.22 Short VS .22 Long Rifle

[Alan Fud]

I'm thinking about getting one of those North American Arms Mini-Revolvers. I've pretty much ruled out the .22Magnum version because these guns appear to be difficult to hang on to to begin with and the recoil from a .22mag in such a tiny package would make the gun even more difficult to shoot accurately, IMO.

That leaves me with either the .22 short version or the .22 Long Rifle version. This would obviously be for extreme circumstances where my NAA Guardian in .32ACP would be too big.

Would the .22 Long Rifle be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the .22 short?

 

[juneau803]

The .22 LR is much much more potent than a short. I wouldn't shoot anything with a short, cept maybe tin cans, and they would probably just dent them.

 

[P95Carry]

Hey Alan ... tell ya what - if you can handle an R9 - you can manage the .22 mag NAA mini! It's hardly comfortable but - it works!! We're talkin' close up and personal anyways, probably.

With the .22LR cylinder - which I have with mine as well as the mag cyl, this allows for not only .22LR but .22 short also. Maybe get the whole deal and then you have choices

IMO the .22LR would definitely have a marked edge. I'd only ''play'' with shorts! They'd only make a BG real mad!!

 

[Nick96]

I agree with P95Carry. Get the one with the .22mag & .22LR interchangable cylinders. That will shoot any .22 rimfire made.

I don't know if I've seen .22 Shorts or even .22 Longs for many years. Are they even still made?

 

[P95Carry]

I haven't seen Longs Nick in a good while - but Shorts - yeah - they are available. Last ones I got were in the CCI plastic tray of 100... about a year ago at Wally World.

 

[Gordon]

Shorts ARE getting expensive. Funny thing about shorts:In a berretta Jet fire 950 in .22 short Remington HV shorts get about 900fps with a 29 grain bullet. In a Berretta(sp?) 21 .22LR with about the same barrel (actually 1/4" longer) length only Stingers with a 33 grain bullet got 95 FPS more. 40 grain stuff was around 850-875fps. So the difference is really not much different, and the penetration tests I have run bear this out! My favorite mouse gun is an Astra Cub (Colt Junior) which gets 875fps with 29 grain Remington Golden shorts.

 

[whm1974]

I would get the LR version, Ammo is cheaper and more powerful. Plus you could shoot shorts in it if you wanted to.

-Bill

 

[BluesBear]

CCI and Aguila both still produce the .22 Long cartridge.

Great for plinking and you don't have to worry about fouling the chambers like you do with the .22 Short.

 

[Ala Dan]

Actually, we have two NAA "minis" in this household. One is my BUG, a
.22 WMR with a 1-1/8" barrel; and the other is a .22 LR with the same
barrel length. Had 'em both since Oct. of 98, and not had any problems
with them.

 

[popeye]

I used to collect small guns like the Bauer, etc.. The only one left is the N.A.A. in .22 short. It's trully tiny. As coNversation piece it's one thing, but as a CCW piece I think not.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-------------------------------------
That leaves me with either the .22 short version or the .22 Long Rifle version. This would obviously be for extreme circumstances where my NAA Guardian in .32ACP would be too big.

Would the .22 Long Rifle be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the .22 short?
--------------------------------------

The .22 Short was developed by Smith & Wesson in their Model 1 revolver (which wasn't much bigger than your NAA.)

Mark Twain had one, and in "Roughing It" he has a section about the guns his fellow travellers carried during the trip to Nevadza on the Overland Stage -- "As for myself, I was armed with a pitiful little Smith and Wesson seven-shooter that shot a ball the size of a homeopathic pill. It took all seven to make a dose for an adult."

 

[Paladin7]

I think you received some sound advice on this thread. I'm not sure why folks feel the 22 mag is so difficult to shoot out of these mini revolvers, as I have no problem with mine.

I would get the 22 mag with the conversion cylinder for 22 lr and not look back. You have the best of all worlds.

I put the hard rubber grips on my 22 mag and they provide a much better gripping surface for better control and faster follow up shots.

Given the operating parameters of this type of weapon, I went with the 22 mag for 2 reasons: 1. the 22 mag with the right ammo will penetrate the human skull without much problem and I feel much better about the 22 mag doing it than the 22 lr. 2. the sheer versatility of the 22 mag, which allows me to shoot any 22 rimfire ammo with the conversion cylinder.

All the best....

 

[BluesBear]

Yes, firing the NAA in .22WMR takes a little bit of practice and getting used to. But it's not particularly difficult. It's not nearly as hard a learing to shoot a S&W 329. And it's much more pleasant than .357mag out of a 342.

There are so many grip options with NAA that you're sure to find a set that works for you.

With the .22WMR/LR convertible model you can start with loght loads and work your way up to the magnums. Thnen you can use the standard cylinder for a lot of cheap practice and then switch back to magnums for refreshing and CCW.

I used to shoot 50 -100 rounds of regular rimfire and then finish up with 20 rounds of magnum ammo every time I went to the range.

You can get to be pretty good with them and I have won several bets regarding their accuracy.

 

[Cortland]

I'd probably get the .22 LR, but remember: the .22 Short was designed as a self-defense cartridge!!

 

[JohnBT]

Folks were smaller back then!!

I can shoot my friend's WMR version fairly accurately if I put my left index finger on top of the barrel to hold it down. Really. Line the gun up on the target and then gently put your finger on the top of the barrel...carefully, of course.

John