# Exhibit 99.4

Grant Thornton LLP
500 US Bank Plaza North
200 South 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1459

April 26, 2006

Attn: Joshua Bushard

Gentlemen:

This letter is in response to your 10A report dated April 25, 2006. The
Company would have appreciated if the notice had been sent during business hours. Its offices close at 4:30 p.m. each day. The 10A
report was sent via email after business hours. As such, the Company deems it to have arrived on April 26, 2006, rather than, as
indicated in the report, on April 25.

The Company understands that a 10A report is a document that pertains to the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. It does note in passing, that to the extent the 1934 Act applies, the alleged illegal act
(failure to file 40 Act financial statements on a timely basis) is inapplicable, as the appropriate statements under the 34 Act
are operating company statements like those found in the Form 10-K financials filed on March 16, 2006.

The Companys Board of Directors also would have appreciated if Grant
Thornton as a matter of information and courtesy had notified the Company that it was contemplating the issuance of a 10A report
and had discussed the proposed findings prior to issuing the report. The Company was aware of Grant Thorntons plan to resign
based on a phone call made late last week to the Companys Audit Committee Chairman. Grant Thorntons Messrs. Santay and
Bushard received separate phone calls and emails from the Companys Audit Committee Chairman, Joe Stienessen, its President
and CEO, Maryjo Cohen and its CFO, Randy Lieble, requesting a meeting concerning the proposed resignation. Grant Thornton
declined, stating that there was nothing to discuss. Given the excellent, long term relationship between the Company and Grant
Thornton that spans almost twenty years, this response was both disappointing and discourteous. It did not conform with the
professionalism that has been the hallmark of that relationship.

Actually, there is more than professionalism and courtesy involved. Section
10A does require Grant Thornton to follow certain procedures which were disregarded. Those procedures are outlined in Sections
10A(b)(1) and 10A(b)(2), and require the auditor to determine the effect an alleged illegal act has on financial statements and to
report an alleged illegal act to management and the board. A report is in order only if an alleged illegal act has a
material effect on the financial statements and management and the board have not taken remedial actions. By failing to follow any
of these procedures, Grant Thornton has provided a defective report and there is no basis for its resignation.

The Section 10A report provided omits a great deal of critical information as
outlined as follows:

1)    Grant Thornton is aware that the
Company is taking appropriate steps to secure the pro forma footnote that the SEC is requiring. The press release filed on April
19, 2006, as part of the Form 8-K to which Grant Thornton alluded did indicate that was the case. The Company is

---

2

puzzled as to why the statements in the release were ignored in Grant
Thorntons development of its report.

| | In light of the SEC staffs recent clarification, the Company
is expediting its continuing efforts to obtain investment company financials for inclusion in a footnote in its financial
statements. Because the investment company accounting rules are not applicable to an operating company like Presto, preparing
financial statements under those accounting rules necessarily involves many difficult judgment calls, and the Company has been
advised that no reputable audit firm will enter such an engagement without financials prepared by an accountant with the requisite
background in investment company accounting. Doubt has likewise been cast that even with such financials, the Company will be able
to find an audit firm that will accept such an audit engagement, much less provide an unqualified opinion on the footnoted
statements. Moreover, given the SEC Staffs statement to Grant Thornton that the operating company audit should be done based
on Investment Company accounting principles, there is further doubt that even with such a footnote, that an unqualified opinion
can be rendered on the entire report. Nevertheless, the Company is seeking to comply with the staffs request.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, Grant Thornton participated in a Company Board Meeting on April
17, 2006, during which it agreed to provide criteria it would use to determine whether it would accept an audit engagement in
terms of the requisite credentials of the accountants preparing the financials as well as the form of the financials. As the
Company stressed that time was of the essence as it was in the process of interviewing possible candidates for preparation of
statements, Grant Thornton promised to provide that information no later than early the following week. Rather than providing the
promised criteria, it sent the 10A report instead.

2)    Grant Thornton has acknowledged the inherent
difficulties a company like National Presto faces in securing an unqualified audit opinion on financials prepared in accordance
with investment company GAAP. Those difficulties stem from the fact that its operating assets when valued at fair rather than book
value, constitute the majority of its total assets. Likewise, the majority of its earnings are from operating sources rather than
from interest earnings. In fact, Grant Thornton was instrumental in assisting the Company in developing information which was
discussed with the SECs staff as to why the pro forma footnote the staff had requested could not be provided in a timely
fashion. It also provided information for the Companys counsels discussion with the staff on the need to secure the
services of an accountant familiar with investment company GAAP to prepare the financials and the challenge of finding an audit
firm which would accept an audit engagement, as well as provide an unqualified opinion on such a footnote. Grant Thorntons
allegation in its report that the Company is not taking timely and appropriate actions in light of its knowledge
of the issues is unsupportable.

3)    Grant Thorntons contention that certain
information had not previously been provided to us and representations that had been made to us were not accurate misstates
the situation. The information in question was the SECs position on the form of the audited statements and the need for an
audited pro forma investment company financial footnote. As of the time that Grant Thornton issued its opinion, discussions were
ongoing with the SEC staff. As noted above, given its involvement in outlining potential 40 Act cost and time issues for the
Company, it had first hand knowledge that those discussions with the SEC staff were still being conducted at the time that its
opinion was provided. The first notice that the discussions had ended was the staffs letter of March 28, 2006. It was only
after receipt of the April 14, 2006 letter, that the SEC staffs actual current position has become clear.

---

3

4)    Grant Thornton is aware that the Companys
shareholders have historically received quarterly information on the Companys operations. Withholding that information while
the matter is in litigation and during the period that the Company is trying to secure the audited footnote, would be a grave
disservice to the shareholders and investing public. Grant Thornton is likewise aware that there is nothing illegal about
providing financial information to shareholders. Disclosure is in fact encouraged, not discouraged, by the securities laws. The
Company does intend to provide that information via a Form 8-K filing and will, of course, indicate that the data has not been
subjected to the quarterly review historically conducted by its auditors. The possibility of a quarterly financial review was
likewise discussed with Grant Thornton at the April 17th meeting. Although it was explained that a review could not be
conducted, Grant Thornton was well aware that the Company planned to continue to provide the data to shareholders and did not
question that plan.

In short, a 10A report has been filed that does not meet the procedures
dictated by Section 10A. Moreover, there is no illegal act here. Representations to Grant Thornton have been based on known facts
through out. The Company does not claim to be omniscient and was not aware that the SEC staff would subsequently take the
positions that it did. Full disclosure has likewise been provided to the public. At this point in time, all actual correspondence
pertaining to the filing issue has been made public through a Form 8-K filed on April 25. The Company is trying to meet the SEC
staffs filing requirements, however, as acknowledged by Grant Thornton, due to the complexities inherent in an operating
company filing 1940 Act statements, those requirements cannot be met instantly. Moreover, until April 14, 2006, there was
considerable uncertainty as to just what those requirements were.

Sincerely,
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Maryjo Cohen
President and Chief Executive Operating Officer

|Cc: | Joe Stienessen
Randy Lieble
James Bartl
Richard Cardozo
Patrick Quinn
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

---