "Ranch Rifle". It doesn't even have normal scope rails...