NAA Guardian vs. Seecamp, in .32 ACP

[Neptune Cat]

Does anyone here have an opinion (silly question, I know) pertaining to these two manufacutures. I am thinking of getting a pocket gun in .32 ACP and am considering one of these two guns.

If this discussion has already taken place and someone can find it, please just point me in the right direction.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Jay G]

Does anyone here have an opinion (silly question, I know) pertaining to these two manufacutures. I am thinking of getting a pocket gun in .32 ACP and am considering one of these two guns.

If this discussion has already taken place and someone can find it, please just point me in the right direction.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'm assuming you're in NH, because the NAA Guardian is not, to my knowledge, a MA-approved gun.

If you are beyond the reach of the MA AG, first off congrats. Secondly, have you considered the Kel-Tec .32 ACP or .380? Much less expensive.

As far as NAA vs. Seecamp, IIRC they're similarly priced and similar quality. Don't think you can go wrong with either.

 

[Cross-X]

I'd recommend consideration of the Beretta Tomcat. A better, more reliable gun than either the NAA or Seecamp, I do believe.

Darius

 

[Neptune Cat]

I do live in MA. I saw a Guardian for sale on GunsAmerica in MA. That would be a legal purchase if it is already here, wouldn't it?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I do live in MA. I saw a Guardian for sale on GunsAmerica in MA. That would be a legal purchase if it is already here, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would be a legal purchase privately.

 

[patio]

I have a Seecamp .32. It is a pretty nice little gun, I haven't had any issues with it yet. I usually feed WWB through it at the range and only feed it Speer Gold Dots when carrying. The Seecamp is very ammo picky, by the manufacturers own recommendation (WWB is not a recommended carry ammo). If you aren't already aware is has no sights, which is why I try to shoot it everytime I hit the range. No real complaints about it, but I really am not WOWed by it either. Still for those times when a pocket gun is the best you can do I would rather have it than not.

Also, in talking to Carl at FS about 2 weeks ago he mentioned that Seecamp had every intention of getting a MA Approved .380 to market in the near future. Not sure if that means it has been submitted already or not.

 

[Jay G]

I have a Seecamp .32. It is a pretty nice little gun, I haven't had any issues with it yet. I usually feed WWB through it at the range and only feed it Speer Gold Dots when carrying. The Seecamp is very ammo picky, by the manufacturers own recommendation (WWB is not a recommended carry ammo). If you aren't already aware is has no sights, which is why I try to shoot it everytime I hit the range. No real complaints about it, but I really am not WOWed by it either. Still for those times when a pocket gun is the best you can do I would rather have it than not.

Also, in talking to Carl at FS about 2 weeks ago he mentioned that Seecamp had every intention of getting a MA Approved .380 to market in the near future. Not sure if that means it has been submitted already or not.

I was not aware that the Seecamp has NO sights. Interesting.

Thanks for the heads' up on the .380. I've been thinking about picking up one of their .32s for pocket carry. If the .380, which has the same dimensions as the .32 if I'm not mistaken, has even a prayer of becoming MA legal I'll wait - I'd feel MUCH more comfortable staking my life on a .380 than a .32...

 

[firtree]

With regards to the lack of sights, it's really not a big deal.
I have a Seecamp .32 and my take is:

1) It's a .32 last ditch gun (as all should be). Shoot close and often.

2) Sights snag. These pistols slide smoothly out of your pocket.

3) I can keep a full clip in a 10" circle at 10 yds firing rapidly, with no
sights. Plenty for its intended purpose, in my opinion.


F