# NAA .22 cal revolver concerns



## bobiam (Feb 5, 2014)

Anyone have one of these? My question applies to all models. I know they have a safety feature for resting the hammer/firing pin between rounds on the cylinder as protection in the event that the gun is dropped. BUT, I'm wondering about the threat of that large hammer that can easily get caught on pockets, etc getting pulled back partially and released before being fully cocked. And if it became if fully cocked in the pocket by getting hung up, without a trigger guard it would be like reaching into an occupied gopher hole to safely remove the gun and uncock it. 
I don't have one to experiment with to answer these concerns. I'd like to get one as a carry weapon, but am a bit worried about safety of carry. Perhaps a pocket holster that covers the trigger and hammer is a good idea. They make a folding holster that many guys like but the hammer is fully exposed with that item used.


----------



## ksblazer (Sep 18, 2010)

I have an pocket carried an NAA mini revolvers for the last 5 years. As you mention, you want to have a holster that covers the trigger for this purpose. The hammer takes a good amout of force to get pulled back. They have never accidently cocked while inside my pockets. I was a little worried about this for a couple of months, then realized that it wasn't going to be an issue at all.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I have very serious doubts about the .22LR (or Magnum) round as a self-protection cartridge.
I have even stronger doubts about relying upon a hard-to-hold, hard-to-cock, single-action pistol as a self-defense weapon.

Of course, who am I to judge: I now carry a .380 ACP, semi-auto, double-action pistol as my own self-defense.


----------



## bobiam (Feb 5, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I have very serious doubts about the .22LR (or Magnum) round as a self-protection cartridge.
> I have even stronger doubts about relying upon a hard-to-hold, hard-to-cock, single-action pistol as a self-defense weapon.
> 
> Of course, who am I to judge: I now carry a .380 ACP, semi-auto, double-action pistol as my own self-defense.


It will pack a much bigger wallop than my fist or my 2.5" blade pocket knife. I presently have a 9mm M&P, a 38Special Ruger LCR, and even a KelTec .32 semiauto. Trouble is that I'm not willing to have a holster on my him or a heavy sagging lump in my pocket. Any gun that you don't land up shooting yourself with is much better than nothing in a pinch. Confidence booster is nothing else. Personally, I would not like being hit with even a single .22 Magnum hollow-point. And let's face it, a close range shot to the head will ruin almost anybody's day if they meant you harm.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> I have even stronger doubts about relying upon a hard-to-hold, hard-to-cock, single-action pistol as a self-defense weapon.


I have a couple of the NAA's, their neat little guns, more of a novelty. That's about it. They are very difficult to get into action in an emergency situation when fractions of a second count. Better off carrying a lightweight S&W J Frame Model 442 or 642 if pocket carry is desired. These guns are specifically designed for that purpose.


----------



## bobiam (Feb 5, 2014)

My Ruger LCR is almost identical to those S&Ws. But it still feels like a boat anchor in my pocket. My double action KelTec .32 is nearly the lightest semi-auto in the world. I guess I don't particularly trust a semi-auto in an emergency.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

bobiam:
It sounds like a small lightweight pocket pistol is your priority. If you insist on carrying a .22 or .22 Magnum you might want to consider an S&W Model 43C in .22 LR or it's .22 Magnum counterpart Model 351C. Both weigh next to nothing because of their all aluminum construction and aluminum alloy cylinders. Model 43C in .22 LR holds 8 rounds. Model 351C in .22 Magnum, 7 rounds. Obviously, no one would want to get shot with one and they are lethal. But .22's are a poor choice for self defense. Especially if you are confronted by someone who is high on drugs and not even realize that they were shot. Sure, they may collapse and die a little while later but within that time may have the opportunity to take you out also. You might get lucky and be able to drill a few rounds into their eye sockets but more than likely during a scuffle you will not. You can just forget about the NAA's for that purpose they are much more difficult and time consuming to get into action to be effective or practical for self defense purposes. A .380 is about the smallest caliber that one should seriously consider for personal defense. Of course the decision is up to you.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

bobiam said:


> ...I guess I don't particularly trust a semi-auto in an emergency.


If it makes any difference to you...
I've been shooting semi-autos almost exclusively, for at least the past 40 years. I've fired a whole lot of reloaded rounds downrange, during both practice and competition.
The two and only times that any of them ever failed to fire were both completely my own fault: I'd not put powder into the cases while reloading them.

For self-defense, my wife and I carry only the highest-quality, factory-manufactured ammunition.
We practice with it, too, just to make sure that we're comfortable with what we'd be shooting in an emergency.
No failures yet.

It sounds to me as if you don't do much practicing. If you had, you would have found the incapacity of the NAA mini-revolver, and changed to something better.
But you need to practice. Shooting skills need constant exercise, just to maintain them. Also, practice builds confidence in the weapon(s) you've chosen.

BTW: That Kel-Tec is a pretty good self-defense gun. My wife carries one, but in .380 ACP.
(Actually, I am now carrying it temporarily, having injured my strong-side hand, since its pocket holster is the only left-handed one we've got.)


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I owned one of those little revolvers many years ago, and the thing that I remember most about it was how difficult it was to bring into action quickly. It absolutely requires two hands, as the tiny grip is just not long enough to maintain a safe grip and still stabilize it against the considerable amount of force required to cock the hammer (some versions came with longer cowboy-styled grips; this might not apply to those models).

One of the popular gunwriters (I don't remember who, now; 'twas far too long ago) once wrote that for best results with these little revolvers, you should "tightly grip it between the thumb and forefinger of one hand, like you are strangling a weasel," and cock the hammer and pull the trigger with the thumb and finger of the other hand. 

I always liked that turn of phrase...


----------

