[Mags]

You always see people reccomend a revolver for hiking/backpacking and an autoloader for defensive carry (except for the die hard revolver guys) the reason most give is a revolver has less moving parts and is less likely to fail. Why wouldn't you want less moving parts for a defensive gun? Or why not a nice 45 auto for wooded carry for the critters? I have no problem trusting my life to an auto for CCW so why revolvers for the woods?

[tcrocker]

I would think that the power factor would come into play. If you are walking in the wood and a large furry criter with teeth came out a 44 mag would be nice. Now on the other hand you are in the mall and a thug trys to rob you a 44 mag would be way to much gun. You would kill the bad guy but you would also most likly kill some body not involved and that would make you a killer. And the same in reverse mall a 45acp would be great now in the woods an 45 acp vs a large bear not a good ideal. Well thats my thoughts.

[benEzra]

I think the bigger issue is that in the woods, there are some heavily muscled, very powerful critters with lots of fangs and teeth that a 9mm/.40/.45 will not reliably stop. A .357 using heavy-for-caliber solids can stop a lot of animals that a 9mm won't (at the expense of greater recoil and far less capacity), and the large-frame revolvers can serve as defense against small and medium sized bears.

For defense against two-legged predators in the woods, though, I'd personally chose a semiauto because of capacity and ease of reloading. A good semiauto well maintained is as reliable as a revolver, IMO.

[DeepSouth]

Penetration:
You want a lot against "wild game" but you don't want over penetration in a SD situation.

Capacity and speed of reload:
In the woods most animals will run when they hear a shot, or take a hit in SD situations most people want to be prepared for multiple attackers, requiring more shots, faster follow up shots, and fast reloads.

Range:
Most SD situations are pretty close range, many folk carry a side arm in the woods in case the biggest buck ever steeps out, and that might be 50 yards away and most revolver calibers have greater range than most auto calibers.

[Ed Ames]

Yep. Semi-autos tend to fire mild loads compared to revolvers. There are exceptions of course. A 10mm is a little hotter than a .357mag. High power pistols tend to be larger and more expensive for the power...a Magnum Research .44mag will cost you 2+ times as much as a Ruger Redhawk from what I've seen.

Low power rounds are fine for humans but may or may not penetrate the skull of a charging wild pig. Or bear. Or whatever the carrier is afraid of.

[Nicodemus38]

a revolver in a bear safe cartridge will cost as little as 400 out the door of your local ffl who will order what you want them to.

a semi auto that can handle a bear safe 10mm is going to cost a minimum of 1000, semi autos of all types are in high demand and inventory seems to be ultra tactical 9mm or 380.
a wildey magnum, desert eagle, or the 44 automag if you can find one for sale, are going to cost at least 2-3000 depending upon condition and if the seller read the report on how the fed wants to ban import of handguns over 52 ounces.

[danez71]

All of those good reasons.

I'll add that the "woods" tends to be a lot more dirty, worse enviroment, and less resources than "IWB" and "IYH" (in your house) with tools at your disposal. Ultimatley, the revolver is better suited for that.

[Mags]

So 45 acp won't cut it against bears? What about 38 super? (I know also an expensive gun.) But Glock 10mms can be had for 500 or less if you look hard enough or find a used one.

[Ed Ames]

10mm is a reasonable choice, but .44 mag beats it by maybe an 80% margin and you can buy DA .44 mag revolvers for $400 if you shop.

[Avenger29]

I'll add that the "woods" tends to be a lot more dirty, worse enviroment, and less resources than "IWB" and "IYH" (in your house) with tools at your disposal. Ultimatley, the revolver is better suited for that.

I'm going to argue against that by pointing at one gun. Glock.

A revolver is not immune to much and dirt by any means

And if you are hiking and carrying a gun you may depend on against dangerous animals, you'd be foolish not to carry a basic cleaning kit. All firearms are, to some degree, vulnerable to contamination. A simple cleaning kit won't take up much space or weight.

Militaries use semis in dirty and muddy conditions, so that's part of the argument is a wash.

[Eightball]

Power factor's the deal for me. Lots of the rounds out of a good ol' wheelie work better on the 4-legged critters you're likely to encounter better than most of what can fly out of the end of a semi-auto. It's an added bonus that they work on 2-legged critters as well.

However, the 2-legged critters are smaller and more wiley in the non-wooded areas, so a nicely-hidden semi-auto or smaller-caliber revolver are both better choices.

[-eaux-]

the OP's question was answered very well in the first few responses.
"power factor" for lack of a better term is the big one. do i want to stumble upon a hog or bear with twenty-howevermany 9mm's or six hardball .44mag?
easy.
am i going to have time to empty my glock and do a tactical reload while the boar/bear is charging me (now even madder because i've been stinging him with 9mm luger)?
no.
if i dump three or four or five or six rounds of hardball .44mag, .480rug, .454cas into him, do i stand a real good chance?
yes i do.
do i need a .500mag to stop a mugger?
NO.

[cyclopsshooter]

dont tell me or any vet that the 1911 is not reliable in the outdoors :)

[-eaux-]

huge 1911 .45acp fan. trust my life to it every day. do i want to shoot it at a mad bear? no.

[John Wayne]

I disagree with the opinion that revolvers are more durable or reliable in all cases.

The only time a revolver trumps an auto for woods carry is if you need something more powerful than 10mm auto, or need to shoot shotshells in quick succession without having to rack a slide.

[-eaux-]

why would i want to rack a slide?
i may as well be carrying a rifle. (which i should be anyway);)

[Arcticfox]

If you are charged by a bear, you won't have time to mess with a safety, or rack a slide. Pull, fire, pray. Follow up shots are rare, let alone getting off one shot, during a bear attack

[cyclopsshooter]

with nothing but a few black bears around I feel pretty comfy with 7 230 grain Hornyday +Ps :)

[Erik M]

Harder hitting (I carried a .44 when I packed a revolver) than most automatic calibers, an no chance of a jam. Even though I carry a high cap 9mm now so I'm a hypocrite for saying this, I have never needed a high cap weapon in the woods.

[Cosmoline]

I'm going to argue against that by pointing at one gun. Glock.

But the max is a Glock 20 10mm, which is nice but nowhere near as potent as the big revolvers.

[David E]

Everyone seems to have quite a few hostile bears in their neck of the woods ready to immediately pounce on the first human they see .......

One big advantage the revolver has over the semi-auto in a woods scenario is versatility. You can have a shotshell in the first one or two chambers, a light loaded full wadcutter in the next 2-3 chambers and a full load in the last 2-3 chambers. Multiple rounds for multiple uses, all in one cylinder.

Another reason could be that for many, a .22 rimfire revolver would suffice quite nicely in the woods. Shotshell ability is retained, along with rounds capable of bagging a rabbit or squirrel for the camp stew pot.

As for reliability, semi-autos generally withstand abuse better (like being carried afield) while revolvers withstand neglect better.

The choice depends quite a bit on your intended use. Do you plan on using it to harvest small game? Is it only for protection? If the latter, protection from what? Bear? Wild dogs? Two-legged snakes? Define the mission and the choice becomes easier, if not crystal clear.

[sophijo]

You got the cart before the horse here......the truth is that we "gun-wackos" fritter around these forums, hang out at the range, "chew-the-fat" with our buddies until we stumble across a firearm we just gotta have....then you start rationalizing "why"...see, for example this discussion: if you have a 1911 this could be a good reason to pick up a SW 29-2. Or the reverse. Got a wheel-gun? You know you need a 10mm auto! The good news is that you can find "facts" to support your "need" here. Just ask!

[Waywatcher]

When I went on a 4 day hike in Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, I took a Glock.

Revolvers jam, I have personally had a jam with a revolver, and I have seen others jam. A piece of unburnt powder under the star, or a piece of dirt in there will jam a revolver up.

And when they do jam, it is not a quick fix. You need to unload it and clean it out.

A reliable automatic on the other hand, tap-rack-bang.

Any mechanical device can fail, but I put my trust in an automatic for woods and defense.

[danez71]

The only revolver I have is a piece of junk RG .22 that my mom used to have for HD (LOL). I'm not pro-revolver at all.

And I do agree that pistols can be very reliable and servicable in the outdoors.

And yes, glock is a good example of that as well as BHP (I Have), 1911, and some others. They have proven to be a good combat choice over decades.

But, I didnt think we were talking combat or military.

I thought the question was 'why a revolver for a woods gun?'. Not, 'is a revolver better for military'?

In the military/combat.... they arent worried about bears etc.

All I did was ADD that their simplicity is A benefit in those conditions. I DIDNT state that it was the SOLE beneift. NOR did I say autos were not reliable.

The revolver has about 1/2 as many parts that could go wrong than an auto.


Dont read stuff INTO my post; just read the post.

Obviously the revolver guys havent chimed in much.

[batmann]

I believe the reason is both power and ammo choice. I carry a Ruger SRH Alaskan as both my CCW and my 'woods' carry and I can switch ammo depending on the circumstances and know it will go bang everytime. There are no safeties to deal with or do I carry a round in the chamber or not.
With a revolver, especially a .44, I can load the lightest cowboy loads to the heaviest Bear loads with equal reliability.

[Crawford]

Actually, I think the Forest Service recommends Bear Spray (there are several manufacturers) as the best defense against grizzlies. I don't have the reference handy but if I remember correctly they said they had logged less injuries for hikers using the (extra strong) pepper spray that for those that tried to defend themselves with pistols.

I imagine your best defense would be to carry both a can of the Bear Spray for the bears along with your favorite pistol/revolver for defense against the snakes and other smaller critters. Besides, it is very easy for everyone in the hiking party to carry a can of the Bear Spray.... much easier than it is for everyone to be armed.

[David E]

I don't worry nearly as much about bears as I worry about two-legged predators. In the woods, there is no 9-11, no SWAT, no ammo resupply and in my woods, no phone service.

I recently found out that the black bear population is on the rise in the woods I frequent, so I gave the matter some more thought.

For ME, for general woods-walking, (as opposed to specific purpose, like hunting) I wanted high capacity, concealability, durability, reliability yet enough power for black bear. I settled on a Glock 20 backed with two spare mags. If small game is available and I wanted to harvest some, I'd take a .22 handgun as well.

[John Parker]

People are smaller than bears.

[medmo]

Why a revolver in the woods? Because I can carry a 44 mag in a relatively compact package. No semi-auto has that kind of wallop in such a compact package. I do carry other calibers in semi-autos for social situations with confidence. The previous post about revolvers jamming with a speck of powder is kind of funny.....

[Cosmoline]

I don't have the reference handy but if I remember correctly they said they had logged less injuries for hikers using the (extra strong) pepper spray that for those that tried to defend themselves with pistols.

I've seen the source and it's highly questionable. This is what the FS up here says:

Protection

Firearms should never be used as the alternative to common-sense approaches to bear encounters. If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle, they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/safety/bearfacts.htm

[medmo]

6 yards away from an angy bear and I'm betting my life on a spray can of hot peppers? I don't think so.

[Ed Ames]

Besides, it is very easy for everyone in the hiking party to carry a can of the Bear Spray.... much easier than it is for everyone to be armed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

First, bear spray is a weapon... a chemical incapacitant... so if everyone is carrying it, everyone is armed. You are saying everyone being armed is easier than everyone being armed. Second, bear spray is harder to buy, harder to train with, harder to use...harder in general. Maybe you meant "cheaper"?

[MCgunner]

1 POWER- magnum. enough said

2 ACCURACY-Your average auto just can't put 5 rounds into 4 inches at 100 yards.

3 VERSATILITY-In a survival or just a woods hunting scenario, a .357 magnum can go from big game and big critter defense to squirrel gun with a change of ammo and usually a sight elevation change. My favorite two .357s can put 6 rounds into an inch at 25 yards from a good rest. That's good enough for squirrel hunting.

I used to hunt west Texas, would carry my 4" .357 as a side arm loaded with wadcutters for rabbits, but dumped the .38s once when I decided to stalk a Javelina. I stalked within about 40 yards of a nice boar and placed a 165 grain SWC on his head. :D

I coulda shot that Javelina with my rifle, but I just decided I wanted to make it sport. I mean, it ain't like Javelina is great cuisine, ya know. I was actually after whitetail at the time. Javelina are blind as a bat and I had the wind in my face at the time.

[CWL]

the reason most give is a revolver has less moving parts and is less likely to fail.

I would argue that the people who say this don't have a clue about how many parts are in a revolver. Most modern revolvers have at least as many parts as in a steel pistol. Polymer guns have far far fewer parts.

[medmo]

Less moving parts in a polymer pistol than a modern revolver? Really? Are you counting the spring loaded safety thingy assembly that is on the trigger as one or a few parts? Check out some exploded diagrams on a revolver. Not a whole lot there. Pretty basic and straight forward.

[BlayGlock]

Why Not?

I would guess it is because you usually you get more powerful calibers in a fairly portable gun.

And no, revolvers do not have less moving parts.

[millertyme]

When we lived in Alaska 25 years ago or so, my dad used to carry a 10-1/2" SBH in a shoulder holster for bear protection while fly fishing on the rivers near our home. One of his buddies shot and killed a fairly large brown bear/grizzly and upon skinning it found five 44 caliber slugs embedded in the muscle tissue on the bear's chest. As per the forest service memo, a shotgun loaded with rifled slugs is what you should carry in the event you'll meet one of those monsters. For the little black bears we have down here in the lower 48, a .357 Mag or 44 Mag will do just fine, as would a 10mm or 38 super I suppose.

[jmr40]

I prefer a semi to a revolver in the woods for the same reason I prefer them not in the woods. Attacks by 4 legged predators are pretty far down on my list of worries. Even in the woods the 2 legged types are still more dangerous. A quality auto will be at least as durable and reliable in the dirt and mud as a revolver, probably more so.

[Azul]

Why must one carry a revolver or a semi-auto? Why can't one carry both? :)

[Arcticfox]

Attacks by 4 legged predators are pretty far down on my list of worries. Even in the woods the 2 legged types are still more dangerous.

While I can't argue that logic, if one carries a magnum, one is PREPARED for 2, and 4, legged creatures. You know the saying, "better to have it and not need it?" Could we say that goes for a powerful round as well?

[jmr40]

The auto I carry is a Glock 20 in 10mm. Just as good as any 357 mag with 3X the ammo in a lighter package. If I ever get into grizzly country I will re-evaluate my choices.

[Fishman777]

The reason that Bear spray is so effective vs. grizzlies is that their sense of smell is around 2100x more sensitive than ours. Blood hounds have a sense of smell about 300x more than humans, and grizzlies have a sense of smell about 7x that of a blood hound.

The "pepper sprays" really pack a punch on us. Think of how it would effect you if your sense of smell was 2100x better than it is now...

The answer to your question is that a quality revolver will be more reliable and revolvers generally pack more power with the magnum cartridges.

[Country_boy_88]

i always contributed it to seeing the 10 inch barrels and having a pistol i could take a deer with at a reasonable distance.
I still carry my 9mm single stack CCW in the woods with me for finishing off deer as well as any predator i may encounter at close range.

[southpaw.nc]

I doubt I will have to worry about "the woods" anytime soon as my choice of habitat is more of the concrete jungle.

That being said, if I ever did adventure out to places where large bears exist and I was planning what to carry to protect myself, the last thing I would choose is a handgun to stop them. Im thinking 12 gauge shotgun w/ slugs or a mosin nagant carbine (gun is compact, given its caliber)

[Harve Curry]

I use a Colt SAA 44spl with my own handloads. Being a not to heavy medium frame it is handy, almost always with me, and rarely in the way. A bear and lion guide I know sticks to his 1911 45 and sometimes a Delta 10mm. I think a 230gr pill in the nose is just as effective if not more then pepper spray.

[Leanwolf]

MILLERTYME - " One of his buddies shot and killed a fairly large brown bear/grizzly and upon skinning it found five 44 caliber slugs embedded in the muscle tissue on the bear's chest. As per the forest service memo, a shotgun loaded with rifled slugs is what you should carry in the event you'll meet one of those monsters. "


I'd bet a lot of money those five .44 bullets were hollow point bullets. (.44 Mag.? .44 Spec.? .44-40 WCF ?) A good hard cast Keith style SWC or LBT in a .44 Mag. would have penetrated more than just "into chest muscles." Also, kinda makes me wonder about a scenario in which a person could shoot a Grizz in the chest five times... without being eaten or torn all to pieces. (??)

As for carrying a rifle or shotgun, there are many, many eveyday chores, etc., when out in the boonies, camp, etc., where it is very inconvenient to tote around a long rifle or shotgun. A handgun can be kept on one's person without getting in the way of whatever one is trying to do.

Advantages and disadvantages to both.

Just my take on it.

L.W.

[blindhari]

I have a ccw and carry a 9mm auto on my person at all times. When in the woods/offroad I wear a S&W .357 mag and if at all unsure pick up my 20 guage shorty out of the back seat. The S&W and the 20 guage are easier for me to handle and shoot better for me than the auto. The auto just hides better under street clothes.

blindhari

[KBintheSLC]

Nothing wrong with an auto for the woods. However, I doubt that a 45acp would be my first choice for use around here due to a lack of penetration. The 45 is a great man-stopper, but I wouldn't trust it to stop a charging moose with anything short of a head shot. I went with a 10mm Auto with 15+1 capacity as it gets superior penetration for effective body shots.

If I am in grizzly country, I'll take my 12ga.

[ArmedBear]

The 45 is a great man-stopper, but I wouldn't trust it to stop a charging moose with anything short of a head shot.

I wouldn't trust a 10mm to do that with anything short of a head shot, either. Or a .44 Magnum, or a .454 Casull...

Back to the original question: a hunting buddy carries a 10mm. He had to learn to shoot it right, by holding onto it like it was a rogue jackhammer, or it wouldn't feed consistently. I have no such issues with my 629, which shoots much heavier bullets that are superior for penetrating large attacking animals.

My rule for a defensive firearm of whatever sort: I have to be able to shoot it one-handed in a compromised position, or it's not worth squat. Muggers or moose, you won't have the luxury of getting into a Weaver stance before you fire. I don't have an alloy .357 snubbie, either.

I can shoot a .45 auto one-handed just fine without problems. Something hotter, I'd rather have a revolver that works fine in any position, with any grip, one-handed.

[NMGonzo]

I would use hot peppers in a heart beat!

Ceviche

[CWL]

Less moving parts in a polymer pistol than a modern revolver? Really? Are you counting the spring loaded safety thingy assembly that is on the trigger as one or a few parts? Check out some exploded diagrams on a revolver. Not a whole lot there. Pretty basic and straight forward.

You must mean something like this? Yup, real simple and straightforward...

http://www.urban-armory.com/diagrams/sw_19.gif

[ArmedBear]

Half the parts in that picture are for the sights or grips.

That's not my reason for carrying a wheelgun (see above) but nevertheless...

Here's a REAL comparison, of two real fixed-sight carry guns:

http://webpages.charter.net/dlwh/XD-40_Apart_800x600.jpg

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/85/85-12.jpg

[Ed Ames]

How much does a raw parts count really matter?

At some point, a thing works well enough. It may be a PITA to reach that point or it may be easy, but when it does, it'll do. A modern car has more parts than a car from 50 years ago... deconstruct it far enough and it has a LOT more, yet modern cars are a fair amount more reliable than older cars were.

If you are comparing modern weapons, it's far more important to talk capabilities than parts counts. The revolver offers one ser of capabilities... ability to fire a wide range of loads from ratshot to grizzley medicine without ammo-induced reliability issues. A modern pistol offers the ability to load more ammo into the gun for the size/weight. There are other pros and cons but that's the heart of the difference. So pick which matters to you.

[ArmedBear]

A modern pistol offers the ability to load more ammo into the gun for the size/weight.

Up to a point, that's true.

For big rounds, that breaks down. I could carry two 629 Mountain Guns (12 rounds) and they wouldn't weigh more than one loaded Desert Eagle (9 rounds).

I only own one Mountain Gun, but still...:)

[Ed Ames]

Isn't there something about the exception proving the rule? :D

[ArmedBear]

Actually, I think the exception IS the rule.

Revolvers are FAR more popular for Magnum rounds or equivalent, even though semiautos exist. Those are the rounds most often carried in the woods.

Semiautos dominate when one's attacker is likely to shoot back (capacity) but isn't the size of a bear/moose/gorilla/nessie.

The real EXCEPTION would be the ubiquitous light snubbies like J-frames and their Brazilian progeny, and the instantly-popular LCR.:)

[blacksan]

I would have chosen revolver until I had some experience with the GLOCK, G20 in 10MM. With proper/safe hand-loads you basically have a self-loading 41 Mag that is just about impossible to break and goes bang every time with pretty descent accuracy even when it has been dropped off a cliff unlike one of my beloved S&W's. Basically like the AK47 of pistolas that doesn't rust which is even better.......... :D

[Ed Ames]

I don't know about large magnums being the most often carried into the woods. They are arguably the most common for people worried about dangerous animal encounters, sure, but even then I'd bet .357 dominates. I somehow suspect that a .22LR pistol is the gun most often carried into the woods.

The advantage of the revolver is dynamic range... ability to fire anything from very mild, to very wild, rounds that are outside of the design envelope of most semi-auto pistols. Part of that is the mechanism, which doesn't count on the chemical energy of the cartridge to do anything but propel the bullet, and part is that revolvers are more likely to be designed to withstand very high pressures. I have a revolver that is supposedly able to withstand 65KPSI, but it is just as happy in the 10K and under range. Ignoring range toys (AR pistols and the like), no semi-auto I know of is designed for that range.

[blacksan]

Sir Ed,

In the aforementioned 10MM you can load it to replicate the 40 S&W (short-n-weak) or full house 10MM (41 Mag performance) and carry both in separate magazines appropriately marked of course. With that in mind if it isn't a tactical situation and you are not at a distance where POI is a huge consideration a simple mag change pretty much covers the bases. I love my wheel-guns but modern self-loaders can get the job done just as well (IMO) with better ergonomics.

[Ed Ames]

Yeah, you can load from .40S&W to 10MM... but with my revolver I can load from 160gr 1100fps (about .40S&W) up to 300gr 1700fps (about 100gr heavier and 700fps faster than the heaviest 10MM load in my reloading manual) performance with a side of 500fps 250gr that is lower than .40S&W or even shot capsules, have them all in the same cylinder, and if I pull the trigger six times it'll fire six times.

That's what I call dynamic range.

Note... those are the reloading manual speeds... my little snubby probably can't push anything much past 1400FPS in the real world.

[ArmedBear]

A 10mm Glock is easy to limp-wrist.

Again, woods defense is not the range, and I never assume I can use the stance and grip I use for match shooting.

Maybe .22 is common to carry, but I've never seen anyone with a .22 outdoors in Idaho unless they were plinking. I've seen many people carrying .38 and up.

I've never quite figured out what someone would do with a .22 in the woods, other than plink, that would make it worth carrying around. Given that we have moose, badgers, bears, mountain goats (yes, they can kill hikers), elk, rattlesnakes, and BLM-land pot farmers, a .22 is just a toy.

[blacksan]

The reasons I like self-loaders in most calibers are the low bore axis/less muzzle flip and consistent trigger pull as in the GLOCK vs DA/SA in wheel-guns. They both have there place and I wish I could own at least 10 examples of everything made. The GLOCK is an ugly SOB but dam that thing is what I would take into the wilderness if PMS was impossible and my handgun had to work in both the Arctic or the Sahara after being submerged in salty cold water or camel piss saturated sand pit.

PS I am sorta familiar with failure under adverse conditions...... ;)

[MCgunner]

The .22 is my choice for squirrel hunting, but I thought we were talking more about hiking guns here? Most times outdoors I'll be carrying some kind of revolver. But, then, I like revolvers and am not dependent on spray and pray tactics. Aimed shots always work better for me. Capacity is simply not an issue in the woods. Hell, I like to tote a .45 Colt/.410 Contender a lot when I'm bummin' around on my property. I shoot starlings and grackles out of the air, rattlers for dinner, running rabbits if I come across one, and if I hear hogs and have the time, I can pull the choke off and load up with a 300 grain, 1200 fps .45 Colt. It's a fun gun for just bummin' around on a spring day. :D

[MCgunner]

As per the forest service memo, a shotgun loaded with rifled slugs is what you should carry in the event you'll meet one of those monsters.

Hmm, this study seems to think 12 gauge a very poor choice and I agree. The 12 gauge slug has a non-existent SD, especially in foster slugs, but even in Breneke slugs, and slugs tend to be pretty soft. I'd want something with much better penetration, talkin' .338 Win Mag or .375H&H. This study says .458 Win Mag is tops.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=485872

[hillbillydelux]

Well since reading all these posts I have decided its not good to carry Revolvers or Pistols in the woods. Now I have to go buy some hand grenades incase I get attacked by bears. Now Im sure there will be someone on here who can correct me as to the terrible reliability of certain types of hand grenades and there inefectivness on certain rabbid squirrels. :)

[blacksan]

Frag for the most effective splatter and smoke when you want to sneak out of the tree rat AOR. ;)

[MCgunner]

The only way to see Alaska......

http://www.aflinsider.net/images/m1abrams51.jpg

[ArmedBear]

Are tanks heated?

[MCgunner]

It's gotta friggin' jet engine in it. I think we could figure out how to stay warm. :D

[blacksan]

the "Deuce-and-a-Half" was really toasty if you could rub your hands together real fast! :D

[Ben Shepherd]

The 2 biggest reasons hands down:

1. Standard available horsepower levels with a grip sized in such a manner that a normal human can wrap their hand(s) around it.

2. Bullet weight and profile. Big, heavy for caliber, flat-nose bullets are the order of the day here. Most semis don't like anything near a flat-nose profile.

[David E]

I decided to look up "illegal pot growing" in my state and found that there is a problem. I also found that at least one of the operations (20,000 plants) was in the exact area I frequent when I go to the woods. They had guns and ammo, too.

http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10786118

Once again, this puts high capacity in the forefront.

[Ed Ames]

True.

Situational awareness is always key. That includes knowing your threats. Especially when those threats are mutually exclusive. It's a reasonable bet that you aren't going to face both grizzlies and farmers. Maybe there are farmers dumb enough to set up in such an area...but that sort of thing is usually self limiting. Dress for the threats you are most likely to face. Which means read news reports for areas you plan to visit if you can.

OTOH, getting into gunfights with farmers in the woods is high on the list of things to avoid. Unless you have several people and a fair amount of preperation you are going to be out-manned and out-gunned. If you are in an area where they (or black market chemists) are common, keep your eyes open and avoid areas that have obvious signs of human activity.

Doncha love prohibition? :rolleyes:

[axeman_g]

I think the thought "Why Revolvers for woods carry but Autos for defense carry?" is more of conveinence then any actual doctrine. I know people that swear on small revolvers (JFRAMES) for social situations and big hocking autos for woods. I know people that swear on revolvers for their flexibility in the woods as a defensive handgun, as well as a small game or trap running sidearm. It really comes down to your reality. Are bear encounters frequent in your neck of the woods, go high caliber. Are BG encounters frequent in your neck of the woods.... move.

By the way... pepper spray just makes you pre-seasoned to a big bear.

[David E]

getting into gunfights with farmers in the woods is high on the list of things to avoid.

No kidding. It's when you CAN'T avoid them that it becomes a problem.

And whilethere are no grizzlies in my area, the black bear population has reached a point to begin a bear season. So while I highly doubt I'd encounter BOTH on the same outting, it is possible I could encounter one of them. Not knowing which one is what prompted the Glock 20, as it can handle either one.

[Defense Minister]

I used to carry a revlover in the woods, but I don't shoot revolvers well. So, I sold it and bought a Glock 29 10MM. Couldn't be happier.

[oneounceload]

For me, revolvers offer more choice - I can have anything from snakeshot to full bore magnum rounds in one cylinder - can't do that with a semi.

[wheelgunslinger]

Meh. I think it's all basic anthropology.
We choose revolvers because of the social acceptance that pistols are danger and breakage prone, but revolvers are manly and outdoorsy, robust, and fire giant bullets that will actually save us from everything.

As with most everyone in the gun community, the outdoorsy and concealed carry people are no exception to the coolness index when choosing a sidearm.
What's the "right" one that's venue appropriate?
Aside from the fashion conscious, the internet based data munchers distill buying one to data points seeking to isolate any anthropological meaning to their choice and fall into the technogeek category where the social rules dictate that hard data be used for every possible choice.

It boils down to romance and geekdom, generally speaking.

I think hualing a gigantic revolver around for Grizzly is just ridonkulous, fwiw.

[S&Wfan]

You always see people reccomend a revolver for hiking/backpacking and an autoloader for defensive carry (except for the die hard revolver guys) the reason most give is a revolver has less moving parts and is less likely to fail. Why wouldn't you want less moving parts for a defensive gun?

The reason I carry a revolver in the deep woods is generally for hunting. I hunt deer and hog mainly with handguns, and have for years. Nothing hits as hard and as accurately for the buck as a revolver when the calibers get really stout.

As far as worry about parts failure, I've owned so many S&W revolvers. NONE have ever failed in any way, including during about ten years when I shot handgun competitions regularly and shot hundreds of practice rounds at a session.

Or why not a nice 45 auto for wooded carry for the critters? I have no problem trusting my life to an auto for CCW so why revolvers for the woods?

No offense, but you aren't an experienced handgun hunter are you?

Here's my latest 8-point, taken with my tackdriving, hard-hitting S&W Model 29 on Nov. 4th. Caliber is .44 Magnum and it is stoked with hardcast, 300 grain flat-nose hunting bullets. These rounds will take down the toughest wild boar, Elk, etc. . . . and plant a deer with authority. Lots of deer have fallen to this combination through the years.

Below I'll also picture my left-handed holster I carry this handgun in. Super quiet, secure and fast to draw if necessary.

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/363/363373/folders/282194/2432721200911048ptwp.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/363/363373/folders/277718/2221877holstermontage2.jpg

Now scouting in the woods in the off-season? Heck, sometimes it is a .22 pistol, also Holosight-topped in small game season. Hiking in the Appalachians where the biggest threat might be two-legged? It will probably be an aluminum-framed, short barreled Kimber .45ACP, due to the fact that it will keep the weight down.

[axeman_g]

Now that is the way to hunt deer. Do you stalk?

[S&Wfan]

Sometimes! It is so much fun when the wind is right, and you can get REAL close. Back when Georgia had so many "Buck Only" days, I got within 10 yards of a doe passing by . . . and she never knew!

Most times though, I hunt the deep Georgia woods . . . avoiding the food plots that some of our club members stake out hours before sunrise to shoot a doe . . . and place my stands in the trees near the bedding areas, several hundreds of yards away from the food plots . . . and catch 'em on their way in to the bedding areas in the morning. This way . . . I sleep in a little, hunt in areas less pressured . . . and take my shots between 8 and 9 AM generally (though sometimes as late as 10:30.;)

That's how I took a Piebald buck a few years ago, in an area so thick that a rifle is useless. I squeezed a round into the perfect spot in an area not 6" in diameter that was clear, about 35 yards away. Here's the M29 on the Piebald whitetail's hide. What a beautiful deer it was, I wish I'd had it mounted:

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/246/246167/folders/183771/2078646Piebaldand29.b.JPG

There are so many ways to hunt, but I prefer a handgun . . . and I take only the amount of deer each year my family eats. The rest of the time I enjoy watching them and learning more about their movements.

As long as I keep my mouth shut, the deer slayers on the club who shoot the spots off the fawns, and blast the buttons off the stupid 1/2 year old bucks, don't use my stands to add notches to their gun!

T.

BTW, I also generally take a .270 with me, for I will NOT EVER take a shot with the handgun I don't totally believe I can make. As a long-time handgun competitor, I know what I can do . . . and I will NOT wound a deer.

That being said, I once dropped a running doe in a clear-cut, broadside . . . and paced the distance at 60 yards. Then again, it was JUST cut and you could see for 300 yards in all directions. I was in the only tree standing on the clearcut!

She hit the ground instantly and didn't move. She was the second deer I shot in that amazing morning in that clear-cut . . . back to back (she took off when I shot the lead doe)! While reloading the revolver, I looked up and a buck had materialized (must have been bedding in the clear-cut, undetected) and had it's nose smelling the face of the FIRST deer I dropped. He fell nose-to-nose with the first one. He NEEDED to be culled . . . with a ratty, deformed little rack.

Ah the memories with this S&W M29!

[Dihappy]

One of my all time favorite bear attacks/charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

[ClayInTX]

Cosmoline quoted the Alaskan Forest Sevice recommendations about bears:

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle, they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it.

Please note the emphasized words.

[Rexster]

I could carry either weapon type either place around here, and feel fine about it. I started shooting both 1911 autopistols and S&W revolving pistols in 1983, so neither weapon type has more than a few month's seniority with me. Black bears, of the size that live in the South, and cougars, can both be dispatched with the same cartridges used to defend against erect bipedal varmints.

In an area with bigger bears, I would probably elect to carry a large-bore sixgun.

[sheepdog]

...never knew a black bear to attack if you weren't messin' with her cubs...they're a lot smaller than a grizzly and anything .357/.45 or up would do...but I'd hate to go up to grizzly country without anything smaller than a 12 ga w/slugs or a .45/70 or other large rifle...if I could only carry one woods gun, it'd be a .45 for bad guys...with a coupla shotshells in my pocket for a snake...if I was goin' for something besides just hunting, I'd carry a 9-shot .22 LR revolver for snakes and the .45....and if I couldn't carry anything but Bear spray...I'd stay home...

[trickyasafox]

guys its simple- revolvers for woods carry so you DONT LOSE YOUR BRASS.

autos for places where brass recovery is easy. No one likes looking in thick stuff for your empties.

sadly, this was a major in my decision to carry revolvers in the woods. I like to plink and walk at targets of opportunity on some private land- and I just wasn't getting anywhere with the autos. Spent darn near all my time trying to find the brass.

so it was either a 22 auto, or a revolver. I felt like leaving any empty brass is leaving the woods dirtier than I found it, so I use the revolver to ensure I leave as little / no mess behind.

Mind you- I'm in upstate NY. about the rowdiest thing I'll encounter on my walks is a uppity woodchuck. We have coyote, but you gotta look for em. The ones in my area have been hunted hard and are extremely wary of people.

As for tweekers and pot growers- the places I go aren't remote enough for them to move in.

thats probably why I'm so content to have a 4inch 38 or 357 on the hip and a heap of 158gr LSWC 38 specials in my pocket.

[Bluenote]

Oh boy. Lots of good posts in this thread , and a fair bet of misinformation. Note that what I will follow with is based upon *direct* experience.

To those carrying a semi-auto in a woods environment for bear defense , it works out in the lower 48 in areas where you only have smaller black bears , and yes I *do* know , I have shot a number of hogs and 4 black bear over the years with .45 acp just to spite folks who said it was an impossibility , in point of fact it's more efficient for said task than .357 mag , which I've also utilised for the same purpose , again basically to prove it could be done.

Within the context of far northern bears and the same issues all I have to say is that there are much easier ways to commit suicide , NO handgun round is in reality really adequate for a brownie , yes they can be killed with a handgun and sometimes are , and yes I do carry a handgun for the purpose when in Alaska , either one of my Redhawks or a much beloved Blackhawk , all in .44 mag. My typical bear loadings for such use are a 300 grain Hornady XTP stacked over 21 plus grains of ww296 or H110. BUT said handguns are only an adjunct to a long gun , typically a Marlin 95 in .45-70 or a Browning BAR in .338 win mag , both opensighted. If you run into a stress situation with one of these bears a scope is completely USELESS, and a handgun is for when you have to put your long gun down i.e. field dressing an animal , going out to the outhouse at night , feeding the horses or dogs , woodcutting etc.etc.

For those claiming that a revolver *never* jams , they can most certainly jam and when they do it's quite often a more serious proposition than the typical stovepipe etc. in a semi auto , but given proper maintenance a revolver has overall in my personal experience proven to be more reliable and serviceable within the context of a woods environment.

This question really comes down to a horses for courses answer , for anti-personell functions a semi-auto is quite often the best answer for some folks ( though I do like the SP101 , my S&W model 24 3 inch , and the Charter Arms Bulldog Pug for this purpose too) which is why I own several 1911s , for woods work I will continue to most often stick to a revolver in .44 mag , though I do sometimes carry my Kimber (.45 acp) in small bear and hog country.

For those who insist on 9 x 19 ( 9mm parabellum) for bear defense , I hope that you're coolheaded under stres and really , really good with it , we recently had an incident here where a guy decided to start popping off at a bedded down hog with a 9mm , he is as I speak still in the hospital and quite likely may not ever walk normally again.

Horses for courses folks , the proper tool for the given task . You don't turn a nut with a hammer and you don't drive a nail with a box end wrench.



B.

[Guy de Loimbard]

Concealability and what's available to me are my main reasons. Except for the 1911 my autos are small. I do OC from time to time, but the majority of my carry is concealed. The smallest revolver I have is a .357 Security Six - it's almost as big as the 1911, and it's wider. Now that's to say that concealing large guns is impossible, because it isn't. I can conceal a .45 Blackhawk under a jacket. A P64 however is a lot more easier to conceal without looking odd in t-shirt weather.

[Bluenote]

Meh. I think it's all basic anthropology.
We choose revolvers because of the social acceptance that pistols are danger and breakage prone, but revolvers are manly and outdoorsy, robust, and fire giant bullets that will actually save us from everything.

As with most everyone in the gun community, the outdoorsy and concealed carry people are no exception to the coolness index when choosing a sidearm.
What's the "right" one that's venue appropriate?
Aside from the fashion conscious, the internet based data munchers distill buying one to data points seeking to isolate any anthropological meaning to their choice and fall into the technogeek category where the social rules dictate that hard data be used for every possible choice.

It boils down to romance and geekdom, generally speaking.

I think hualing a gigantic revolver around for Grizzly is just ridonkulous, fwiw.
*************


And you live in Tennesee where there are NO Grizzlies and a large black bear is 250 lbs , get back to me when you've lived where there actually ARE grizzlies , much less Brownies and where you've got to at sometime put your long gun down to accomplish your daily chores.

Kind of hard to split stovewood with a long gun in your hand , and you are not stopping a brownie with an autopistol , or ANY small caliber revolver. And don't bother with telling me tales about the natives in the far north and .22s , sure it's been done in the past , but the majority of them are carrying BIG rifles nowadays.

A lot of folks have all sorts of fanciful notions about the big bears , they are nothing to screw around with , the best thing to do is make tracks if at all possible , I've seen 'em hit squarely and fairly multiple times with large hardhitting rifle calibers and keep coming.




B.

[Bluenote]

As far as worry about parts failure, I've owned so many S&W revolvers. NONE have ever failed in any way, including during about ten years when I shot handgun competitions regularly and shot hundreds of practice rounds at a session.

***************


I'm glad you have good luck with Model 29s , I thoroughly and completely detest them , not a single example I have owned has stood up to the same loads that my Redhawks , Blackhawk and Dan Wesson digested with impunity. I do however like the N frame .44 specials ( Model 24).

And yes I've owned quite a variety of model 29s , I kept trying with them for years.They didn't work out for me personally. YMMV.


B.

[Crawford]

The primary push for use of bear spray seems to be driven by the Sierra Club. It wants the Forest Service to require everyone who enters a national forest in grizzly bear country to carry bear spray to “reduce human injuries caused by bears, reduce the number of grizzly bears killed in self defense, and help promote the recovery and survival of the grizzly bear."

There is a good, well balanced article on the net that covers both sides of this argument: Bear Spray Campaign Endangers Hunters, Grizzlies by David Smith at News West dot Net (http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/bear_spray_campaign_endangers_hunters_grizzlies/C41/L41/)

Inform people that research on bear spray use in Alaska by non-hunters shows the spray stopped bears—including grizzlies—over 90% of the time. During close range encounters, people escaped injury 98% of the time.

but also:

Emphasize that bear spray is not an alternative to a firearm when a big game hunter gets charged after startling a nearby grizzly. Biologist Chuck Schwartz with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study team did an informal study on grizzly bear mortality in the Yellowstone region from 1992-2004. Hunters got charged by grizzlies 24 times. Schwartz told the Casper Star-Tribune "Time and again, hunters said it happened so fast that when they shot, the bear fell right at their feet."

As in most things, it all depends on how you do the statistics.

The IGBC should caution people that comparing statistics on the success rate of bear spray to statistics on the success rate for firearms merely proves the adage “statistics are meaningless.” Hikers do well with bear spray, but hikers are not holding a rifle when they startle a nearby grizzly. Bear spray is not an option for hunters carrying a rifle in hand while hunting.
The article sums up by saying: "Carry bear spray and know when to use it." and I will add: "carry a shot gun, rifle, or pistol if you can."

[pyth0n]

For me, I think, I would chose a revolver because of the animal attacks I've heard about, the animal was on the person almost with out warning. With the animal on top of them the revolver muzzle can be put against the animal and fired. I tend to believe that, unless you had an adapter, if you pushed the semi auto against the preditor, the slide would be moved out of battery and won't fire. JM$.02.

[tactikel]

The primary reason that pistols were rarely carried in the woods was that until a few years ago the pistol shot cartridges intended for SD (.380, 9mm, .45 acp., .32 colt). The powerful rounds (.357, .45 colt, and .44 spl/mag) were only in revolvers. The perception was that only revolvers were powerful enough to stop dangerous game. Better quality bullets and more powerful rounds (10mm) have really evened the playing field. In bear country I'd still carry a .44 mag, but for anything else I'd be very comfortable with a 10mm or my .45 acp.

[Legionnaire]

Personally opinion only: I carry a revolver in the woods because I prefer to shoot revolvers. I wouldn't make a strong argument that revolvers are "better" in the woods environment. I just like them better. Conversely, I mostly carry a semi-auto elsewhere because I think it has some advantages for CCW and utility versus two-legged threats (higher capacity, etc.). I still "like" revolvers more, and sometimes CCW an SP101 or a three-inch GP100.

[winchester '97]

Its simple, a revolver tends to be wider at the cylinder and less concealable, and a small .380 or 9mm concealed carry gun is a joke to a bear. And its an excuse to buy one more gun :)