When a NAA Mini would be appropriate

[David Armstrong]

Against a skilled opponent with a knife at 5-10 feet you with your 22 have zero chance of winning and your chances of surviving the confrontation are actually quite low.

Assuming that the guy with the .22 is unskilled and a bad shot, you are right. However, that is a heck of an assumption. Few opponents (at least in our society) armed with a knife are likely to be particularly skilled, and a moderate level of defensive tactics will allow the shooter the opportunity to engage with his weapon. I've met few that will continue an assault once a few bullets get into them, no matter what the caliber. So there is a fairly good chance of a shooter winning against a close-range knife wielding opponent, and survival rates from cuts are even higher than from gunshots.

For those that continue to mis-state/mis-use the findings of the Tueller Drill (the 21-foot rule), the drill simply shows that a person can close that distance faster than another person can draw from the holster. It does not mean that you will always lose or any of this other stuff. In fact, it has been shown many times that one has plenty of time to notice a threat and react to the threat, as long as the reaction is one that improves the survival chances. Simply moving off the line of attack works quite well.

 

[Perldog007]

When I lived in a CCW state the Beretta 21a .22 lr was my choice of a carry when I 'didn't need a gun' or when concealment was tough due to dress code.

Measly stopper, but eight shots and easy to reload. Easy enough to hit beer cans at 25 yards with some dedicated practice.

Lot's of bad guys experiencing serious medical problems or worse after trying to harm citizens armed with .22s.

Also like the mini-revolver as a "fun" shooter and would rather have it in a fight than my fingernails, but for carry not so much.

Do remember reading a story by a Navy Seal named "patches" where a mini revolver saved the day though.

I ain't no navy seal so I won't try that "closed course professional operator" stunt.

 

[Justme]

I have been attacked with a tireiron, knife and guns over the years. Of those options I would prefer to defend myself against the knife, because in my experience knife guys invest even more mystical properties in that weapon than gun guys do into theirs.

I have seen all sorts of people disarmed with a well timed headbutt, that doesn't mean I would prefer to go into a fight with only my bare hands and forehead. One of my hobbbies is wood carving so I use knifes a lot, but I don't know how to fight with them and neither do most other people. Suggesting that anyone other than the most experienced and well trained should use a knife for self defense is lunacy.

 

[Charles S]

Suggesting that anyone other than the most experienced and well trained should use a knife for self defense is lunacy.

Well written. I agree 100%.

However I do think it is funny that the majority of users understand the complexity of using a knife for self defense, but consider them selfs an expert with a handgun when they pick it up. We should take classes to become skilled at armed self defense or at the lest educate ourselves with available literature (there is no substitute for hands on training).

I will also state IMHO using a NAA 22 for self defense is only appropriate when there is absolutely nothing else available.

 

[Justme]

Yep, only when nothing else is available. I don't even own one myself, by my daughter, who is 5'0" tall and about 95lbs has one because she thinks it's "cute". Cuteness aside it's better than the nail scissors her peers have.

I carry a keltec .32 and don't see that the NAA mini offers that much more in the way of concealment, and is considerably more difficult to shoot. Still, better than those aforementioned nail scissors.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Look at the www.naaminis.com web site or quite a few other sites that have documented these guns being used successfully.

Also, I have discussed the caliber deterrence issue in depth with experts of defensive gun use (like Kleck or Mauser) and read the professional literature. I see no evidence of the NAAs being noticeably unsuccessful in civilian usage.

Thus, the data are on my side of this debate against the claims made with no evidential base.

I would like to claim that Martian Tripods are not deterred by NAA Minis. Ok -

 

[David Armstrong]

However I do think it is funny that the majority of users understand the complexity of using a knife for self defense, but consider them selfs an expert with a handgun when they pick it up.

I would suggest the big difference is that the handgun can be much more effective in combat with a much lower skill level than the knife would be. Using the gun effectively for self defense is not particularly complex, using the knife is more-so. My $.02.

 

[Erik]

"Suggesting that anyone other than the most experienced and well trained should use a knife for self defense is lunacy."

Edged weapons defense is was it is, which is nothing more than introducing a tool into a violent encounter which given the user an advantage. Emergency rooms are regularly filled with people sent there by novices who figured out a relatively simple thing; they're laying right next to those sent there by the experts.

 

[Charles S]

Thus, the data are on my side of this debate against the claims made with no evidential base.

Mr. Meyer, I rarely disagree with you but I believe you have constructed a circular argument. Because it has worked, then it always will work, so therefor it works well?

I can show you documented cases where motorcycle riders survived major collisions without a helmet. That does not mean that not wearing a helmet is a good idea.

I can show you documented cases where individuals have survived major rollover collisions without the use of a seatbelt, again that does not mean you should not wear a seatbelt.

From a statistical standpoint something like 1 of 13 self defense situations ends in shots fired (Izumi, 1993). Sorry can't be more recent or provide a web reference. Therefore statistically we can carry an unloaded gun.

We prepare for the worst. I will stand by my assertion that an NAA is an appropriate carry gun only when nothing else will work.

Mr. Armstrong, again I rarely disagree with you, but I strongly disagree with you know.

Using the gun effectively for self defense is not particularly complex, using the knife is more-so. My $.02.

Again, I own a gun so I am an expert. As the esteemed Col Cooper stated owning a violin does not make one a concert violinist.

It is very complex, that is why trained professionals in the use of handguns often empty entire magazines with no hits on targets at distances measured in feet.

Recently the Miami shootout was re-discussed and it was again correctly pointed out that a trained FBI agent fired 14 rounds from a 9 mm with one significant hit.

I stand by my assertion that there is more to defense than owning a gun, and the complexities of self defense are not instinctive. To be proficient training is required.

 

[Erik]

Which isn't to suggest that it isn't wise or prudent to have sought training and to know what you're doing more so than the next guy, certainly the one attacking you. But lets not proscibe attributes to the use of weapons that they don't merit. It's what the anti's do to guns all the time:

"Only governemnt certified experts should carry guns. It's lunacy to do other wise. Why, here's an example of a gal who was worse off for having a gun... Yada, yada, yada...BS."

 

[Charles S]

Erik, If I gave the impression I support mandatory training then I did not articulate my thoughts adequately.

I do not support mandatory training. However I think it is wise and responsible to seek training with your chosen weapon if you intend on defending yourself.

But lets not proscibe attributes to the use of weapons that they don't merit.

Agreed.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, Charles - I agree that it is the last resort gun or a bug. It is very rarely a primary for me.

I was just answering Porkskin when he asked for my evidential base that the gun has some utility as compared to not. It's like a treatment evaluation question.

We have known cases of the gun working.

Scholars like Kleck and Mauser have examined the deterrence issues in DGUS quite a bit. I know them and we talked about it. If there were a strong node of certain guns not working, they would have seen it in stopping crimes unless you postulate a mechanism such that only the mouse gun incidents (pro or gun are not reported). That doesn't make sense.

Thus, the claim that they specifically don't work or don't work on meth heads as compared to other guns doesn't seem to be out there when folks look at the DGU data.

I don't think that is a circular argument. It's like this - does a drug treatment work. We have evidence it does. One can deny it doesn't work but you would have to come up with a statistical comparison of the rates to see which is greater as compared other drugs or a placebo.

Bye.

 

[garyl43]

In my experience, meth heads are not particularly dangerous to the public when they are on meth (I've worked w/plenty in my years as a chef. When they're on meth they're pretty much too paranoid to think about violence). Now to law enforcement it's a different story (not wanting to get caught dealing, carrying or manufacturing).

It's when they don't have it and are going through the withdrawl that they are more likely to rob someone so they can buy more (they are likely to be in their worst shape for a gunfight). Most of them that i've known just suffer quietly (functional addicts).

In the words of a guy I've known for 28 years (23 a functional meth addict) "I don't have a problem w/meth, I have a problem w/out it".

 

[David Armstrong]

Because it has worked, then it always will work, so therefor it works well?

I won't speak for Glenn, but that is not the argument as I understand it. The argument is that we have several cases where the gun has worked, therefore if you want to argue the gun does not do the job you need to provide some proof of that. At least that is my perspective.

We prepare for the worst. I will stand by my assertion that an NAA is an appropriate carry gun only when nothing else will work.

No, we don't prepare for the worst. We balance a reasonable amount of preparation for a reasonable amount of threat. I assume you are not wandering around all day wearing Level III armor and carrying a battle rifle. we make compromises regularly.

Mr. Armstrong, again I rarely disagree with you, but I strongly disagree with you know.

That's fine. I consider myself fairly knowledgable in this area, but I make no claims to infallibility.

Again, I own a gun so I am an expert.

No. In fact, I say just the opposite, that there are few experts out there. My point is that the gun is more effective at a lower level of skill than most self defense alternatives.

It is very complex, that is why trained professionals in the use of handguns often empty entire magazines with no hits on targets at distances measured in feet.

It is not very complex, that is why folks that have never been trained in the use of handguns often score telling hits on BGs. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the majority of successful DGU incidents involve people with little or no formal training.

Recently the Miami shootout was re-discussed and it was again correctly pointed out that a trained FBI agent fired 14 rounds from a 9 mm with one significant hit.

Was it also pointed out that agent was virtually blind due to losing his glasses, was shooting over a fairly lengthy distance for non-LE self defense, and was in an environment with a lot of smoke and dust that tended to obscure the target? Of course, the exception rarely can prove the rule.

I stand by my assertion that there is more to defense than owning a gun, and the complexities of self defense are not instinctive. To be proficient training is required.

I don't disagree with any of that. I think what you are missing is the idea that such complexity and proficiency is rarely required in the DGU world. That might be our point of divergence.

 

[Charles S]

I agree that it is the last resort gun or a bug. It is very rarely a primary for me.

Like I said...I rarely disagree with you and agree with your statement.

Scholars like Kleck and Mauser have examined the deterrence issues in DGUS quite a bit. I know them and we talked about it.

I for one certainly do not deny the importance or existence of the deterrent affect of an resolute armed individual with a gun. Any gun.

I don't think that is a circular argument. It's like this - does a drug treatment work. We have evidence it does. One can deny it doesn't work but you would have to come up with a statistical comparison of the rates to see which is greater as compared other drugs or a placebo.

While I largely agree with you and am not disparaging the NAA 22's again I think it is suitable for backups.

However anecdotally evidence does not constitute real scientific evidence.

Again, it seems we agree more than we disagree.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The cases where they do work are an existence demonstration that they can work and negates the folks who totally deny they can.

The scientific issue gets us into proving the null hypothesis type issue. The folks who look for such stuff haven't seen it. It is hard to prove something doesn't exist. It's like saying that ghosts exist.

Whenever there is a scientific set up in a 'known' ghost place, they never show up. Same with UFOs, people say this has happened but military and othe professional types (like the editor of Aviation Week) can't come up with an instance.

Unless, someone can come up with a number of failures, we just can't take arguments about hypothetical stopping power as conclusive vs. hypothetical meth heads.

We have folks who have absorbed 12 gauge and 357s and stayed in the fight. Without knowledge that the rate suggests that they do work quite a bit, would I denigrate these rounds?

I think we are close to agreement, just arguing about some nuances on a nice level. Thanks.

I do have a NAA Mini in 22S. I bought it as it was cute. How about dat?

 

[Charles S]

It is not very complex, that is why folks that have never been trained in the use of handguns often score telling hits on BGs. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the majority of successful DGU incidents involve people with little or no formal training.

I think if you will look at shot versus hit ratios (they are quite low) you will realize that the defensive use of a handgun is actually quite difficult.

Recently the Miami shootout was re-discussed and it was again correctly pointed out that a trained FBI agent fired 14 rounds from a 9 mm with one significant hit.

Was it also pointed out that agent was virtually blind due to losing his glasses, was shooting over a fairly lengthy distance for non-LE self defense, and was in an environment with a lot of smoke and dust that tended to obscure the target? Of course, the exception rarely can prove the rule.

Honestly no. I now remember that, but that fact had escaped my memory (and apparently everyone else's) at the time.

I think what you are missing is the idea that such complexity and proficiency is rarely required in the DGU world. That might be our point of divergence.

I think that is the point of our divergence. Again as I previously pointed out something like 1 of 13 confrontations ends in actual shots fired. The average distance is quite close, and the number of shots fire are relatively few, although that has been changing lately.

Again, there is more to self defense than when it comes to a confrontation. A well trained individual will recognize danger and avoid. Will understand the dynamics of confrontation and de-escalation. A well trained individual will understand situational awareness, the importance of an aggressive and quick response, and the absolute importance of being resolute. That individual will understand cover and concealment. The importance of distance, and be at least cognizant of weapon retention.

More importantly that individual will have though out issues and will tend to be less hesitant in their responses. Training is not perfect, but it is important.

I assert that a well trained individual will avoid more confrontations, and be in less shootings.

You do not get those skills by purchasing a gun, or by having one with you, you learn those skills through training.

Boiling it down to when shots are fired is looking through a microscope and missing the bigger picture.

 

[Charles S]

I do have a NAA Mini in 22S. I bought it as it was cute. How about dat?

LOL...I want one, just have not run across the right deal on a good used one.

 

[rantingredneck]

they're laying right next to those sent there by the experts.

I'd venture that those sent to the hospital by experts in knifefighting probably more likely to end up a in the morgue rather than the ER. Knifefighting is ugly business. One of my favorite quotes on the subject, from an expert in the filipino styles goes something like "Two people fight with knives, one goes to the hospital, the other goes to the morgue". I'm blanking on the fellow's name at the moment and I know that my quote is off a bit, but you get the point.

Not saying I'd necessarily bring a knife to a gunfight. Just saying that given my personal experiences with the NAA .22 Minis, and my personal experiences in knifefighting (in the dojo and once or twice for real), I'd take a good knife over the mini. Can't hit beans with the mini personally so the effective range for me is arms length with both. I can make a bigger hole with my Crawford Falcon than I can with a mini. Thus my reasoning. Your choices will vary based on your own experiences.

 

[Adventurer 2]

I would carry a push knife before I would carry the NAA mini for self-defense. The 1 5/8" barrel NAA sometimes keyholes at 5 yards. It is not the most accurate pistol to shoot in a hurry or even slowly. The pistol jumps when fired and a second or third or.... shot is slower than any pistol I own. If you want to carry a 22 LR get a Beretta M21A - FAST and accurate enough close in. I don't know the speed but I am pretty sure the NAA mini is also my slowest moving bullet. I would rather have a knife. I wouldn't shoot anything larger than a cat with it. As far as longer barelled 22 LR pistols I wouldn't shoot anything larger than a racoon with one (sometimes the racoons flop around quite a bit before they bleed out with the 22LR). Of course I think a 32 ACP is too small of a round for personal defense but it is what I carry the most (exceptionally faster to operate and more accurate than the NAA) because it is easier to conceal than a J frame or G-26.