Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
NAA 22 revolver
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ez bake" data-source="post: 1222270" data-attributes="member: 229"><p>Well, let me clarify. I didn't intend to be on the side of the argument that having nothing was better than the NAA - I was just answering your question as to why having a gun that has the above mentioned issues isn't better than having nothing at all - I may have gotten off-track there.</p><p></p><p>Just to recap:</p><p></p><p>1. I'd argue that the rimfire's reliability is much less than a center-fire of equivalent "self-defense" status, but I'm not willing to do the research to prove that whatever "expensive" .22 mag ammo you're referring to is less than Gold Dots (because its not that important to me since I'll never rely on a .22 mag for self defense - its energy/mass/speed, etc... is below what I consider as an acceptable self-defense round).</p><p></p><p>And whatever this "expensive/reliable" .22 mag round is, I'd bet its getting into the cost of 9mm by that point, so the cost no longer justifies shooting it.</p><p></p><p>2. the gun is tiny - the model with the folding grip is a step up, but aside from that, you cannot possibly hold the gun with a proper grip to ensure that you have control over it. </p><p></p><p>3. its a single-action revolver. Having to cock and pull a trigger isn't a good thing when considering the time that normal draw (especially from a pocket) takes - add pressure to that, and it makes for a dangerous situation of either AD/ND or not cocking/firing properly.</p><p></p><p>4. the open trigger guard scares the crap out of me. No way I'd carry that thing in my pocket without a very good holster - and even then, I'd be leery about drawing/presenting without fear of an AD/ND.</p><p></p><p>5. in order to carry the gun in "safe" mode, you cock the hammer and then while holding the hammer, you pull the trigger and let it down into one of the safety slots - that is another dangerous thing to do around people, etc...</p><p></p><p>I'd wager to guess that an NAA can not be concealed anymore so than a J-frame in .38 +P with 99% of clothes people wear.</p><p></p><p>Also keep in mind that if you're pulling this gun to use against someone in a self-defense situation (no matter if you've got 10 other guns on you), you're depending solely on its reliability - even if its a backup, even if its just a light-carry gun in certain situations - if its what you draw/present, its all you're relying on until you've found another solution or the fight is over.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ez bake, post: 1222270, member: 229"] Well, let me clarify. I didn't intend to be on the side of the argument that having nothing was better than the NAA - I was just answering your question as to why having a gun that has the above mentioned issues isn't better than having nothing at all - I may have gotten off-track there. Just to recap: 1. I'd argue that the rimfire's reliability is much less than a center-fire of equivalent "self-defense" status, but I'm not willing to do the research to prove that whatever "expensive" .22 mag ammo you're referring to is less than Gold Dots (because its not that important to me since I'll never rely on a .22 mag for self defense - its energy/mass/speed, etc... is below what I consider as an acceptable self-defense round). And whatever this "expensive/reliable" .22 mag round is, I'd bet its getting into the cost of 9mm by that point, so the cost no longer justifies shooting it. 2. the gun is tiny - the model with the folding grip is a step up, but aside from that, you cannot possibly hold the gun with a proper grip to ensure that you have control over it. 3. its a single-action revolver. Having to cock and pull a trigger isn't a good thing when considering the time that normal draw (especially from a pocket) takes - add pressure to that, and it makes for a dangerous situation of either AD/ND or not cocking/firing properly. 4. the open trigger guard scares the crap out of me. No way I'd carry that thing in my pocket without a very good holster - and even then, I'd be leery about drawing/presenting without fear of an AD/ND. 5. in order to carry the gun in "safe" mode, you cock the hammer and then while holding the hammer, you pull the trigger and let it down into one of the safety slots - that is another dangerous thing to do around people, etc... I'd wager to guess that an NAA can not be concealed anymore so than a J-frame in .38 +P with 99% of clothes people wear. Also keep in mind that if you're pulling this gun to use against someone in a self-defense situation (no matter if you've got 10 other guns on you), you're depending solely on its reliability - even if its a backup, even if its just a light-carry gun in certain situations - if its what you draw/present, its all you're relying on until you've found another solution or the fight is over. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
NAA 22 revolver
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom