Double Action NAA?

[rc135]

Would love to see a Double Action Mini in 22Mag (1.6" bbl maybe).
I'm sure this has been asked before (looked but couldn't find it), but would this even be technically feasible?
A 7 oz DA Mini would be nice! Thanks in advance for your responses. 

[theysayimnotme]

Asked & answered many times. See Casull CA 2000. That was a .22 LR but same idea.

[I]

I think a primary stumbling block is the paradigm shift between single and double action. Perhaps it would change the required format of the frame beyond its intentions into something else?

Then again, this has already happened several times. The US Cavalry of days of old really did seem to prompt several things to unfold in the passage of time. This could be a reference to possible historical connotations to certain aspects of certain things already mentioned in this thread, therefore on-topic!

Back on topic, the ergonomics of a platform designed to be as tiny as possible while still accessible with one method may be unsuited to other methods of operation not intended in the original design.

Phew. Hope you're still with me.

Anyway, as miniaturization goes you'd say that each mechanical operation adds considerable considerations to the design. Having a double action striker only is quite different from a single action/double action revolver! As a design is miniaturized outside of its design specs, strange and unforeseen problems begin to arise.

How can we prove this? Example: Some master jewellers and watch makers seem to pride themselves on making extremely tiny to-scale renditions of everyday objects. Everything from old military replica pistols and rifles that would fit on a playing card with firing ammo to even micro-projectiles that could pierce paper. It wasn't about concealed weapons in the slightest, but proof of a master's craft. A miniaturized WW2 Luger at 1/3rd scale with a vanishingly tiny supply of proprietary firing ammunition could astonish you at the price tag!

Unfortunately, I see the current single action mini revolver as pretty miniaturized. To increase caliber (and therefore cylinder size) is absolutely guaranteed to throw everything out of whack! The only way out is a gargantuan increase in size without a complete retooling and new line of research all together. Granted, 99.9% of such work was done these past 200+ years and on into antiquity.

How many true new concepts could there really be?

• Fired by a smoldering ember or angel's unhappiness, possibly by "serpentine" intervention
• Single action, trigger fired gun
• Double action only
• Single or Double action, optional (non auto or semiauto)
• Semi or full automatic variations of the above.

Feed methods are another story and discussion, as well as double-set triggers and volley guns (starting with a double barrel.) Really, though... how long has it been since you've seen another concept? Unfortunately electrically-primed ammo has basically failed to catch on. So what's left? An over and over rehash of the designs of the last 200 years? Keep in mind that this spans the M-4 to the M-9 to the 1911 to the Remington 1860, Spencer, Sharps, and so on. I didn't even mention that Krag guy, or Jorgensen, and a host of others. It's a totally incomplete list right there.

Sizes are sizes and mechanisms are mechanisms. To totally change your tooling is a 100% business risk as the new way might not be feasible. That's just business. To gamble in production of a new and untested concept is foolhardy at best. The only alternative is careful work and investment of research. This doesn't come cheap, easy, or guaranteed. Nobody can really pull a brand new Earth-shattering handgun design out of their butt. 

I've lurked this site a while and I understand the impact and implications of the .32 acp mini and even saw a few prototype pics back in the old days on the other forum. Yeah. Things were said and feelings were hurt; it was a very emotional experience, hopes, dreams, whatnot.

That said, R&D goes on or it dies right there. Gotta have a plan for tomorrow, right friends?