My Third Worst Newbie Mistake: Buying a North American Arms Mini-Revolver

This is the third in a series of posts discussing the worst newbie mistakes I've made during my first six months as a gun owner.

The first post focused on my overall worst mistake: buying a Taurus. The second discussed the next worst mistake I made: believing YouTube Ammo reviews. Today, I'm shifting back to discussing hardware. Specifically, I'll be explaining why my purchase of a North American Arms Mini-Revolver was kind of dumb.

But first, I should probably set out a caveat: my North American Arms Mini-Revolver was mechanically sound. It didn't fall apart in my hands, the way my Taurus did. The gun wasn't a low-quality lemon. It did what it was supposed to do. As a result, I don't hold North American Arms in contempt, the way I now loathe Taurus.

No, the problem is a lot more nuanced here. I don't think the North American Arms Mini-Revolver is a good gun for a newbie. (And particularly a middle aged newbie like myself, with arthritis.)

Why do I feel this way?

Well, for starters, the Mini-Revolver is only available in rimfire cartridges. (Mine was chambered in .22LR.) This poses three problems:

1. There are more duds in rimfire rounds than in centerfire rounds. Some of this risk can be mitigated by using high quality ammo like Federal Punch, but the risk cannot be completely eliminated.

2. Rimfire rounds are less powerful than centerfire rounds. Even the best .22LR rounds need to be delivered as head shots to immediately stop the threat.

3. The one saving grace of the .22LR is accuracy. But when you're shooting out of the tiniest of tiny revolvers, that advantage goes away. The Mini-Revolver takes a lot of practice to master, tends to have an extremely limited range, and requires a degree of manual dexterity arthritis sufferers might no longer possess. Also, anytime I choked up on the revolver to get the best grip on it, my hands were coated in gunpowder/lead residue/whatever afterwards. (That stuff cleans off, of course, but it's less than ideal.)

So you end up with this worst of both worlds scenario. Accuracy issues and low power.

Yikes!

Now, that having been said, I have to recognize the Mini-Revolver's one strength. To quote its advertising tagline, it does offer "Ultimate Concealability". That's the one domain in which the gun remains unrivaled.

But do most of us need "Ultimate Concealability"? I have found that an inside-the-waistband holster and a baggy T-shirt offers sufficient concealability for my Shield EZ. And, really, that's all I need.

The .380 cartridge is centerfire, so I avoid the rimfire dud factor. Semiauto pistols can have issues with jams, but I've yet to experience one with a properly loaded magazine. .380 is considered marginal, for self-defense, but it's more powerful than .22LR (and induces less recoil than 9 mm). And the Shield EZ is specifically designed to make shooting easier for arthritis sufferers. What's not to love?

So yeah, it was kind of dumb for me to buy a Mini-Revolver.

But, on the other hand, I shouldn't be too hard on myself. I've decided that the first year of gun ownership is all about making dumb mistakes and learning from them. Besides, in retrospect I can look back and see that I was making the best decision I could at the time. The only handgun I had ever shot was a Ruger Wrangler chambered in .22 LR. So I really only felt comfortable with single action revolvers. After getting the hang of the Wrangler, I felt the need to buy something concealable (but still affordable). The Mini-Revolver seemed reasonable, and no less than Paul Harrell offered his unpaid endorsement of them!

I suppose this goes to show that actual experience is a far better teacher than theory. (In theory, the Mini-Revolver was a good solution to my problem. In my experience, it turned out to be a poor choice.)