When a NAA Mini would be appropriate

[Para Bellum]

The NAA Mini is better than its reputation

I carry 24/7 and have some experience. In your case I would consider the following positive and negative:

1. The .22lr or .22Mag is a very dangerous round. The most common homicide round to be precise. And that's not attempted, but successful homicide.

2. A NAA mini killed a LEO, Trooper Mark Coates, after he had put 5 rounds .357 Mag hollowpoints into the unvested chest of the guy who thereafter shot him dead with a NAA .22 mini revolver. Trooper Coats died in less than 20 seconds. The bad guy never faded out. With handguns placement and penetration count, nothing else. A .22 penetrates better than a .45 and it's very easy to place shots well with a .22. There is a LEO training video somewehere on the web with the original footage. Here's a thread on that shooting: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192679 Jim Zubiena draws from total concealment and fires 2 shots COM and one headshot from a .45 1911 there.

3. Two seconds is extremely slow for drawing and firing. If you are trained with a concealed gun you should be able to draw from concealment and fire at 7ft COM in much less than 2 secs. I do it between 0,8 and 1,7 secons. So, If you are at two seconds with the gun in your hand, the gun is no advantage. You might consider getting a gun you handle better and practice more with it. Here is an example on how fast it can be. This is real-time (and later slow motion), watch the part after the shotgun is fired: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A

4. Your range is useless. Drawing and shooting is one move. Go to a place where you can practice both at once and under competitive conditions (IPSC / IDPA etc club).

5. A Glock 26/27 can be carried and concealed easily in a Milt Sparks Versa Max II IWB holster. I do it permanently and even my gun-buddies cant' tell whether I'm carrying althoug am slim (5ft10" / 170#) and wear shirts tucked in.

That said and considered, I wouldn't feel underarmed with a .22 mini. I just prefer 9x19mm Glocks.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yep, mine keyholes also. However, a friend had a Beretta 22 LR and I had a Taurus PT-22 and both were pretty unreliable guns, I'm afraid.

If I wanted another deep bug - I'd go for the smaller 32 ACPs. However, I usually use a J frame as a pocket gun or bug. I did drop the NAA 22 Mag in a jacket pocket for a formal event. I think firing through my jacket and the BG watching me explode in flames would be a deterrent. Can you find me a case where an exploding, burning victim didn't deter the bad guy?

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

Hmmm... I own the gun being discussed... I carry it when my air weight J frame is too much ( it is too much alot, during the summer, & often when dressed up )... I'm personally looking at heavier subsonics, for use in the mini, as the ultra high velocy rounds go way high out of mine...

if I thought there was even a remote chance I'd need a gun, I'd have to think twice about going there, but if I did choose too, I'd be carrying more firepower... ( maybe not more rounds, but a much larger bore ) my air weight L frame in 44 special is the gun I carry with the most confidence, bar none...

my expirience with the mini autos has been dismal with a high failure rate, so I'd rather carry my NAA mini, over one of the cheap compacts... however, if I had the money, I hear the Seecamps are worth the money, they are just out of the range of what I can afford for a back up gun, & I'd feel just as confident with the 22LR Mini, as I woud with any auto in less than 380 caliber...

so to answer the O.P. I carry mine with confidence any time I'm dressed up & not wearing a jacket, or if it's very hot, & I'm wearing anything elastic waisted or shorts without a heavy belt...

 

[seeker_two]

I think firing through my jacket and the BG watching me explode in flames would be a deterrent. Can you find me a case where an exploding, burning victim didn't deter the bad guy?

Ghost Rider?......

 

[CoRoMo]

I've been researching these 'toys' for some time and will buy one pretty soon. I've concluded, from the input that I've received, that the holster grip is the best way to go because you have more control than with those tiny grips. It will help with accuracy which is the downside of these 'lil ones. The minuscule sight radius will hamper accuracy, but it is not like you'll be using this to hunt with.
Like I said, I'm definitely going to get one with holster grip, a convertible with .22 mag cylinder because that round would be better for SD. It will be better to have one of these in your pocket than to have left your .357 at home.

 

[pvq]

CoRoMo,

Take a look at the PUG. XS sight system will certainly help with combat accuracy

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

No, just the opposite. Again, most successful DGU incidents seem to indicate little or no formal training on the part of the shooter. The skill level needed is low for the actual shooting, as I see regularly teaching classes. Certainly tactical issues increase the complexity of the problem, but few non-LE shootings involve much in the way of tactics. Hit rates for Non-LE incidents (admittedly very low numbers available) seem to be higher than the hit rates of LEOs in general, which might actually negate the complexity issue.

Again as I previously pointed out something like 1 of 13 confrontations ends in actual shots fired.

OK, then the skill level won't matter much there, right?

The average distance is quite close,

Which supports the low skill level needed.

and the number of shots fire are relatively few,

Again supporting the low-skill hypothesis, I think.

Training is not perfect, but it is important.

No disagreement, but I don't think that contradicts the idea that most DGUs don't require a very high level of that training.

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

True, but that microscopic segment is what the discussion was/is about, unless I missed the change somewhere.

 

[Charles S]

I believe that you largely ignored the primary aspect of my argument.

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.

But then if you ignore that it does make it easy to say training is not necessary.

 

[David Armstrong]

Here is an example on how fast it can be.

Let's see now...warned in advance, set up to meet precise parameters beforehand, and probably practiced several times to get just the right shot...not much of an example, IMO.

Two seconds is extremely slow for drawing and firing.

Under 2 seconds is quite fast given realistic carry and concealement.

 

[David Armstrong]

I believe that you largely ignored the primary aspect of my argument.

No, I point out that I think you are trying to change the argument. Here is my comment:

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

and your response(s):
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.

It appears the entire discussion was focused around the shooting of a gun, not self-defense in general.

 

[Charles S]

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 believe I covered training initially. You may choose to ignore that to make your argument more valid. However, I quite clear stated self defense and training.

I am sorry, I did not realize discussion were not allowed to evolve and were limited to the aspect of the argument you choose to address.

No, I point out that I think you are trying to change the argument. Here is my comment:

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

No I addressed self defense in my initial argument.

I stand by my assertion that shooting in self defense is a skill and is indeed complex.

I am sorry I do not have current statistics (nor do I have time to search them out), but last time I looked it had not changed much hit ratios had actually overall gotten worse.

Hit ratio with double action revolvers 25%

LAPD hit hit ratio 28%

First shot hits ISP 35%

(Ayoob, 1987).

Sure it is easy anyone can do it. We don't need no stinking training.

While I will certainly agree that using a knife is a more complex skill. I will not agree that using a gun in self defense is intuitive. Nor that it is not a complex skill.

 

[Adventurer 2]

CoRoMo - I've got the folding pistol grip holster. Definitely, improves the accuracy, however, it also doubles the size and I could be carrying something bigger at that size. If you do get the grip, file a notch in the back of the grip where the trigger cocks back. There is some wiggle in the grip and I had problems with single action cocking because the grip got in the way where the hammer should have locked (not all the time but some times).

 

[David Armstrong]

I am sorry, I did not realize discussion were not allowed to evolve and were limited to the aspect of the argument you choose to address.

Oh, it's fine for them to evolve, I find it a bit problematic when one attempts to claim the argument has evolved when their previous position becomes untenable.

However, I quite clear stated self defense and training.

And everyone else was clearly discussing use of firearms and knives.

I stand by my assertion that shooting in self defense is a skill and is indeed complex.

That's fine. However, wehn an assertion is countered on a regular basis by observable facts that assertion becomes questionable.

I am sorry I do not have current statistics (nor do I have time to search them out), but last time I looked it had not changed much hit ratios had actually overall gotten worse.

If you can find ANY statistics, current or otherwise, that reveal hit rates for general DGU incidents (non-LE, non-military) I'd be interested in them. I've got small bits and pieces, but nothing I'd bet the farm on.

(Ayoob, 1987).

And all LE, thus of limited, if any, value to this discussion.

Sure it is easy anyone can do it. We don't need no stinking training.

Happens quite regularly, everyday, all over the country. People manage to successfully defend themselves with firearms and such with little or no training.

I will not agree that using a gun in self defense is intuitive. Nor that it is not a complex skill.

I've never said it was intuitive, but again, it can't be too complex given the number of folks that manage to pull it off every day.

 

[Charles S]

However, I quite clear stated self defense and training.

And everyone else was clearly discussing use of firearms and knives.

I did not realize they were mutually exclusive. I thought this was the tactics and training forum.

But again...It really does not work well for your argument.

I've never said it was intuitive, but again, it can't be too complex given the number of folks that manage to pull it off every day.

Again, I will be more than happy to provide you statistical proof that people survive car accidents without restraints every day.

That does not mean it is smart. Nor does it mean that I don't were a seatbelt.

I personally prepare for the eventuality that I will have to use a gun. I would prefer to never again be faced with a self defense scenario. I would prefer for deterance to work again should I have to defend myself (It has so far worked for me twice).

However should I personally be faced with a self defense scenario I will be prepared because I have trained for the worse.

The rest of my life reflects this type of self reliance. I am trained in CPR, First Aid, I carry a fire extinguisher and a spare tire.

And I do not hope that my survival will be based upon incompetence. I do not suggest that anyone else does either.

Again we must agree to disagree. When I look at shooting videos, and the dismal overall statistics when shooting happens. I do not see self defense as simple. I see it as a complex set of skills that often fail professionals under stress.

If you choose to play statistical roulette and hope it works out for you that is your personal choice. I personally prepare for the worse and hope I never need the skill set I have chosen to learn.

I again highly recommend training to anyone who chooses to become responsible for their personal defense.

 

[Justme]

Interesting. There is a very good argument to made that you would be much better off spending your training time doing some sort of exercise to strengthen your heart and lower your blood pressure, much more likely killers than random violence.

Training does not happen in a vacum. Time spent training takes time away from other, perhaps more important, things. I go to the range most weeks. I have trained a lot over the years. I could probably benefit from more training but choose to spend the time on other things. I find this tradeoff acceptable considering the remote possibility that I would need to use a gun for self defense, and the very real possibility that I, as a 46 year old guy, might develop heart problems if I don't exercise more and eat better.

 

[grey sky]

NAA minni

just reading the posts these are interesting guns.

mine is black powder precusion version absolutly a pea shooter. I would shuder to think about that one for SD

.22 long rifle as a defense round,my opinion its better than being naked.

 

[David Armstrong]

I did not realize they were mutually exclusive. I thought this was the tactics and training forum.

They are not, and this is. But when someone is discussing the level of training neededfor shooting a handgun, a discusssion about level of training needed to avoid conflict is not particularly relevant.

Again, I will be more than happy to provide you statistical proof that people survive car accidents without restraints every day.

Again, not too sure what that has to do with the level of skill needed in typical DGUs.

And I do not hope that my survival will be based upon incompetence. I do not suggest that anyone else does either.

Nor do I. But again that has nothing to do with the facts, which are that the overwhelming number of successful DGUs involve people with little or no training, thus it is somewhat questionble to suggest it is a particularly complex task.

When I look at shooting videos, and the dismal overall statistics when shooting happens. I do not see self defense as simple.

Again, if you have some non-LE statistics I'd be interested in seeing them. Hit rates for LE shoot-outs are of very limited value in discussint hit rates for non-LE, IMO. Further, you need to show just how much skill is needed to claim it is important. How many/what percentage of CCW shootings require complicated skills to be used? I'd suggest relatively few given all the information available to us.

If you choose to play statistical roulette and hope it works out for you that is your personal choice.

I'm not at all sure what "statistical roulette" would mean. If you are talking about compromise in the SD world, we all do that and hope it works out. Some select to prepare for greater rarity, some select to prepare for common events. Is training good for CCW? You bet! Is it necessary? Probably not.

I personally prepare for the worse and hope I never need the skill set I have chosen to learn.

I bet you don't. You have compromised in preparing for your personal safety, as have we all. You have not prepared for the worst, at least not if you lead anything close to what most folks would consider a normal life.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Just having a gun (any gun) is more preparation than most. Learning to use it is a smart thing, too. Doing the ninja training weekly is probably unnecessary.

 

[Charles S]

Doing the ninja training weekly is probably unnecessary.

Aw man...so much wasted time. Beating head against wall.

 

[Para Bellum]

Hit rates for Non-LE incidents (admittedly very low numbers available) seem to be higher than the hit rates of LEOs in general, which might actually negate the complexity issue.

...because there are only a few LEOs who practice shooting and are good at it. However, most civillians who carry practise a lot (I assume, no stats ready).