OK, guys with experience, please chime in:

How much "better"  for self defense carry is a BW .22WMR vs. a BW with .22 LR?  I know that I can buy both cylinders, but at this stage I am interested in one or the other.

With such a short barrel, is there a .LR cartridge (CCI stinger, for example) that makes the difference in energy/stopping power negligible? Or, even with a standard LR cartridge, is the difference all that great?

I ask this in part because while I've found some .22 LR locally in recent months, I have found ZERO .22 WMR.  I really don't want to buy a carry gun that I can't find ammo for.  Other factors are: noise and recoil created by the magnum, wear and tear on the gun itself, etc.

Opinions much appreciated.

As the OP, I appreciate the feedback from everyone, especially BB about the golf cart incident!

I am a bit surprised that more owners did not join in with their experience - perhaps as a percentage of NAA firearms the holster grip is just not that common.

I wonder if NAA has ever published stats on production and/or sales of their products model by model?

I'd be curious to know what their top seller is (Sidewinder, I'd guess, since its introduction) but what would be next, BW?

In addition to satisfying my curiosity it might give some clue as to what the next big thing might be  . . . . .

Thanks for your input, Javier.  If I buy an NAA with a holster grip, I would probably go with what appears to be the factory installed models, which are LR versions, with two barrel lengths, 1 and 1/8 and 1 and 5/8.  My sense is that unless you have a 2" barrel, there's little advantage to the .22 mag version.

I live in a small town and haven't seen any NAA holster grip models in our local stores for a long time.  Several years ago I had one in hand and remember being impressed by the grip/design/concealability.  Now, I'm considering buying one, based on (1) I want a revolver with maximum ease of carry characteristics, (2) I don't have confidence in my ability to handle the smaller fixed grips and (3), the BW, which I would love to have, seems no easier to carry/conceal than my Kel Tec .32.

I would appreciate opinions from those who have owned any version of this design - real life carry satisfaction, shooting characteristics, durability of the holster grip, any other issues you've experienced etc.

Thanks in advance, guys.

I saw my first sidewinder today at a local gun store here on the Georgia coast, priced at $455 incl both cylinders.   Also saw one on Bud's website, leading me to conclude that production has caught up with demand.   That said, actually holding a SW in my hand prompted me to wonder whether it's overpriced.   For the "mission" of an NAA mini- ultimate portability for emergency use at close range - is it really worth twice the cost of the older minis?  Also, I wonder if longer barrels on the SW might be closer to the market now?   Opinions appreciated.

I'm SO ready for a 2" or longer SW, but is it a year or two away?   This board must have some good "guesses" if not some inside info that I've missed . . . . .

Hardtackwon: Thanks for your input.   With 4 of these Holster-Grips, you must have alot of experience shooting them.   I understand that some of the grips are longer than others, if you have both types do you find a difference between them in any way when shooting?   Are these grips "stable" in your hand when the gun is fired?

I was all set to jump into my first NAA purchase a few months ago (BW) when I decided to wait a bit for a longer version of the SW.   No telling how long that will be, and so now I'm back to considering other models.

One drawback of the BW is that it is not as CCW friendly as other models, but I like the larger grip.   How viable is the Holster Grip model as an alternative to BW?   What's it like to shoot this model, for instance, how does this unusual grip/holster perform in terms of accuracy, recoil, etc.?   And, what barrel length does it come in?

Advice from those with experience would be appreciated!

Thanks, Rhett, your picture is worth a thousand words!

Does anybody have both guns?   If so, what is your opinion of each?

If SW takes toooooo long to come out in 2.5" or higher, is the Heritage Arms a viable alternative?

I'm sure it's bigger and heavier, not as well made, but how close does it come to be a carry that could compete with the NAA?

Dinadan - I thought I read somewhere that Sandy said he expected production of the longer SWs to begin in the first quarter (of 2012?).

No April soapbox, yet  . . . . maybe he'll mention it.

Thanks for the info, guys.   My thinking was that if the SW could not have the same grip as the BW, I might just go with the BW.   But now I guess I'll wait for the longer SW.   Wish I knew how long that wait will be  . . . . .

Hi guys, I'd appreciate some input from those who have experience with both guns.

I've been waiting to buy my first NAA - the Sidewinder but with a longer barrel, minimum I think of 2.5".

However, from the photos I wonder if the grip of the SW is as good as the BW feels (at least to me)?   If not, can the SW accept modification to achieve BW-type feel?

Thanks in advance for all opinions.

Thanks to all who have responded so far, and I hope others will chime in as well.   Ikoido, I appreciate the link to the SW, I'm pretty new to the board and had missed that, didn't even know until Louis mentioned it that there was a separate page for buy sell trade!    The fact that the SW DOES have the dual cartridge capability gives me some incentive to wait for the longer barrel models to be available.   I know we all wish we knew when this will happen, and, I'm sure, what the cost will be.   $428 (cost of the initial SW including conversion cylinder) is a bit of a premium over the BW (Bud's has it for $304 including both cylinders) and is apt to be even greater if the cost of say, a 2.5" SW is $40-$50 higher still).   I'd probably pay that, actually, if it were available today and feedback from this group was favorable, but  . . . . that could be a long wait!

I'm trying to narrow down the best CCW choice - for me - between the following NAA .22's, and before buying I would appreciate feedback from those with experience with these models:

   

    Black Widow:   I've only actually held a few NAA revolvers in my hand, and have never fired one, but I like the grip on this one, while some of the smaller models just don't feel secure in my hand.  I also like the fact that it has a 2" long barrel.   Seems to me there's very little difference in ballistics between .22 LR and .22 mag unless you have a barrel at least this long, and accuracy is better the longer the barrel.  It's a bit heavier than some, and a bit bulkier with the larger grip, but it seems like a serious SD weapon.    

   Sheriff.  It has a slightly longer barrel at 2.5"  Can I put the BW grip on the Sheriff?  Any other advantages compared to the BW?

   Earl.  It has a 3" barrel, and that's probably the limit for CCW, especially if the BW grip can be added (can it?).   That faux-lever locking pin - is that merely cosmetic or are there some advantages over the other NAAs?  Same question for the octagon barrel - any pluses or minuses there?

   

   I've pretty much ruled out the Mini Master since its 4" barrel may be too long for CCW in my daily environment (warm climate, shorts & T shirt worn pretty much year round).   The Sidewinder, as I understand it, will be available with longer barrels than the initial model, but who knows how long that will be?   Also, I've read nothing about whether or how the SW will have a .22 LR conversion cylinder, and I definitely want a revolver that will shoot both cartridges.   (In fact, I wonder if a 3" barrel firing a .22 LR approaches the ballistics of a .22 WMR out of the 1 and 5/8 barrel?  But the main reason I want the dual capability is to be able to practice with .22 LR, and possibly talk my gun-shy wife into firing the gun).

   

   This is a knowledge group, I've learned, so thanks in advance for any input you can provide.

Are the NAA product codes different for the new style pin BW?   If ordering one I'd want to avoid the old style, based on comments here.

Greyelky:  What a helluva board this is!   You must have gone to a lot of trouble to get those pictures made and posted, and I can't tell you how impressed I am that you - and others posting - are doing your best to help a newbie like me!   I live in a small town in Georgia and don't have alot of local gun stores, so I actually get to see and feel and hold just a small sample of NAA products (got to to Jacksonville, 50 miles or so, to do that) - so, posts such as yours go a very long way in helping me, and I thank you again!   Cheers!

Greyelky - Keltec website says the P32 is 6.6 oz unloaded, 5.1" Long X 3.5" high X .75" thick.  NAA .22 Mag with one and five/eight inch barrel is shown as 6.2 oz, 5.25" L X 2 and 7/8 high and 7/8" thick.

   

   You have both so I'm interested in your experience, but how can these numbers be said to reflect the KT as "still a fair bit larger" than the NAA mini?   Not debating, just want to make sure I'm not missing something . . . . .

Hi Grayekly, thanks for your input.   You ask about .32 or .380 guns that compare with the NAA mini.   One that I'm considering is the Keltec P32, specs here: http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/p-32/">http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/p-32/

   

   Fits very nicely in my pocket; the .380 not so much but still quite compact.  Now, I prefer the simplicity and reliability of a wheel gun, and I would like to think that .22 wmr out of a 2.5" barrel approximates or exceeds the ballistics of the .32 - but at this point, I just don't know, and that's why I'm asking for input from knowledgeable folks like you.   Thanks again.

OK, so some NAA minis go up to 6" long, I think, with others at 4" and 2.5"   For CC, at least for my situation, the 4" would be at the outer limits of physical dimensions, and 2.5" even better.   Barrels shorter than 2" would seem to be decidedly weaker.  I've looked but not found a chart with an even-Stephen comparison of these models for both .22 LR and .22 WMR.   Obviously, the longer the better . . . but how MUCH better?   And (to focus my inquiry even more) how do these ballistics numbers compare with the .32 acp and .380, again, from the same barrel length?   Knowing this information would sure help me decide on my next purchase!   Thanks in advance, guys.

Hey Louie, thanks for the kind and generous offer.   If I get down Webster way I will take you up on it.   Cheers!

Wow, what quick and informative replies, guys!   Much impressed, and enough to realize that comparing the NAA to the other guns mentioned is apples & oranges in terms of carry characteristics.  I live near Jacksonville, and it's warm most of the year, so being retired, my daily uniform is usually a pair of shorts and a light T shirt - not too good for concealed carry.   That's the main appeal of the mini, and even .22 wmr is not an ideal self defense round, it's that or nothing most of the time.   If I go for the Sidewinder, it would be when the longer barrel models come out.   Any opinions on the 4" barrels on existing NAA minis as far as the trade off between shootability and concealability?   Main reason I'd favor Sidewinder  is ease of reloading for practice purposes, but I realize in a self defense situation there would probably be no reloading at issue.

OK, guys, just my second post and I hope it's considered fair to admit that I'm considering both of these two guns - early stages, having never had either in my hand at this point.   But, I would appreciate opinions from anyone who has fired (and/or carried) either the 941 UL and any NAA .22 mag revolver.  I know the 941 UL is comparatively larger and heavier, but how decent is it for CCW?   I think for carry I'd want no more than a 2.5" barrel in either gun, so assume the ballistics wouldn't be much different.  I've seen various NAA minis but never fired one, and the lack of a trigger guard concerns me a bit.   Any input appreciated!

Hi, OP here and so I first want to thank everyone for their welcome and for the helpful and stimulating discussion.  (Louie:  I am on the "first coast" near Jacksonville).

   

   Looking back, I did not word my original inquiry quite as clearly as I should have:   what I meant to ask was, if you are using rimfire ammunition in a revolver, would a SA provide greater reliability over a DA?  My understanding is that aside from cheap ammo (which there's alot of  in .22 cal), FTF is more common in rimfire because the hammer strike has to be more forceful than for center fire ammo.   Thus, does a SA by design insure a more reliable and forceful strike than a DA?   If it does, it seems that the drawbacks of a SA in terms of speed of firing would be somewhat offset by such greater dependibilty.

   

   Also, by asking about SA as a carry weapon, I had in mind .22 wmr or LR, in order to have as light weight, concealable and portable carry weapon as possible.   Obviously, no .22 SA or otherwise would be as effective a round for SD as the larger, center fire calibers, but my interest is primarily in in portability.

   

   Anyway, despite not making myself as clear as I could have, the discussion was interesting and informative, and I look forward to regularly participating on this board!

Hi everyone, my first post, and probably a subject that has been covered, but . . . . all NAA revolvers (I think this is right) are single action. While this may not be ideal, what are your thoughts on the viability of a SA (NAA or otherwise) as a self defense carry weapon?  Are SA revolvers inherently more dependable with rimfire ammo?  Does the NAA trigger design create significant risks for unintentional discharge?  I'd welcome any discussion along these lines.  thanks in advance.