Is it safe to load all five chambers in my brand new 22 Mag?

[grandpa]

I don't think it is wise to scream at an armed assailant.  You are better off feigning cooperation, and wait until he is distracted, and then surprise him.  

   

   No, firing a blank isn't for everybody, but the technique does exist, has been used successfully, and makes some sense for people who can't afford $100,000 in legal fees in states where there is no castle doctrine.

[dog_soldier]

I believe that the article by Jeff Cooper that grandpa was refering to was regarding "shot cocking" the DA auto pistol and the late Colonel was emphatic that the shot was not wasted but was fully intended to strike something.  

   

   The procedure as I recall it from my few trips to Gunsite was that the first shot from a DA auto was fire in a point shooting style to be followed by more careful attention to the flash sight picture and trigger control on the 2nd shot.

   

   This would have nothing at all that'd be appicable to using a blank in the first hole in your cylinder

[lohman446]

One problem with the theory.  The cylinder your hammer rests on is not the first cylinder to fire.  The cylinder rotates while cocking.  If you are resting on a blank round your first shot is going to be "live".

[redhawk4]

"Loading 4 chambers and resting the hammer on an empty cylinder is still a "ready" position. Just a safer position. Not only for you, but for folks around you. It's not being scared. It's being responsible"

   

   So everyone who doesn't carry that way is irresponsible and a menace to society?

[kingrichard]

I like to carry my Pug in the watch pocket of my jeans without a holster, all five cylinders loaded, hammer in a safety notch. The watch pocket fits the gun like a holster with just the grip showing and the hammer covered. Works great.

[redhawk4]

Lohmans point is a good one thinking it through further. If somehow you get confused and the blank is not where you think it is in the cylinder, i.e. first shot and you fire without cause for deadly force and it's a live round and you hit the BG or a bystander, you are going to be in a lot more bother than if you only had live ammo and had waited to see how things unfolded. Also in a bad situation you don't want to be wondering whether it's a blank or not that will fire.

   

   You also don't want a blank first shot when you need to stop an attack now, circumstances could also change during the confrontation to a point where you definitely don't want a blank. If the other guy has a gun, it'll be hard to draw and get two shots off before he can fire one.

   

   IMO the whole thing brings in an unnecessary complication that could backfire on you big time.  

   

   In this law suit driven world, I don't believe NAA would have added safety notches to the cylinder, if they weren't deemed sufficiently safe to use.

   

   I don't have much experience of carrying a Mini only recently getting my BT, but do people have problems with the hammer leaving the safety notch during carry? isn't that the real test regardless of theory? I've not had that occur so far - there are others here who've carried these Minis for a long time, what's their experience over the long haul?.

[lohman446]

What I see as this is the idea of the blank is it "is safer than a live round" under the hammer.  The round under your hammer (at rest) is not the first round fired by a revolver, its the last.  So if its safer by the blank being under the hammer it is not the first one to fire in an intentionally firing situation.  

   

   I have not carried mine long term but I do double check that the cylinder moves just like it should (just a touch side to side) when in the safety notches.  I think its almost a tick I have developed I do it often enough.  The other day it had rotated off to a live cylinder.  That being said I reset it to a different safety notch and went about my business.  This is in a NAA leather pocket holster.    

   

   I was taught, by the lawyer teaching part of the CCW class that there is no such thing as a warning shot.  You pull the trigger its use of deadly force.  I would assume a blank falls under the same category.

[grayelky]

A warning shot is just a waste of good ammo. If you are serious, don't shoot into the ground, shoot into who ever prompted you to fire. If you don't feel the need to put a bullet in them, leave the gun holstered.

[backporch22]

a few years carry BW w/holster, never had hammer come out of safety slot.  In car, tractor, atv, no problem.  no warning shot for me, if its gone that far I want to stop it NOW.

[grandpa]

These discussions make no sense without math.

   

   I fully comprehend why people think it is wise to shoot the bad guy to stop the crime, but that fails to appreciate the ultimate outcome.  I have been sued many times (and never lost!), so I know that legal defenses are very expensive, even when you win.

   

   Let's make these approximations:

   1. Your life is worth a $2 million.

   2. The cost of a legal defense, whether criminal or civil, is $100K, assuming you will win.

   3. If you get into an all-out gunfight, there's a 67 percent chance the bad guy will die.

   4. If you draw, but fail to shoot, there is a 15 percent chance you will face felony brandishing charges.

   

   So, when attacked by a bad guy, you have three first shot options:

   

   OPTION A) Always fire a blank upon drawing.

   This costs $3666, calculated as follows:

   

   There is a 99.5% [1] chance the bad guy will run.  If he doesn't run, then you will either win or lose the ensuing fight.  If you lose, your loss will be 1/3 * .005 * $2 Million = -$3333.

   

   If you win, there is a 2/3 chance you will be sued.  In that case, your loss will average 2/3 * .005 * $100000, or -$333.

   

   OPTION B) Always fire a live round at the bad guy upon drawing.  

   This costs you $103,100, calculated as follows:

   

   There is a 99.5 percent chance the guy will run after being shot, and a 99.8 percent chance you will be sued by the bad guy or his estate.  It will cost you $100,000 to fight it, for a loss of $99,800.

   

   The cost of losing your life is 0.005 * 1/3 * $2 million = -$3333.

   

   OPTION C) Brandish upon drawing and see what happens.

   This will cost you AT LEAST $14,775, calculated as follows:

   

   If he runs, and there is a 98.5% chance the bad guy will run, and a 15 percent chance you will face a brandishing charge.  It will cost you $100,000 to fight that charge.  Your cost is 0.985 * 100000 * 0.15 = $14775.  

   

   If he doesn't run, you are back at option B, except that now you have lost the element of surprise, which is the most important weapon a victim has.

   

   So what makes the most sense?:

   A. Always fire a blank, at a cost of $3K.

   B. Always shoot the bad guy, at a cost of $100K.

   C. Brandish, at a cost of at least $15K, plus loss of surprise.

   

   And this assumes that all the costs are financial.  The biggest costs actually lie elsewhere.  Try losing your house because you are defending a lawsuit from an unemployed drug dealer, and see how happy it makes your wife.

   

   Note 1: Statistics from Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime", p. 3.

[lohman446]

Remember though that you lose the loss of surprise when firing a blank.  Tactically I do not know how different brandishing and firing a blank really would be.  

   

   Remembering that having your first shot be a blank does not leave the gun any "safer" than having it be a live round in a revolver.  Your first shot is not the shot that is under the hammer at rest.

   

   The idea of the blank being used came about first as a matter of safety under the hammer.  

   

   I am not a police officer, I must operate under different rules.  If I draw the situation better have warranted firing because, from my understanding, that is the only point I can legally draw.  I am ok if the BG surrenders (or runs away) after I draw, but he better be quick because if I draw it is with the legal backing (and moral need) to fire.  I will stop firing as soon as the threat stops being a threat.  If that means I draw and you quit being a threat good, if that means I shoot you once non fatally and you quit being a threat thats fine too.  If I have to shoot you give times and you live thats  ok.  If you die, its regrettable but I was put into a corner where I had no other legal or moral option.  

   

   I don't see drawing, as a civilian, with any less intent than using deadly force to end the threat.  I think you cause yourself problems if you go into it with any other mindset.

[dog_soldier]

Firing a blank would constitute assault in addition to a brandishing charge.

[dbcooper222]

Howdy, I used to post here, just been lurking a while.

   

   You left out option D grandpa. Get your state to enact a stand your ground law like ours here in Florida. In a self defense shooting you have immunity from civil action from the bad guy should he survive as well as next of kin if he doesn't.

[jtartam]

Enough Already.......

[redhawk4]

It seems to me drawing a gun serves the purpose the blank is puported to serve. If that doesn't scare your attacker off then it seems you will almost certainly have to shoot to kill. If the BG is really quick in surrendering/backing off or fleeing there's a possibility you may not have to shoot. Scaring him twice is pointless IMO and takes up time you probably don't have.

   

   Maybe I see it differently because my loved ones lives and mine are of infinite worth to me, I'm prepared to lose all I have financially and if necessary serve jail time, if that's what's required to preserve these lives. My posessions will be of no value to me if I'm  

   dead or without my loved ones.

   

   There are measures you can take to protect your assets from lawsuits frivolous or otherwise and attorneys who specialise in this field and how to structure them.

   

   At some point, blank or not you will need to decide whether a potentially fatal shot is required - you will then have to stand by that decision for better or worse.

   

   Firing a blank in a situation where deadly force was not necessary could also be construed that you upped the level of the conflict to that status, by making your would be attacker fear for his life and so he attacked you further out of self defense. IMO you are just creating a further hurdle to trip over.

[lohman446]

"Use peaceful means when they are appropriate, but when they are not appropriate do not hesitate to use more forceful means" - Thupten Gyatso - 1932 - the Dalai Lama

   

   Violence is always a negative act and always has negative consequences.  There is no such thing as mitigating circumstances in karma.  I disagree with some thinkers and teachers on the subject though in that I beleive sometimes you are bound to act and have a duty to act.  Buddha forbid soldiers of the time from throwing down their weapons to follow him and much thought and writing has come about on the duty of soldiers in non-violent religions (Jaanism is an exception) to carry out their duties.  

   

   I think I have to agree with Red in his conclusion.  I beleive that violence is a negative act.  Because there are some people who I hold so dear I am willing to accept the consequences of it morally the legal consequences, while they might seem concering in the short term, or overall minor in comparison.

[Dinadan]

I pretty much agree with the ideas that

   

   (1) Do not draw a weapon unless I intend to use it - and if I am  

   as fast as I would hope to be at that point of desperation, then the  

   bad guy is not going to have time to back off. So forget  

   the gun as a warning.

   

   (2) If I am at the point of using a gun, then material things like

   lawsuits just are not going to be a consideration.

[silvershooter]

http://naaminis.blogspot.com/2010/09/naa-mini-magum-saves-day-in-3-on-1.html?utm_source=BP_recent">http://naaminis.blogspot.com/2010/09/naa-mini-magum-saves-day-in-3-on-1.html?utm_source=BP_recent

   

   http://tv.breitbart.com/knife-wielding-home-invader-put-in-hospital-by-80-year-old-john-wayne-fan/">http://tv.breitbart.com/knife-wielding-home-invader-put-in-hospital-by-80-year-old-john-wayne-fan/

   

   OK, if you choose to carry a blank-loaded for self-defense I respect your freedom to do so, and we can disagree without being disagreeable. But consider the above TRUE/real-life stories where a 22mini was used to fight off attackers.  

   

   The question you have to ask yourself is would these two gentlemen's chances of surviving been helped or HURT by using a blank round? Both the elderly man and the middleaged man seem to have hit their attackers with the FIRST round which most assuredly helped to save their lives.

   

   Furher, if you manage to scare off an attacker by using a blank round you can expect that he will dispose of any weapons and tell the cops you were shooting at him for no reason. He may then sue you for mental stress for scaring him by pretending to shoot at him. So much for not being sued. Then what you have is a weathlier criminal who buys a bigger gun(with REAL bullets) and maybe takes out your neighbor/family member/or local store clerk.  

   

   And like Redhawk said why would you want the badguy to think you're a bad shot/poor aim. If you are unfortunate enough to have a second encounter with the same guy or one of his buddies he will know where you carry the gun and that you're likely to miss him if you do shoot.

   

   Firearms are for shooting. Lawyers are for suing. Insurance is for damages.

   

   granpa said "Try losing your house because you are defending a lawsuit from an unemployed drug dealer, and see how happy it makes your wife."

   

   respectfully, I would rather have my wife yelling at me in the travel trailer than crying over my grave because I got shot or stabbed while firing blanks at someone.

[doc_stadig]

This discussion has been done previously, and, at least here in SC, drawing your weapon entails a conceived threat of imminent danger, by planning to have a "blank" as your first round specifies to a "jury of your peers," and you can bet that the bad guy's lawyer is going to load as many "anti-gun" peers as he can get away with. "Imminent danger" by definition infers that you felt so much of a threat that you needed to take the steps necessary to completely eliminate that deadly threat. Anything less than that, ie first round a blank, or first round a "bird-shot" round says to an anti-gun jurist that "I was only pretty scared," jury awards the bad guy $5,000,000.00 plus punitive damages, think 'hot coffee' in a lap of someone that removed the lid of that hot coffee.

   I'm not saying that you must take them out completely, but that you were enough afraid that you needed deadly force!" as opposed to a warning that you might feel threatened later. We aren't trained police officers, we're just citizens that care enough about our selves and families that we are willing to kill in our, or their defense.

   

   

   Doc

[grandpa]

I think we're witnessing the death of cognitive thought here.  Most of these rude comments are ill-founded, and all of them are unnecessary.

   

   "Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain.  And most do." - Dale Carnegie

   

   I don't know why I am wasting my time with this board.  You people would be well-advised to grow up and start acting like adults.

[lohman446]

  I like quotes and could play this game for awhile

   

   "Honest disagreement is often a sign of progress" - Ghandi

   

   I thought the discussion was going reasonably well.  Are we discussing it to death?  Yeh, but that is the place of the internet.  I thought we were doing so with reasonable maturity and honest discussion involving the technical, legal,and moral aspects.

[silvershooter]

Seriosly gramps, who's acting childish or rude? Maybe I missed something but I thought we were having civil discussion about the effectiveness/dangers of using blanks for self-defense. Now you go calling "us"(those who's opinion differs from yours) "FOOLS"?  

   

   As I said, I support your right/freedom to use that method, but I disagree primarily because it could get an innocent ccw holder killed in my opinion.  

   

   Back to logical reasoning: did you give any thought to "would the 80-yr old victim from the above link and the NAA homepage have been less likely to have survived the knife attack using a blank?"

   The video link is right there. Consider it sir.

[florida_bass]

Wow  these threads can go everywhere. When I was growing up my grandfather started me out on a .22LR. I had to practice with it for hours with EMPTY cartridges. Loading, unloading, dry fire practice. When he gave me live rounds I still had to set the hammer on a fired cartridge.I graduated to a S&W .38 Model 36 and still carried the hammer on a fired round. Now with my NAA .22LR  in the old style holster grip I do carry with all 5 loaded and on the safety notch.  Works for me

[guadman]

I have to agree with Silver.

   

   Granpa...I don't see any rude comments.

   

   What I see is people simply disagreeing with you.

   

   Somehow or other that seems to mean that those people are "irresponsible" or "rude".

   

   With all due respect to your eloquence and age I think, in this case, a quick peek in the mirror is called for.

[redhawk4]

I'm sure I must be one of the rude/childish/irresponsible posters as I'm guilty of disagreeing on the blank issue. I checked my posts and they all seem politely reasoned to me. I have been reading the others as well and unless I missed something, I didn't see anything fitting that description until -

   

   "I think we're witnessing the death of cognitive thought here. Most of these rude comments are ill-founded, and all of them are unnecessary.  

   

   "Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain. And most do." - Dale Carnegie  

   

   I don't know why I am wasting my time with this board. You people would be well-advised to grow up and start acting like adults"

   

   Maybe we are all pathetic children on this board as charged, but I guarantee if you take your blank idea to other forums you will get the same, most likely much worse. The reason will not be because everyone else has a problem with cognotive thought, but because the blank idea is silly and illogical for all the reasons people have tried to explain (IMO politely)above.

   

   I understand your reasons for getting upset, even less than your dogged defense of the need to carry a blank in your gun and your need to force others to agree with you.

[Dinadan]

I also felt that the posts on this topic were pretty much models of  

   civility. Especially compared too some boards. Grandpa, if you are still

   reading this thread, please bear in mind that some of us may not be  

   as accomplished at conveying our thought as we would like to be.

   More than once I have looked back at a posting I have made and realized  

   it sounded harsher than I intended.

[silvershooter]

I would have preferred a logical answer to my serious question rather than being called a fool.  

   I'm glad grandpa presented the idea and at first it seemed interesting to me. Upon further thought (from many angles) such as legal and "real-world" I had concerns about others adopting that method(mostly for their own safety).

   

   I realize that everyone comes to a discussion with their own history and thought patterns(to each his own). I don't fault someone for developing a method that works for them. But I also can't remain silent if I feel someone is promoting a dangerous carry method.  

   

   The closest I can figure is that this comment I posted upset grandpa: "granpa said -Try losing your house because you are defending a lawsuit from an unemployed drug dealer, and see how happy it makes your wife.

   respectfully, I would rather have my wife yelling at me in the travel trailer than crying over my grave because I got shot or stabbed while firing blanks at someone."

   

   I thought I was being civil and respectfully posting my opinion. I stand by what I said and have not lost any sleep over this thread. I seriously don't visit the NAA website as much since the whole blow up a few weeks ago.  

   

   Maybe their should be a disclaimer on the message board that says "Only post if you are able to handle someone disagreeing with you...don't get your feelings hurt if you are unable or unwilling to defend your theories...don't threaten a lawsuit if people dislike the color of your gun..."

[r850rrider]

I'm a newby. Just picked up a mini mag w/holster grip. Does any one make a holster for it? I carry in front pocket the hammer and barrel are exposed the trigger is covered.

[silvershooter]

well that's some real thread drift  

   welcome R850rrider, what you want to do is go back to the main "naa products" page and scroll down to the very bottom where is says "start new thread". That way other posters can see and find your question more easily and provide you with some ideas and opinions. Sounds like you want a pocket holster for the folding grip mini?

[heyjoe]

"don't threaten a lawsuit if people dislike the color of your gun..."

   

   now you done did it!

[silvershooter]

too soon heyjoe? and the collective board rolls their eyes with a unanimous "let it go man"!  

   some wounds are slow to heal  

   I guess that was my sub-conscience cry for help...I need CLOSURE...an "I'm sorry" followed by a hug or at least a handshake. Oh well, I still have my NAA's. My black widow never disagrees with me or argues. She stays in her place and is always there when I need her. I'm done waisting my time and limited cognitive abilites on this board...

[silvershooter]

seriously, I'm leaving now...

[silvershooter]

don't try to stop me...

[silvershooter]

he he

   nah, I've got rhino skin and I'm having too much fun pontificating about guns and self-defense scenarios.

[grayelky]

Rhino skin??  And I was just about to offer a hug......