A tale of two mini's. Update.

[cbl51]

I've had two mini's since the 1980's. What I'll call mini number 1 was bought at Atlantic Gun shop about 1985ish. I took it out and tried it and liked it soooo much I bought a backup mini a short time later. This was mini number 2. The idea was, when Maryland's insane Saturday night special law was passed, and no little handguns were on the state police roster, I'd have a spare mini if "something" happened. On the way home from the gun shop I stopped off in a deserted area and test fired the mini number 2 at a dirt creek bank and saw mud fly about where I'd aimed and left. That 5 rounds was all mini number 2 ever shot. I got cleaned and stuck away in a drawer for "just in case."

Moving to Texas in 2015, both the better half and I took the class and qualification and go tour license to carry. After a while, I took mini number 2 out of the drawer and loaded it with snake shot as a spare 2d gun while hiking in snake country. It was still a while until mini num ver 2 ever got fired at a real target on a shooting range. Around town, mini number 1 was still my "always on me" gun.

Imagine my shock, when not too long ago mini number 2 was actually shot at a half size silhouette target and every single hit was in the center at 3 yards, but every single hit was a sideway rip in the paper. Every single bullet out of that little mini number 2 was hitting sideways in the target. Maximum key holing.

I called NAA, and the VERY polite young lady on the phone told me that the warrantee is forever and send it in immediately. I did so, and it was there a week or so and I got a e-mail that it's on the way back to me.

In light of the complaints I see on the forums, I felt the need to say something, and I'm curios if they have fixed my gun. I openly admit I am worried about QA at NAA in light of the recent problems, and I have put the idea of a new Black Widow on the back burner. But I'm a little discouraged at finding that one of the two mini's I bought so very long ago, had a 50% defect rate. I also admit the mini number 2 should have been tested out well when I bought it, but I guess I was beguiled by the flawless performance of mini number 1 that I got careless. That's on me.

Will I buy a BL? To be honest, maybe. The BL and Pug are long time members of the NAA line up. Yet here I see someone with a brand new gun and a problem. Okay, most the problem are with the rangers, and I get that its a new model. But I spent the better part of my working life as a machinist in a production atmosphere, and I guess I am not as forgiving as some. All the defects should have been ironed out with prototype work. Then there's the pre-production run of a small number for field testing. That means real world firing.

When I read about people taking a brand new mini out of the box and the very first cylinder of ammo screws up, that says the gun was never tested out before it left the factory. Come on, failing immediately for the new owner?

It takes years to build up a good rep. That rep can be ruined in less than a year if a company gets careless. We've seen it happen. Many times.

Sandy, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but you've got a real problem. Too many bad guns are leaving, that I as a long term mini owner, feel hesitant to buy a new one. Maybe you need to sloooow down, and test fire these guns better before they leave the factory. If there's an obvious problem then send it back on the line to be fixed. The customers will wait. I'm sure the people on this forum would rather wait another month or two for a gun that works flawlessly out of the box than have to send a new gun right back in for work. I know I would!

Sooo, I'm waiting to get my little .22lr mini number 2 back, and it will be shot with real ammo instead of snake loads to see if it's fixed. I hope so. I love my mini's and I want to see NAA keep on going. I do want a new black widow. With delivery of my mini number 2 slated for Tuesday, we'll see.

[Bigbird48]

CBl I to am disappointed. I own 7 minis 2 EB sidewinders I have never fired, My Black Widow which is my EDC and I shoot pretty regular with no problems, so far.A Black Jack Talo which only gets shot once in a great while, a Sheriff which I just shot once no problems but not enough range time to be sure, a Bugout shot maybe 20 rounds thru and the Ranger II which is back at the shop for the third time.Looking at the fact that I could buy 2 light weight 38's for the cost of a Ranger and I know the 38's will work out of the box, I'm starting to think I may have bought my last mini. I know NAA will make it right but gessh am I going to have to send them all back 2 or 3 times to get them right. I hope NAA gets this QC problem fixed and gets back on track with making problem free guns, because I want a mini in my pocket or on my belt I can trust to shoot when needed.    Well I'll revise this to say I will own more Minis as the ones I carry are very dependable and I do trust them. I think many of us are just a tad frustrated . Hey We'll get over it.

[JRobyn]

Guys, keep in mind that almost all the minis have EXTREMELY short barrels and it is iffy to stabilize that bullet in such a short distance.  Plus, as reported on here in multiple threads, different ammo's perform quite different in terms of tumbling/keyholing.

That said, I will agree that NAA could improve things.  My Sidewinder keyholed frequently.  It went back to NAA and got a new barrel.  I believe most of it's problem was a rough crown.  The crowns on both my new Ranger IIs are just ok.  I'm seriously considering buying a .22 cal crowning cutter kit. 

[OV-1D]

  I've seen here on the internet some guys recrowning with a brass flathead screw and dampened jewelers rouge turned with a drill motor . They came out pretty good . Let me rephrase " A pan head screw with a flat slot " not Philips head . The flat tip holds the rogue some what inside the slot .

[Ruger]

I only own four NAA Minis.  #85 RII had to revisit the motherland for a mainspring and cylinder pin replacement.  I am thrilled with my Minis, not disappointed in the QA of NAA, and looking to purchase more Minis in the future.  Nothing wrong with the above opinions; this us just mine . . .

[Uncle_Lee]

  I've seen here on the internet some guys recrowning with a brass flathead screw and dampened jewelers rouge turned with a drill motor . They came out pretty good .

I did that with a lot of black powder revolvers. But I started with valve grinding compound. I had a lot more surface to work with.

[Rick_Jorgenson]

For 2 years (or more) there was/is a lot of pressure put on NAA by this forum....

"When is the new Ranger coming out?"
"How about the new Ranger?"
"Will the new Ranger ever get built?"

Then as news and updates started to filter to the Forum...

"When will the Ranger be finished?"
"NAA missed a announcement date, why are they not focused on the Ranger"
"NAA moved the delivery date back"
"NAA moved the delivery date back, again!"

And many other comments were made, some of encouragement, some... not so much.

When there was some getting delivered you can find several dozen threads here of ....

"Why did he get to buy an EB?"
"I have more post than "fill in the blank" so how do they qualify for EB and I don't"
"They started posting and replying only to get an EB, why should they get one and not "fill in the blank"
"I think "fill in the blank" has ugly hair and should not get an EB" (I made that one up!) 

Then when there was problems with production and 100 or so needed to be taken off line delaying delivery again (not very long and much shorter time than I though it would) the pissing and moaning here was heightened.

I have talked to people sending them back for some real problems.  There are some that are sending them back because "it shoots to the left"  and some other petty reasons. I call BS on those but its their right to send it in.  (I doubt it will make them a better marksman) 

You see the direction and pressure that this company's base customers put on them?  This Forum is their marketing director, of sorts.

There are some problems with the BT,  you think you are inconvenienced having to send your gun back?  How much money does NAA make repairing these guns every time you send them back?  $0.00 

As a matter of fact, it is a huge cost to them.  When working on something that there is no payment for they are losing money by not making something that will be paid for. They still have to pay the gunsmiths, the physical building costs, machinery,  office staff,  shipping costs,  etc. while doing and redoing repair work that is billed $0.00

This gun and this Forum's members has managements attention for sure. 

NAA has always done the right thing by repairing and reworking any gun they made.  There are several threads here touting refurbishing work done that by all rights was not a warranty issue but damage done by neglect or accident. 

My wife put my Pug through the washer and dryer the trigger return spring was damaged.  I enclosed a note telling them what had happened and to let me know what the charge will be for repairs.  NAA replaced 8 parts, polished it completely, put a new grip on all at no charge.

That was not a defect, or component failure due to quality or craftsmanship, it was just an accident that should have been "on me". 

You are hard pressed to find many companies that will do that.

Please keep this in mind before talking crap about NAA ...

They have given us what we want as fast as we wanted it but maybe before it was completely ready.  We were the crying babies and they gave us our guns to try to appease us,  possibly putting their reputation at risk and at a great financial cost to them.

[Uncle_Lee]

Well said Rick.
Well said.

[Rick_Jorgenson]

Well said Rick.
Well said.

Thank you Uncle_Lee

[cbl51]

Rick, you are entitled to your opinion as this is an open forum for discussion. But, there are some points that I feel you are very wrong.

It was NAA's choice to make announcements that they are coming out with a new model, and it was their choice to pick a type of handgun that is very difficult to manufacture. It was their choice to go the course they did. To say the the members of the forum put pressure not them to rush production is ludicrous. Is the managers of NAA that immature that they could not make a statement that there has been unforeseen problems with the concept of the ranger and the project has been put back?  Are they that wimpy that they couldn't say "We're sorry to announce that due to unforeseen problems in the manufacture of the ranger we have to redesign. That may take some additional time, we will keep you posted, thank you for your patience." Many concepts in manufacture has been scrapped because of the unforeseen problems. Who runs NAA, the forum members or the company officers?

I'm sorry you have some butt hurt for some reason, but it was on NAA they chose to rush an obvious ill conceived project into production and shipped guns out with very obvious defects that would have been detected if the guns had just. been test fired for function before leaving the factory. Just a couple cylinders of ammo. And as far as your accusations of whining, it's the right of a purchaser to complain about a product that is defective right out of the box.

I've been shooting handguns for 50 years now. I've owned Smith and Wesson, Charter Arms, Beretta, Glock, Colt, Ruger, NAA, Remington, Marlin, Rossi, Browning, and have shot the dog poo out of them all. Of them all, I have never had a bad one out of the box that was non functional. I've fired tens of thousands of rounds through some of them, and never had a failure with two exceptions. That was a Colt Python that had a spring break, and an old marlin 39 that had a zillion rounds through it and had a spring break. So it can be done.

An occasional bad one gets out now and then. It's inevitable. But it seems like here on this forum dedicated to NAA, that much more than a few are getting out. For Sandy to make the offer that he did in his February soapbox, the problem is more than a few.

I spent my whole last half of my life as a machinist for a defense contractor, cranking out parts on Bridgeport mills, Harding lathes, and those parts has close tolerances. Sometimes plus nothing minus .005. There was no "close enough." I know how a machine shop works and how a production shop works. There are protocols to follow when bringing out a new anything, and those protocols have not been followed in this case. Yes the customers are whining, but your rant trying to turn it all around to where its the forums members at fault is more than slightly ridiculous. Maybe Sandy needs to take a day and think about it, and admit they may have made a mistake on taking on a hard to produce model of revolver. It's been done before. There isn't a car company, gun company, or whatever company that hasn't been forced to cancel a concept because of unforeseen problems of producing it. The gun world is loaded with failures that got canceled. The Smith and Wesson escort, the Remington 5mm magnum of the 1960's, the S&W .22 jet, the Browning T-bolt. All were canceled when the company realized that "Hey guys, this was a great idea, but it's just not working out in reality." Maybe Sandy needs to think about that.

If this ranger project is going to inflict collateral damage on other models, then it needs to be addressed. When I see posts complaining about defective Black Widows and Pugs, then to me it seems like the ranger fiasco is draining NAA's resources and affecting long time models in the lineup. NAA has spent many years cementing themselves into a solid position in a great nich market that they have no completion. Maybe they should stay there. Just elaborate on the guns that they already have down well.

As far as your accusations of whining, this is a forum in case you didn't notice. That means open discussion and comparing of notes between forum members. If it goes in a direction that you don't don't like, sorry about that, pal. It's our right and our privilege as forum members. I think your little tantrum was out of place, but that's just my opinion. And I have a right to it.

[Gog]

Well, I say, "well said" to you both. Two great reads and opinions. Nothing wrong with sharing our opinions as that's why we are here after all!
Let's just remember not to take anything on the forums too personally. Just NAA fans talking about things we have a personal investment in and want to talk about. We don't have to agree.

[Boisesteve]

I've got three minis right now. All function fine. The newest is a 4" Earl, and it has a decent crown and shoots WELL.
Both of my older minis function fine but had terrible crowns and sprayed rounds. They had to cut costs somewhere is my guess and these are not target revolvers. And maybe it doesn't matter if the distance-to-target is arm's reach. 
I had a local gunsmith in Kuna, ID recrown them. (maybe I shouldn't say 'recrown' because they really had none to begin with.)  He used a hand tool that consisted of a shaft which precisely fitted the bore and a cutter that went down over the shaft. It was VERY inexpensive to have this done locally, 'way less than the shipping cost to send them back to NAA. They will both now shoot to a hand-size area at 21 feet.
About keyholing:  I used to have two Beretta M21A pistols. They were superbly incredibly accurate, especially considering their 1" barrel length. I won bets with those things, shooting empty 12ga. shells stuck on a twig.  I shot qualifying scores with them.  BUT, they keyholed.  They 1) shot to exact point of aim, and 2) keyholed.  I only cared about #1.
Be well all, Boisesteve

[JRobyn]

I hope that my posts are not the ones that are considered whining.  If so, I apologize and will shut my yap.  I have tried to very objectively evaluate exactly what is taking place with the various problems reported and wherever possible offer potential resolutions.

It is my opinion that a large majority of the problems are due to the cylinder assembly, which I'm pretty sure that NAA obtained from a vendor.  IF that's the case, then NAA likely didn't have appropriate tooling in-house at first to address any issues.  From one "repair returned" post on here saying that NAA re-reamed the cylinder, that is evidently now no longer the case.  When problems began to show up, production was halted, I assume to either fix cylinder assemblies on-hand, send them back to the vendor, or wait for better replacements.  Maybe all of the above.  But I can also see how NAA still tried to keep SOME production going by the assemblers being more picky about which cylinders they used out of existing stock.  It seems that some rough ones still got through.  I can't explain why some of the problems were not identified at the factory with test firing, except maybe some very unique ammo at NAA.

[cbl51]

I hope that my posts are not the ones that are considered whining.  If so, I apologize and will shut my yap.  I have tried to very objectively evaluate exactly what is taking place with the various problems reported and wherever possible offer potential resolutions.

Yo, Robyn, you don't have to shut your yap or apologize! Your have something to say, then say it. That's called 'feed back, and it needs to be heard. That's the way problems get addressed. If you go to a restaurant and the meal is lousy, do you pay up and leave without a word? No, you tell the manager that the cook screwed up. If one person does that, he can chalk it off to a ill tempered moron. If two people do it, it's maybe coincidence. If three people do it, then management has to adress a problem in the kitchen. That's how feedback works.

If some people have too thin a skin that's too bad. The truth needs to be told and a forum functions on feedback and exchange of info. That's called communication. Problems don't get fixed by fan boys keeping mum about something that upsets their rose colored world.

Besides, never apologize, it's a sign of weakness. So said John Wayne.

[Bj]

I was bacically on one side of this argument and then when my ranger came back from repairs without the LR cylinder, incorrectly stating that it was not received, that caused me to take the other side.  I know assumptions are dangerous, but I have to assume a very careless unpacking of my shipment likely resulted in the cylinder being tossed out along with the packaging.  How NAA handles this will make a considerable impression on me.

[redhawk4]

Rick, you are entitled to your opinion as this is an open forum for discussion. But, there are some points that I feel you are very wrong.

It was NAA's choice to make announcements that they are coming out with a new model, and it was their choice to pick a type of handgun that is very difficult to manufacture. It was their choice to go the course they did. To say the the members of the forum put pressure not them to rush production is ludicrous. Is the managers of NAA that immature that they could not make a statement that there has been unforeseen problems with the concept of the ranger and the project has been put back?  Are they that wimpy that they couldn't say "We're sorry to announce that due to unforeseen problems in the manufacture of the ranger we have to redesign. That may take some additional time, we will keep you posted, thank you for your patience." Many concepts in manufacture has been scrapped because of the unforeseen problems. Who runs NAA, the forum members or the company officers?

I'm sorry you have some butt hurt for some reason, but it was on NAA they chose to rush an obvious ill conceived project into production and shipped guns out with very obvious defects that would have been detected if the guns had just. been test fired for function before leaving the factory. Just a couple cylinders of ammo. And as far as your accusations of whining, it's the right of a purchaser to complain about a product that is defective right out of the box.

I've been shooting handguns for 50 years now. I've owned Smith and Wesson, Charter Arms, Beretta, Glock, Colt, Ruger, NAA, Remington, Marlin, Rossi, Browning, and have shot the dog poo out of them all. Of them all, I have never had a bad one out of the box that was non functional. I've fired tens of thousands of rounds through some of them, and never had a failure with two exceptions. That was a Colt Python that had a spring break, and an old marlin 39 that had a zillion rounds through it and had a spring break. So it can be done.

An occasional bad one gets out now and then. It's inevitable. But it seems like here on this forum dedicated to NAA, that much more than a few are getting out. For Sandy to make the offer that he did in his February soapbox, the problem is more than a few.

I spent my whole last half of my life as a machinist for a defense contractor, cranking out parts on Bridgeport mills, Harding lathes, and those parts has close tolerances. Sometimes plus nothing minus .005. There was no "close enough." I know how a machine shop works and how a production shop works. There are protocols to follow when bringing out a new anything, and those protocols have not been followed in this case. Yes the customers are whining, but your rant trying to turn it all around to where its the forums members at fault is more than slightly ridiculous. Maybe Sandy needs to take a day and think about it, and admit they may have made a mistake on taking on a hard to produce model of revolver. It's been done before. There isn't a car company, gun company, or whatever company that hasn't been forced to cancel a concept because of unforeseen problems of producing it. The gun world is loaded with failures that got canceled. The Smith and Wesson escort, the Remington 5mm magnum of the 1960's, the S&W .22 jet, the Browning T-bolt. All were concealed when the company realized that "Hey guys, this was a great idea, but it's just not working out in reality." Maybe Sandy needs to think about that.

If this ranger project is going to inflict collateral damage on other models, then it needs to be addressed. When I see posts complaining about defective Black Widows and Pugs, then to me it seems like the ranger fiasco is draining NAA's resources and affecting long time models in the lineup. NAA has spent many years cementing themselves into a solid position in a great nich market that they have no completion. Maybe they should stay there. Just elaborate on the guns that they already have down well.

As far as your accusations of whining, this is a forum in case you didn't notice. That means open discussion and comparing of notes between forum members. If it goes in a direction that you don't don't like, sorry about that, pal. It's our right and our privilege as forum members. I think your little tantrum was out of place, but that's just my opinion. And I have a right to it.

Very well said, I would only add to it that anyone spending roughly $500 on a Ranger II has bought the right to say whatever they feel, or have experienced with their Ranger, as long as their language and wording are appropriate and respectful. For anyone else to claim otherwise defeats the whole purpose of such a forum, and no one should be criticising others for the points they post, or trying to steer conversations in a different direction, for some perceived ulterior motive.

As ever if there is a topic you don't care for, then don't read it further or respond.

Having the luxury of living close to the factory and having spent face to face time with some of the people involved in the Ranger project perhaps gives me a different perspective. I'm not going to reveal things that were part of private conversations, but I can tell you that posts discussing Ranger problems are read at NAA and are not seen as negative whining, but more as a source of information and feedback as they should be.

To imply all is well with the Ranger II and that people are just making a fuss is a ludicrous standpoint when Sandy Chisholm has openly admitted and discussed the problems in his Soapbox, perhaps Rick Jorgensen thinks he should "keep his yap shut" as well.

It seems to me most advocating that Ranger issues should not be discussed, either don't have one or haven't fired it yet, in which case they are not in a position to fully understand the sentiments of those who've endured a miserable range experience or two.

[Bigbird48]

I thought that was Gibbs

I hope that my posts are not the ones that are considered whining.  If so, I apologize and will shut my yap.  I have tried to very objectively evaluate exactly what is taking place with the various problems reported and wherever possible offer potential resolutions.

Yo, Robyn, you don't have to shut your yap or apologize! Your have something to say, then say it. That's called 'feed back, and it needs to be heard. That's the way problems get addressed. If you go to a restaurant and the meal is lousy, do you pay up and leave without a word? No, you tell the manager that the cook screwed up. If one person does that, he can chalk it off to a ill tempered moron. If two people do it, it's maybe coincidence. If three people do it, then management has to adress a problem in the kitchen. That's how feedback works.

If some people have too thin a skin that's too bad. The truth needs to be told and a forum functions on feedback and exchange of info. That's called communication. Problems don't get fixed by fan boys keeping mum about something that upsets their rose colored world.

Besides, never apologize, it's a sign of weakness. So said John Wayne.

[Bigbird48]

Rick you and I are friends and I hope we stay friends but this comment" There are some that are sending them back because "it shoots to the left"  and some other petty reasons. I call BS on those but its their right to send it in.  (I doubt it will make them a better marksman)  I really take offense to. My Ranger shoots way left and High. If I need to shoot a BG advancing on me from 10 feet away I'd miss him, if I aimed center mass. This is not acceptable in anyones book. Yes I sent mine back for that but it should have been addressed the second time I sent it back so I wouldn't have to send it the 3rd time.. Its not going to make me a better marksmen I'm a pretty good marksmen already and have the credentials to prove it, but I do need a gun that shoots to the point of aim and not 10 inches high and as much to the left in order for those skills to show thru.. I have no problems hitting the target with my other minis that I shoot. I'd admit I'm not the marksmen I was at 20 or 30 I am closing in on 70 but I can still hit the broadside of a barn if I try hard   Sincerely hope were OK But I did have to post my feelings on that comment.

[redhawk4]

Rick you and I are friends and I hope we stay friends but this comment" There are some that are sending them back because "it shoots to the left"  and some other petty reasons. I call BS on those but its their right to send it in.  (I doubt it will make them a better marksman)  I really take offense to. My Ranger shoots way left and High. If I need to shoot a BG advancing on me from 10 feet away I'd miss him, if I aimed center mass. This is not acceptable in anyones book. Yes I sent mine back for that but it should have been addressed the second time I sent it back so I wouldn't have to send it the 3rd time.. Its not going to make me a better marksmen I'm a pretty good marksmen already and have the credentials to prove it, but I do need a gun that shoots to the point of aim and not 10 inches high and as much to the left in order for those skills to show thru.. I have no problems hitting the target with my other minis that I shoot. I'd admit I'm not the marksmen I was at 20 or 30 I am closing in on 70 but I can still hit the broadside of a barn if I try hard   Sincerely hope were OK But I did have to post my feelings on that comment.

I had the accuracy issue with mine among other problems when it went back the first time. They replaced my barrel as part of the repairs. On my second range visit I was remarkably more accurate, so obviously my accuracy must have improved as I am to believe it was my own fault that I couldn't even hit the target at 7 yds. Like you Bigbird, I too found that to be an offensive remark, which was also made offensively by stating "I call BS on those" which is essentially calling everyone concerned a fool/liar/incompetent. I may be not be the best shot in the world, but am good enough to know when the gun is having a problem, because I can shoot a consistent group with every other handgun I own. I don't think expecting some level of accuracy and consistency from any firearm is an unrealistic expectation.

Personally, unless Rick Jorgensen still feels he can stand by his remarks and can justify any of what he claims supported by fact, he should apologise to the numerous Ranger owners whose credibility he's collectively insulted with what IMO is at an best an irrational rant. The fact he felt the need to post it twice only makes it worse.

[Uncle_Lee]

Ain't this the cat's meow.

The forum is split just like the Country.

[RogueTS1]

I was bacically on one side of this argument and then when my ranger came back from repairs without the LR cylinder, incorrectly stating that it was not received, that caused me to take the other side.  I know assumptions are dangerous, but I have to assume a very careless unpacking of my shipment likely resulted in the cylinder being tossed out along with the packaging.  How NAA handles this will make a considerable impression on me.

Just as an aside. I always include a Letterhead paper at the top of the box stating what all the contents are I have included in the box and the problems needing to be addressed. The openers tend to look very carefully when they read a letter and have to check that all is in there. Something missing they usually get on the phone very quickly to advise/question you.

[redhawk4]

Ain't this the cat's meow.

The forum is split just like the Country.

It's a shame, but at the same time unless someone who owns a Ranger II and has actually fired it and then experienced several problems feels they can agree with Rick's assessment that they should remain quiet and couldn't hit a barn if they were inside it, then there's a good reason for the disparate views in terms of those who've been there and done it and those passing judgement without having "walked in their shoes".

[redhawk4]

I was bacically on one side of this argument and then when my ranger came back from repairs without the LR cylinder, incorrectly stating that it was not received, that caused me to take the other side.  I know assumptions are dangerous, but I have to assume a very careless unpacking of my shipment likely resulted in the cylinder being tossed out along with the packaging.  How NAA handles this will make a considerable impression on me.

Just as an aside. I always include a Letterhead paper at the top of the box stating what all the contents are I have included in the box and the problems needing to be addressed. The openers tend to look very carefully when they read a letter and have to check that all is in there. Something missing they usually get on the phone very quickly to advise/question you.

I've always done the same with guns that I've had to ship back, it's important to make clear exactly what needs to be addressed or something is likely to get missed particularly as Murphy's law seems to dictate that things have a tendency to suddenly, and temporarily, start working again when you take them to the dealership or wherever with a problem . On the two times I've dropped mine back to NAA they have had me complete a form and list the problems to ensure they can check and take care of each one.

[Bj]

I was bacically on one side of this argument and then when my ranger came back from repairs without the LR cylinder, incorrectly stating that it was not received, that caused me to take the other side.  I know assumptions are dangerous, but I have to assume a very careless unpacking of my shipment likely resulted in the cylinder being tossed out along with the packaging.  How NAA handles this will make a considerable impression on me.

Just as an aside. I always include a Letterhead paper at the top of the box stating what all the contents are I have included in the box and the problems needing to be addressed. The openers tend to look very carefully when they read a letter and have to check that all is in there. Something missing they usually get on the phone very quickly to advise/question you.

Listing what is included in the package is a great idea, NAA should add that to the form.

[cbl51]

So, my mini number 2 was returned from NAA. I took I tout to the range yesterday and ran about 50 rounds through it. I can report that it shoots straiter with way less key holding. Maybe one in two cylinders.

The work sheet that came back wit it was puzzling. At leas two me. In my letter with the gun, and in person to the nice young lady on the phone, I explained the situation, that it was test fired for function back when I first go it, then stuck in a sock drawer for the next thirty years as a back up to mini number 1.

The sheet state the following was replaced;

Hammer.
LR hand.
Hand spring.
Index pin.
Index spring.
Main screw.
Main spring.

Gun returned no charge. I'm glad, and whatever they did was fine. The action is more rough than it was and the hammer and trigger action noticeable stiffer. I'll shoot it to smooth stout and get used to the feel. I know in a high stress close range encounter of the ugly kind I won't even notice the heavier trigger pull so I'm not that worried about it. I always keep in mind that this is a close range belly gun to be used at arms length, so I don't worry too much about trigger pull.

At least 95% of the holes in the target were round ones. That's an improvement!

[Canoeal]

Let me start with the fact I am not a gunsmith. That being said, who cannot smooth out the crown? It is not rocket science. Who cannot clean, perhaps use some jeweler's rouge- to smooth out the action, or polish the cylinder, blow it all out and oil the gun?
That appears to be all these little guns, apart from the RII issues, need. If it is stiff, smooth it out; if the crown looks rough, there are many, tools especially the bits from a dremel (no don't use a dremel, just the bits) that can smooth out the crown. I bet most of you could replace the mainspring, although I admit I have not tried.

These are the things I was referring to in a previous post ( I think it was "have we lost the skill") that I think a gun owner should be able to do. If you could, you would be able to make your gun better without the hassle of sending them back for every little thing, and you would be able to trust it more, as you know it was 'fixed'.

I am still learning, but I am willing to learn, even at 64.

[JRobyn]

The proper tooling for re-crowning is quite expensive ($80-$150).  That said, I've just bought a really simple conical "burnisher" intended to be used with valve grinding compound (it came with some) for just $7.  I expect that it will only be good for where there's very minor imperfections.

[Canoeal]

Yes, I too was only referring to minor imperfections. Bad work should be sent back.

[Oakley D]

I purchased  a $1100 S&W 627 PC and brand new out of the box the ejector was hanging up.
Looked it over before transfer but didn't notice it. Had to send it in, took 6 weeks.
Also had to send back a $1200 FNX Tactical after 250 rounds.
The NAA Minis are very inexpensive and you just have to test them out to make sure their straight.