The July '07 issue of Gun Tests includes an article entitled "Pocketable .22 Mags: Three Guns We'd Take a Pass On". My first reaction upon learning that two of the three guns reviewed were manufactured by NAA (the 2" barrel Black Widow and the 4" barrel Mini Master - the third was a 4" barrel Taurus) was enthusiastic - we love "ink". Obviously, however, the title suggested that the review was not likely to be positive, and I was eager to learn the criticisms of the Gun Tests staff.

     After I read it (several times), it seemed clear (to me) that the biggest criticism noted in the article was directed more towards the ammunition rather than the gun, particularly the rounds' effectiveness against "all and sundry predators" that one is likely to encounter (in the wilderness, it is presumed). Regular readers of "Sandy's Soapbox" will have recently seen our position about the lethality/stopping power of the .22 WMR round (May 2007 Soapbox) . We'll readily admit that there are some animal predators out there that require even greater stopping power than a human. Similarly, we'll also stipulate that there are no non-human predators which are likely to be deterred by someone simply brandishing a gun (unlike most human encounters where presentation itself is usually very effective). Notwithstanding, we continue to argue the very simple, intuitive premise that any of our guns is infinitely more effective than no gun and that our guns are so popular because they are so easily/comfortably carried where others may not be so. Bigger guns carrying more bullets with bigger/more powerful ballistics will unarguably be more "effective", but ONLY if they are immediately available to the person - not stored in a safe/display case or left behind in the car/truck. Our customers carry our guns.

     I'm pleased to note that the writers made some very accurate/flattering remarks about our products, using words/phrases such as "the workmanship, finish, and appearance were all excellent", the trigger was "decent", "fine balance", "handy size", "the lockwork felt precise", "more accurate than we thought it would be" (although they didn't care for the balance or size of the MM). I agree with all of the above.

     We continue to attempt to draw people's attention to the intended purpose of our products, which purpose does not depend on either the ballistics nor accuracy one requires for serious hunting or competition. We "major" in concealed carry/personal protection with a "minor" in plinking/recreational shooting; for this curriculum, we have earned an A+.

     Back to fishin' (golf, actually).