A re-post from a long time ago...
Being a fan of single-shots - handguns, rifles & shotguns - as well as break-top revolvers... I'd like to see NAA use their Ranger break-top design platform to produce a single-shot pistol.
Using the current frame, hinged barrel & lockup design, and eliminating the parts & processes specific to a revolver, it should be a relatively easy & inexpensive "new" design to bring to production. Something as simple as this

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/hopkins-allen-new-model-22lr-caliber-revolver-pr31894/

but smaller.

Think of the potential. Really good sights, with a variety of barrel lengths... perhaps interchangeable for the rimfires. Super-accurate dedicated .22 short (& .22lr) target-grade barrels.

Perhaps even a single-shot carbine.... maybe disassembling at the hinge - a "take-down" model. Or folding, similar to the little Chiappa .22. Hmmm.

With no cylinder and related chamber-wall thickness/chamber pressure restrictions, a small center-fire caliber might work (like the inherently-accurate .32)... in a pistol and carbine.

A lot of new accessories could be offered for such a model line, too. Target style grips.. travel case.. backpack case.. butt-stock ammo holder.. sling..

Sounds good to me... but like I mentioned, I like single shots. Especially unique, elegant ones. I do think that, marketed as an accurate target/hunting/sporting firearm (as opposed to defensive), it would sure attract many that aren't currently in the naa "fold" and really broaden the NAA fan base.

I don't have a Pug JDB, but I've shot one owned by a friend a fair amount. All other things being equal (cartridge, sights, grip, etc.), the shorter sight radius would make it more difficult for your eyes to see a slight error in the sight picture, so it would be more difficult to shoot it as accurately. The difference in muzzle weight may be noticeable to you as well, as more weight toward the muzzle tends to hold steadier. At very short distances (what the Pug is designed for) none of those differences matter much.

"I needed to shoot a shot shell today in the LCP ll. The B/W, I always keep 2 shot shells loaded. The LCP want fire without the magazine installed. I removed magazine, manually put shot shell in chamber. I knew it wouldn't cycle but had to put the loaded magazine back in. Is there a better or faster way? When I need a shot shell, I usually need it fast. Sometimes more than one."

Hey Camo, have you tried loading a shotshell (or several) in the magazine, then cycling the slide manually to load the cartridge into the chamber? That will work on some .22 semi-autos.

Nope, lots of practice with light loads is better than little practice with the "hotter" loads. Make sure that you use a grip that allows you to have good control of the revolver, then shoot whatever you can afford to shoot a lot of; you will gain familiarity with carrying, handling, shooting and reloading the revolver, and your confidence level will grow. If/when you can shoot more of the hotter loads, do that, but shoot as often as is practicable, always using good, safe gun-handling practices.
As you likely know, one's defensive "plan" should not only rely on a weapon; the weapon (& necessary skill) should be a part of the plan, but not the only part. It's the last resort... and while sudden unforeseen circumstances may make it the only effective option, being aware of our surroundings & environment ("Condition Yellow" - alert & aware) will nearly always let us avoid the need to use it.
   

Quote from: Canoeal on January-12-21 10:01
Won't keep a semi auto in .380, Just me. I am a revolver guy. If I could find a 2" .32 H&R mag I might buy one of those...Not a .327, because I believe it best to use the round the gun is designed for. JMHO

I believe you're a Charter Arms fan, so you're likely aware of this 3" .32 H&R Mag:
https://charterfirearms.com/collections/nitride/products/model-63270

Nice. Are both the holster & wallet from Desert Gun Leather?

Hey taku, that sounds good to me! A couple of years ago I posted something similar (copied below)..... to a similar reception, lol.     

I know it's way too soon to be wanting NAA to start another new project, but down the road a piece, when production is up to demand on the Ranger ii and we go back to talking about what we'd like to see them come out with... here's my vote. Being a fan of single-shots - handguns, rifles & shotguns - as well as break-top revolvers... I'd like to see NAA use their Ranger break-top design platform to produce a single-shot pistol.
Using the current frame, hinged barrel & lockup design, and eliminating the parts & processes specific to a revolver, it should be a relatively easy & inexpensive "new" design to bring to production. Something as simple as this

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/hopkins-allen-new-model-22lr-caliber-revolver-pr31894/

but smaller.

Think of the potential. Really good sights, with a variety of barrel lengths... perhaps interchangeable for the rimfires. Super-accurate dedicated .22 short (& .22lr) target-grade barrels.

Perhaps even a single-shot carbine.... maybe disassembling at the hinge - a "take-down" model. Or folding, similar to the little Chiappa .22. Hmmm.

With no cylinder and related chamber-wall thickness/chamber pressure restrictions, a small center-fire caliber might work (like the inherently-accurate .32)... in a pistol and carbine.

A lot of new accessories could be offered for such a model line, too. Target style grips.. travel case.. backpack case.. butt-stock ammo holder.. sling..

Sounds good to me... but like I mentioned, I like single shots. Especially unique, elegant ones. I do think that, marketed as an accurate sporting firearm (as opposed to defensive), it would sure attract many that aren't currently in the naa "fold" and really broaden the NAA fan base.

Hang in there, Red... this too shall pass. It's a good thing that "now" ain't all there is, huh! Check out the book "Things Unseen" by Mark Buchanan... very encouraging & helpful when struggling to focus on what's ahead and keep daily hardships in perspective. I've read it several times, over several years, & it's a blessing every time.

Back to your comments about difficulty reloading. Have you tried the speed-loaders available here http://www.revisioncv.com/ and, I think, on ebay? Maybe get a few of them & load 'em at home on the kitchen table, where it's much easier than standing on the range.

Thanks, Joe.

What was the second sight option she mentioned? I couldn't quite make it out.

Quote from: LHB on April-17-19 20:04
Not sure, but I think that S&W brought out their 38 long before they decided to upgrade the 38 Long Colt to make the S&W Special.   I think that at the time of WWI the 38 S&W, or its twin, the 38 Colt New Police were the standard police rounds.   Now sure how many thousand 38 S&W revolvers were produced for the British  is WWII, which the Brits called the .380-200.   There are a lot of Colt Police Positives out there in 38 New Police / 38 S&W.

From what I've read, the Brits found the .380-200 to be a pretty good stopper, apparently because the 200 grain lead roundnose bullet was too long to stabilize well at the loaded velocity and tended to "tumble" upon impact, greatly enhancing its effectiveness.

In the early 80's, my dad & I duplicated that load (he was the teacher, I was the student), using .38 Special cases loaded with cast lead 200 grain blunt-nose bullets. It worked. We eventually worked up a load that was stable in flight, but would tumble upon impact. The hole in the front paper or wood target was round (normal bore size) and the bullet had started to keyhole in the second target placed several inches behind. It wasn't gas-checked, had relatively mild recoil & muzzle blast, was accurate, easy to shoot and didn't lead the bore.
As I tend to lean toward the "heavy slow bullet" camp (vs the light, fast bullet" crowd), I carried it off-duty in a Model 36 for a long time.
Good memories!

https://naaminis.com/smf/index.php?topic=20363.0

On Chrome... https (secure).

Is that a blued steel BW on the right?

Lowering the rear sight will lower the point of impact, raising the rear sight will raise the point of impact. Exactly opposite with the front sight.

Aim the revolver (or your forefinger) at where you want the bullet to hit (on a target, pinecone, whatever). Now visualize lowering the rear of the revolver slightly (which lowers the rear sight relative to the front sight) while not moving the muzzle or front sight. As you can see, the sight alignment will now result in a higher point of impact on the target, because the barrel is now pointed in a more upward angle.

When you mechanically move only the rear sight (not the rear of the revolver) down, you will have to lower the muzzle to realign both sights on the center of the target.... which lowers the point of impact.

Raising the rear sight (relative to the front sight) does the opposite, 'cause you have to raise the muzzle to realign the sights on the target. If you ponder how this works, you'll understand how the horizontal (left to right) point of impact will be similarly affected by moving the sights left or right.

Once you visualize it, it's pretty simple. The initial visualizing sometimes takes a while.

Adjustable sights make the process easy but, as others have mentioned, one can also file the top of a fixed rear sight down a little to lower the point of impact, or the top of the front sight to raise the point of impact. Best to practice on something else first and use good quality, fine-tooth files, etc. You won't want to remove much metal - a tiny bit will make a significant difference.

I prefer fixed sights, and have "adjusted" them like this for many years (as have lots of other folks). This is generally how it was done before there were adjustable sights on handguns.

Adjustable sights are preferable if one will be using a variety of ammo and/or shooting at longer distances, as different bullet weights and velocity will often impact the target in different places, and you can re-adjust the sights as needed for whatever ammo you are using. For close work (short distances common for typical self-defense) or if you stay with the same ammo, fixed sights can be preferable because of durability, lower profile, etc.
I hope this helps!

Very nice!

Quote from: burncycle on July-10-18 18:07
Folding NAA carbine to take over the pack-rifle / crickett rifle / rascal rifle / Chiappa "Little Badger" rifle / bronco rifle / survival game getter market

That gets my vote!

Can you push the hammer forward when you pull the trigger? If so, the mainspring (hammer spring) is broken.

The neat thing about the Pachmayr Guardian revolver grip is the finger extension that pops out at the bottom of the grip. The grips are made to be easily concealed (appear relatively compact), then the extension "pops" down at the bottom to provide a better grip for firing.
I wonder if they could fit the extending design to something the size of the regular Black Widow / Mini-Master grip for the NAA's. Now that would be nice!

Likely I missed somebody else's post on this, but maybe Pachmayr will eventually make something like this for the NAA minis.
https://www.lymanproducts.com/brands/pachmayr/handgun-grips/revolver-grips/guardian-griptm.html

Quote from: cbl51 on January-30-18 07:01

Quote from: Uncle Fatso on January-29-18 10:01
I have a 22 magnum LCR.  I'd say the trigger pull is similar to a 63 in double action.  But the advantages of the S&W .22 mag J Frame are

Can be thumb cocked for single action
Fits in a pocket easier
Some are lighter weight
7 rounds instead of 6
A variety of aftermarket grips
Doesn't look like a mud fence


The LCR is cheaper and has a more durable finish

The factory LCR grips don't fit my hand well and tend to hang on my clothing when I'm trying to draw the gun.
I've always wished Ruger had made an aluminum alloy framed SP-101 instead of the homely, oversized LCR.

I'm looking particular at the .22lr. I want a 2 inch barrel 8 shot revolver and the only alternative is the S&W with he black finish that flakes off. The S&W is like almost 700 dollars. They don't make the 317 in the 2 inch anymore, d--m it. The Ruler LCR is in a notch market with the 2 inch and fixed sights.

I'd love for the LCR to become available in the LCRX 2 inch with a external hammer for single action capability.

Keep an eye on the Ruger website. That's what they told me a few months ago when I asked them about a 2" LCRx in .22LR.

Quote from: cbl51 on February-03-18 15:02
I think a couple of things are going on here.

One, I don't think many of those old Colts, winchesters, and Smith and Wesson needed repair out of the box. And the same goes for the old Remington and Sharps derringers. I think things were better made back then because they didn't have CNC technology, so everything was hand fitted at the final step. That meant that no gun/whatever left the factory without being hand fitted and checked out by a master gunsmith.

Then, every little town had a gunsmith shop. It was like a watch makers shop with all he needed too make whatever part he needed. I think that there was not the huge amount of different guns like now, with most people using pretty standard stuff. And the further west you went out in the frontier, the more standard the stuff in the general store was.

I think we're living in a golden age of firearms, that no gun guy in the 1870's could have imagined in any peyote or whiskey inspired dream.

As for the 'other' modern stuff, I think it's by design that you can't work on the stuff. You need a 50K dollar computer to figure out which black box under the hood you have to replace. The toaster goes bad? The stuff is sooo cheap now, it's all of 11.99 for a newline. The old one has some little cheap part made in China burn out and there's no way to get a replacement part. Corporate greed has made the stuff so you have to go buy a new one.

Accurate observations.
Plus perhaps some other things in play:

Firearms were generally considered tools, not accessories, and ownership was more to meet an actual need. Function (with little regard for aesthetics) was the primary objective and reliable, durable function requires a high-quality tool. The relative simplicity of the designs (compared to many modern designs) made it easier to learn to repair them, as well as creating a need for the local gunsmith, as the cost of the infrequent repair was much less than the cost of buying a new one. Plus, as mentioned above, that was not a throw-away culture.

I think many of us appreciate older guns because of the quality of the "fit & finish"... the obvious hand-labor and skill that went into each gun (in marked contrast to much of what is produced today), which created a thing of beauty.

Not that most of today's firearms don't work well, they do, but like many other mass-produced products, the industry has developed the market to buy guns for reasons other than to meet an actual need. As has been expressed by others here, we too often encounter big egos & silly, image-based perceptions at gun shops and gun shows.... but lotsa guns are still being sold. 

There also weren't a lot of aftermarket accessories (grips, etc.) available back then. Many shooters of that era became seriously proficient without the aid of custom sights, grips or action jobs. They practiced much & physically "adapted" to the weapon instead of spending time & money to adapt the weapon to them.... they simply used the guns more than we do, because they needed to.

Not that accessories, industry-driven ($) marketing and many more gun-owners than really proficient shooters are necessarily bad things; accessories can help us use the weapon more effectively (& improve aesthetics) and modern marketing combined with increased ownership strengthens the industry and grows the pro-gun citizenry. We just have to hunt harder to find modern firearms that meet the quality standards of that bygone era.

Nice photos, Dinadan.
I'm likin' the 2.5" Sidewinder more & more, especially with the engraved boot grips.

Welcome!

Kinda off the subject, but if y'all haven't seen it, the movie Wind River is excellent. Even some good hunting shots in it!

....to everyone here & at NAA  -  we hope y'all get what you're hoping for and are able to pay it forward. Have a blessed new year (& lotsa fun shooting the R2's)!
KC & JC

Like most other retail today, the market is industry-driven instead of consumer driven. The manufacturers produce not just what they think we need, but what they want us to buy. That's not necessarily a bad thing - it results in many of us buying more than just what we need to accomplish the task - becoming collectors of the products, not just users. If I need a mini in my pocket, I'll probably only need one to get the job done. But I want more than one, 'cause there's several different ones available that I like, so... .

The self-defense industry promotes, in a general sense, products and training that generate income for that industry. Often, very improbable (but not impossible) defensive and/or "survival" scenarios are offered as likely to happen and what we'll be trying to survive....and we obviously need weapons & tactics that are suited to those scenarios.
Everyone here knows that in the majority of civilian defensive situations, a small, easily concealed weapon (& reasonable tactics) will most likely prevent or stop the threat, as well as having a lower probability of causing death than the weapons most commonly promoted.
One would think the small, less expensive, easier-to-become-proficient-with weapons that are less likely to cause death would be most promoted by the industry... but it's mostly about marketing, sales & image, not simply what is needed.

Nice!

Years ago I went through the Ruger factory armorer's course in New Hampshire. During the class, we built the Security Six/Service Six/Speed Six revolvers, then tried to take them "out of service" by simulating actions that would usually stop revolvers from functioning (dropping with cylinder closed & open, etc.) - things that most of us had seen over the years.
Stuff that would stop a Colt (both old & new action) or Smith didn't stop the Rugers. We were eventually throwing the revolvers hard against steel I-beams, then up toward the high ceiling (in the factory), then against the cement floor. We were only doing it to a couple of the revolvers (Service Six - fixed sights); although they were looking pretty beat up, they kept working. The instructor was sitting off to the side, watching, with a grin on his face.
I finally sheared the center-pin by slamming the revolver down on the cement floor, as hard as I could, on its right side. The instructor had it functioning again in under two minutes.
Those were the first revolvers that, in many cases, would allow "drop-in" repairs, where replacement parts could be installed with little or no fitting. Unheard of with Smith & Colt. Still today.
Tough revolvers. I wish they still made 'em, and agree that the GP series are bigger than they need to be for the caliber.

A "minimalist"... and the tiny, light NAA was the least that would be effective... and it was.
Good story.

Quote from: Ruger on December-14-17 15:12
First, Welcome to the forum Lebowski3.  Great to have you.  We need those range reports, trials, failures, and tall stories.  Jump in often, oh, and we love pictures, too!

Second, listen to O&G:

Quote from: OLD and GRUMPY on December-14-17 06:12. . . . .Mini is a belly gun. . . . .

If you purchased a mini and expect respectable groupings outside of three feet, you may be mistaken as to how a belly gun is used.

BTW, I get 1" groupings with any of my NAA Minis at 12", regardless of the ammo brand.

LOL! Exactly! The smaller the gun & the shorter the barrel, the more of a "get off me!" weapon it's designed to be. As others have indicated, it has to do with bullet weight/length/velocity & rate of rifling twist... but, at contact-to-close range, a tipping (keyholing) bullet ain't a bad thing. Think of the bullet impacting sideways.
Back in the early 1900's, the Brits, wanting a round with less recoil (& requiring less training) than the .455 Eley, developed the 380-200 (.38 S&W, but with a 200 grain lead bullet at low velocity) which tended to tip upon impact, thus expending all it's energy in the target. From all I've read, it was pretty effective.
Years ago, my Dad & I worked up a low-velocity (maybe 700-750 fps) 200+ grain cast load for the .38 spl, which would (at 10 - 15 yards) impact a single paper target squarely - no tipping - but would then keyhole into a second paper target about 10" behind the first target. So it was stable until it hit something as thin as paper, then tumbled (keyholed). It was an effective, accurate, easy-to-shoot snubby load.

Thinking of my Mom & Dad.... I was 36 when my dad died, 61 when my mom died.... and I have already lived 8 years longer than my dad did. Seems strange.
I sometimes wish I could ask them again about something they told me, things they experienced, their earlier years. They were smarter & wiser than their oldest son in so many ways, and their influence continues in the lives of their children.
Miss 'em lots... & lookin' forward to what's ahead!

No rain here.... but I think dropping in at the lgs is a really good idea!

From NAA to us...

Have A Little Faith In Me (John Hiatt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aYxMuLb3h8

Once we get the R2 ....
Hallelujah (Pentatonics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRP8d7hhpoQ

BW, pocket or waistband, mix of shot & HP loads.

Thanks greyelky. That's what I was wanting! I think it'll be my favorite plinker, too.... but then the R2 may change all that (except the Earl is still hard to beat for looks).

Dang, that 3" Earl is a nice lookin' little revolver. I think I might like it much as a kit gun. Those of you that have it and the Black Widow and have compared relative ease of accurate shots (.22lr plinking, etc., out to maybe 35' or so), considering the difference in sights as well as sight radius.... what would be your observations?