[gjm551]

Hello all, I am looking to buy a gun (pistol/or revolver) that can take a beating in harsh climates. I am a hiker and would like to have a weapon that would be able to stand up against the elements (with proper care of course) and be able to protect me from lions, tigers and bears (oh my). What caliber, finish, and specific gun would you recommend?

I am leaning toward the Taurus 444 titanium stainless steel but am open to other choices.

Side note: I don't care if it's "pretty" or not, I would like it to be lightweight (relatively), and reliable.

Thanks in advance.

[kanook]

Welcome to THR

I carry a stainless steel 357mag revolver with a 2 3/4 barrel and 180grain ammo.

I'm very confident with my choice. The lighter the firearm the more felt recoil and may be harder for a follow up shot.

The 44 is a great choice as you can use specials in it as well.

I believe that the ammo should be hardcast as well. The reason is you want to make holes. Sometimes HPs get klogged and fail. So why not start out with a flatpoint to begin with.

You didn't mention on wether yo will be open or concealed carry. That can make a big diff. also

[NMGonzo]

.44 magnum

6 in the chamber and 20 in a pouch.

Never wish for something bigger.

[Vern Humphrey]

Before picking a revolver, decide on what you want to use it for.

Here in Arkansas, hunting is legal along the Buffalo National River trails, so a .22 pistol is a natural -- you can always collect a squirrel or two (and squirrel season in Arkansas runs from early September to the end of February, with spring squirrel season from mid-May to mid-June.)

If you envision a defensive situation, a light .38 Special is ideal -- no one needs to tell an experienced backpacker that every ounce counts.

If you're just wandering through the woods and don't care how much mileage you rack up (or how little) then something a bit heavier might be tolerable.

[belus]

Black bears or grizzlies?

I've heard that in black bear or mountain lion/cougar country a .357mag is the general minimum. 10mm in an auto would be fairly equivalent.

If you're worried about encountering something larger (moose, grizzly) a 44mag or hot 45LC are frequently recommended.

I think you want to look for at least 180grs moving at 1200fps+.

[Bula]

Smith 329pd, lightweight, versatile, can be loaded from mild .44 special to heavy magnum loads (although painfully so). Can be used for small game to deer sized game. 200gr's to 700 fps to 255gr's to 1000 fps ( and above if needed)

[rcmodel]

lions, tigers and bearsLets be realistic and find out what the real dangers are where you live & hike.

If it's the swamps of the gulf coast, or the desert southwest, a light .38 Spc loaded with snake-shot for poisonous snakes would perfectly fit your needs.

Mountainous regions of the eastern U.S. might have coyotes and small black bears.
In that case, a .357 Mag would be a better choice.

Moving on to Alaska, with brown bears, moose, and elk, a .44 Mag would be a better choice.

If you really have to worry about lions & tigers, either the circus is in town, or you hike in Africa & India a lot.

In either case, a 12 ga shotgun loaded with Brenneke slugs would be your best choice.

rc

[Brian Williams]

In Pennsylvania this is what I would carry in the woods.
http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=40708&d=1149250353
The Stainless steel S&W 65 has a pencil barrel from a S&W 64 installed and the S&W 13 is stock.

[22-rimfire]

For me, I would choose one of three guns depending on where I was going that day: 3" Ruger GP100 357 mag, S&W Model 57 Mountain Gun (4") in 41 mag, or a S&W Model 18 (4") 22LR. Stainless gives the gun a bit more protection from rain, but I prefer blued finish and I'd take a oily rag and RemOil in a baggie with me. I used to carry a 4" Colt Diamonback as my 22, but I keep them protected now.

[Vern Humphrey]

I've heard that in black bear or mountain lion/cougar country a .357mag is the general minimum.
There are black bears and cougars in Arkansas -- in fact, I've seen both on my property. And I usually carry a Colt Woodsman in the woods.

[RidgwayCO]

This is what I carry for bumming around the woods, a S&W Model 396 Mountain Lite in .44 Special. It weighs 18 oz empty, has a 3-3/8" barrel, and can shoot lead bullets, jacketed hollow points, or home-made shot shells. It's been discontinued by S&W, but is usually available on either Gunsamerica or Gunbroker. When carrying this thing, I usually forget it's there on my hip. Loaded with five rounds, plus another five in a speedloader in my pocket, and I'm reasonably prepared for just about anything.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/7686/396rightside.jpg

[gjm551]

Thank you for all the replies.

I should have been more specific in my post, I plan to be hiking in the mountains where grizzlies might be found. I'm not looking to go on the offensive, but a last ditch save my butt gun. I would like to keep the gun under wraps when on the trial or in a pouch.

Thanks all

[22-rimfire]

If buying a gun special, look at the air weight 44 mags (or 41 mag) made by Smith. (Always carried and little shot.) Otherwise, the Ruger Alaskan would work. It is probably about the same weight as the centerfires I mentioned.

[BCRider]

If a big animal comes at you on the attack things are going to happen quick. Whatever method you choose you need to be able to access it without having to dig through a pack. Remember that if you need it then the adrenaline will already be flowing HARD and make finer motor skills, like finding a zip dangle and opening it, really hard. Far better you have a proper snap down flap gun holster that you just need to wedge your hand under the flap to snap open. From there you could choose a side or shoulder holster. The shoulder holster would look a trifle less obvioius than one on your hip.

And if grizzlies are a potential risk out your way I think you're going to find that most of the replies will now suggest that .44 Mag is the way to go. Although there may be a few that still suggest .357Mag.

[gjm551]

Thank you all for the great advice.

[22-rimfire]

After you make your decision, you can play around with holster choices. Easiest approach is to attach to your pack and then slip it off out of sight when you are in populated areas.

If they were available, I really like the Ruger Alaskan in 480 Ruger. Big Punch!! Not as fast as the 454 or quite the recoil either. But it is quite stout to shoot even in a large revolver. I doubt you would enjoy shooting it much, but it would be about business and some familiarity is important. The recoil on the airweights is also quite stout. Few enjoy shooting them. The 44 Mag Alaskan would be more versatile overall; just heavier.

[Balrog]

Are you day hiking or doing a multi day trip?

Lots of people here are giving advice without thinking about how much gear you are carrying. How much does your pack weigh?

[roaddog28]

I would say look for a Ruger New model blackhawk in either 357 or 44 magnum with 4 5/8 in barrel. Stainless Steel would make the revolver hold up better in weather. You can't go wrong with a blackhawk. A blackhawk will take any type of ammo you put in it. Its simple and easy to field strip if you need to. They are single action only but out in the woods a experience shooter won't have a problem if the time comes. Second choice would be a Ruger GP100 Stainless Steel in the 4 inch barrel. Only limits on the GP is caliber is a 357 magnum.

Good luck,
roaddog28

[c919]

I"m also in the market for a new woods gun. At this point I've basically decided that the Ruger Redhawk .44 4" is the way to go for me. It's a heavy SOB, but I'd like the assurance of the .44mag. I know I can get a S&W alloy .44, but I'd actually like to do some remotely comfortable practicing.

Most of the trips I do are one or two nighters with my wife, so the extra weight won't be too bad. We usually don't go to any extremes as far as lengthy hikes are concerned.

[gjm551]

I would like to do multiple day hikes, but weight of a "small" .44 sounds like it would be well worth it.

[jmr40]

Stainless Ruger or Smith in 357. In 44 I would say Smith. While the Ruger 44's are great hunting guns they are just a little bigger and heavier than I like for a backpacking gun.

I know you said revolver, but my personal choice is a Glock 20 in 10mm. Lighter and easier to pack and about equal in power to the best 357 loads. I also have 357 and 44 revolvers to choose from, but the more you pack the more you learn that a few ounces here and there add up quickly.

[MCgunner]

I consider a .357 magnum medium frame stainless gun the hiker's perfect companion. light, weather resistant, accurate, powerful, versatile. A Tracker is certainly an option. I'd like a .41 magnum titanium tracker, but they're a mght expensive. I have settled for now on a nickel Taurus M66, most accurate medium frame .357 with both .38 and .357 rounds I've owned. I had a Ruger Security six, a stainless M971 Rossi (really light and pretty accurate), a Smith M19 (blued steel), and the Taurus. I kept the Taurus. A Smith and Wesson M66 (stainless K frame) would be a good choice. I'd shy away from the heavyish L frames and GP100s for back packing. After some miles, you'll know the difference. There's a lot of good used guns out there that would work really well. I gave 200 bucks used for that Taurus and it's a keeper, very accurate, rugged gun and lighter than the L frames and GP100s for hiking.

Those trackers are neat, I just don't do enough hiking anymore to justify one. I kinda think a 24 ounce titanium .41 would also be an awesome IWB carry, though. :D You'd better be used to heavy recoil with heavy loads in such a gun, though. I am, been shooting hand cannons for a while. I'd down load that .41 for carry, carry the hot stuff in bear country. :D

If I thought I needed a .44 like the Mountain Gun, I'd carry my blackhawk in .45 colt with hot 300 grain handloads. It'll do anything the .44 can do and that gun is awesome accurate, too. I love single actions, too, for outdoor work. I have two blackhawks (one in .357) and an Old Army. The Blackhawks are as heavy as a mountain gun, though. The Taurus .357 is noticeably lighter on the hip and ammo packs tighter.

[Oro]

My choice for this is alot like what Mcgunner said - a 2.5" S&W 66 stainless steel. Can handle powerful .357 loads and it won't make your hand go numb after a shot or two. The ss wears well and provides strenght and weight where you need it. Both Double Tap and Buffalo Bore make excellent cartridges for your application. A comparable Ruger would also be a good choice.

I have multiple guns I use in bear country, but this is the "go to" one with the smallest size/weight profile practical for a heavy round.

[22-rimfire]

A short barreled single action like the Ruger Blackhawk is not a bad idea. They are still pretty handy, but you need to remember to thumb the hammer back in a pinch.

[MCgunner]

If Ruger would just offer the 3" SP101 with an adjustable sight, I'd jump all over one. The SP101 is 28 ounces, strong as an L frame Smith, and accurate. I had a 2" version for a while. I'd want the 3" for woods carry, better sight radius, though I could put 5 rounds into 2" off the bench with that snubby at 25 yards. The 3" would also give the round a little more zip. A field gun, one that might shoot small game one day and do defense duty or even deer hunting the next, needs an adjustable sight IMHO. I will NOT own a fixed sight .357 for field use.

Which brings to mind the 5" Smith and Wesson M60 Stainless .357 magnum which looks ideal, too, if a bit pricey for my meager budget. The J frame doesn't do much for me for strength of design in a magnum caliber, though, to be frank. The SP101 is twice the gun for strength and not much, if any, bigger. If those 5" 60s weren't so pricey and didn't have a lock (I hate that lock) I'd probably consider one, though. It's a great size for a back packer's friend. I'd limit the hot rounds I fired in it, though. Hell, I fired full on 180 fire breathers in that SP101 and they didn't seem to faze that little thing. It fired 'em at 662 ft lbs from a 2" barrel. A 3" would be icing on the cake. :D But, it needs an adjustable sight, I mean really......

[MCgunner]

A short barreled single action like the Ruger Blackhawk is not a bad idea. They are still pretty handy, but you need to remember to thumb the hammer back in a pinch.

Me, my first handgun was a single action .22. I have to force myself not to thumb cock my double actions, LOL!

[amd6547]

I have backpacked with many different handguns...basically, everything from a 22mag minirevolver to a six inch 44mag.
One that got carried alot was a charter arms 38 snub. Got it cheap, found it to be accurate and reliable, and good enough for my main concern...humans.
Another favorite is the tokarev pistol. Compact, tough, reliable, and can reach out to 100yds. Great penetration.
I recently picked up a Ruger SP101 3" barrel 357mag...it is just begging for a walk in the woods.
Mainly, I have always preferred good, used handguns that I can buy cheap, and not worry about the abuse of the trail environment.

[Zundfolge]

If you're worried about lower 48 grizzlies, a S&W 329 would be ideal (light and easy to carry, brutal to shoot).
http://www.gunshopfinder.com/smithandwesson/model329PD.jpg

So the Taurus 444 UltraLite would be an economical alternative.

I have an older Model 29 that's the same size as the 329 (but weighs twice as much) but I don't pack it even in the back woods. I carry the same Steyr S40 (.40 semi auto) I pack in town.

If you're going to be in Alaska in Kodiak country then a 4" .500S&W or .460S&W ... or better yet a lever gun in .45-70 ... and 3 friends with .45-70s


Get a Maxpedition pack and you have the option of a built in holster that will protect your piece very well.

[gjm551]

Zundfolge, Is that S&W 329 blued or stainless steel?

[Lawnman380]

S&W Model 65 3inch bbl

[Tamlin]

I once wanted the S&W Mountain Gun in 44 mag with a 4" bbl - but I was fortunate to find a gun shop that not only had that gun, but a S&W 629 (44 mag) in 4'' bbl, too. After holding both, I opted for the heavier 629. I carry it on my hip hiking, sometimes in a holster, sometimes in a belt pouch to conceal it (depending on who I'm with and where I'm hiking). Yeah, after a full day, it gets a little heavy, but I don't care. A nice thick, stiff belt helps. I want to enjoy practicing with the gun; shooting 44 mag out of an airweight is NOT fun. A 3" bbl would conceal better, but I really like the balance of the 4".

[The_Shootist]

Maybe a Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag? Compact (although not light - about the same weight as my 686+ in 4" bbl) but gives you the option of .44 spl/.44 mag.

[MillCreek]

In the Pacific NW, I rely on my trusty SP-101. Stainless to resist corrosion, the versatility of .357 and the weight and form factor is not too bad.

[WYO]

I have the proverbial 44 in the safe. It is just a pain to carry. I would rather sling a light rifle. I’m carrying a 3 inch .357 SP101 now. It is a great balance of weight, power, concealability and shootability. In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t hang out where the grizzly roam.

[Stainz]

Most woods varmints that might harm me here in the southeast are thin-skinned - and many are two-legged. I would think either my 642 5-shot +P .38 S&W Special would suffice, but my similar - but larger - 296 5-shot .44 S&W Special will go as I move more northward toward The Smokies. They weigh 15 & 18.7 oz and have enclosed hammers, for no hang up quick removal from a pocket. They ride in my front pocket for fast retrieval from the Mika's pocket holster.

I did consider my 625MG in .45 Colt as an ideal 'woods bumming' gun, but reality is harsh. It requires a belt mounted holster, adding inconvenience and visual impact to it's additional two pounds or so. The usual 'people protectors' should suffice for everything but brown bear and moose, the latter accounting for many more injuries and deaths every year than all bear attacks combined. As you generally have to pay admission to see brown bears and moose within 500 miles from here, I don't 'pack' for them. Of course, the greatest protection is a properly functioning cerebral filter. Oddly, I camped/hiked for years with a SAK and sometimes a larger folder or fb - and cameras filled my 'pack'. No way today - I won't mow the lawn these days without 'something' loud in my pants pocket!

Stainz

PS Your protection needn't be a great plinker, either... it must function under duress.

[frankiestoys]

Another vote for the ruger sp 101 with 357's, powerful ,not heavy, stainless, and as accurate as you need for the woods.

[Zundfolge]

Zundfolge, Is that S&W 329 blued or stainless steel?
Neither, its Scandium (actually S&W's scandium/aluminum alloy). Kinda like Titanium. Very light and strong, but pricey. The cylinder is Titanium.

Only weighs 26 oz when the steel version of the same pistol is 41.5 oz.

[Naphtali]

Assuming this is a lifetime purchase, that you are serious about portability, durability, and multiple use, AND assuming initial price is irrelevant with a lifetime purchase - Whew! That's a lot of assuming - your selection will be among the following Freedom Arms M97 revolvers.

1. 45 Colt, adjustable sights, 4-1/4 or 5-1/2 inch barrel;

2. 44 Special, adjustable sights, 4-1/4 or 5-1/2 inch barrel.
***
Integral with any packing pistol is a wide belt, holster, and cartridge carrier. Note I identify cartridge carrier rather than holster belt with cartridge loops. Exposed loops do several things, none of which is beneficial. Cartridges are exposed to the elements - impact injury, dirt, moisture. Loops severely interfere with backpacks/rucksacks/daypacks/etc. And packs interfere with removing cartridges from the belt's cartridge loops.

I own both barrel length M97s. Either can be worn with (15-degree cant for either) strong side holster or cross-draw, cylinder being located at belt level.

My belt of choice is a Hume B106 (I like the look of "Border Patrol" style) because it is in production, good quality, and modestly priced. There are several other manufacturers of 2-1/4 inch wide lined holster belts, including different configurations, such as Garrison or Sam Browne style.

My holsters and cartridge carriers have been built to order for me by Wes Daems (7X Leather) in Ennis, Montana. Quality is superior. Wes' prices and delivery schedule are excellent. And he will build to order reasonably - if you're like me and particular about what you want and how you want it. His regular production is even more reasonably priced. Were you interested in a less expensive cartridge carrier, I recommend a reproduction McKeever Cartridge Box. I have several, including some still in their original packaging. Were you interested, PM or E-mail me about acquiring one.
***
An additional part of your solution is acquiring a package or two of CCI's shotshells for the revolver. When I'm woods wandering, I always have the first chamber loaded with a 45 Colt shotshell. And my carrier will have two more - that is two complete cylinder refills for the revolver.
***
Backpacking is not entering a war zone. It is not something surreptitious where a concealed handgun is needed or wanted. Within broad limits there is no need for a fast draw. There is no need for "double tapping" or other combat shooting quirks.

The M97s I identify, including their carrying-using packages, are comfortable to carry, convenient to carry and use (I am 68 inches and 140 pounds), quiet to use, and secure. Because M97s have identical power potential as do Ruger Blackhawks, sufficient power-safety can be available for deliberate hunting as well as for nearly all emergencies. (Note: I live in western Montana about five minutes from Lolo National Forest. Since I have had one grizzly, one mountain lion, tracks of black bears, and bazillions of vermin whitetails in my yard, I doubt you will experience an "animal emergency" where one of the M97s will not be satisfactory. Of course, 480 Ruger SRHs and Freedom M83 475s will be more reassuring; they're also significantly more cumbersome to wear.)

Hope this helps.

[wgp]

I have hiked with 9mm, .357, .41 mag and I'm not sure what else. Present favorite is the S&W 329PD Scandium already mentioned in this post. It is a bit painful to shoot, but it is so light you don't mind carrying it and if you're defending your life I doubt you'll notice the recoil too much. With hot .44 Specials it's much more pleasant to shoot. The big sights are easy to pick up and again, this is a pistol you will actually have with you rather than leaving it at home because it's too heavy (like my steel Model 29). I have a Galco holster made for this gun that can be worn on the hip or cross-draw, works very well.

[dvnv]

If I am in grizzly country my minimum caliber starts with a 4. I know there is a very experienced bear guy who advocates the 357, but that isn't enough to placate my fears.

Harsh weather and trails call for stainless steel. Subtle carry and back packing, to me, says shoulder holster. When back packing I use a shoulder holster, built for a 6.5" barrel with a plug in it to fit shorter barrels. I can rest the tip of the holster on the pack belt to relieve the pressure on my shoulder. It isn't perfect, specially near the end of the day, but it has worked for me. Keeps the gun out of the weather too. A belt holster attached to the pack would be faster to get into action, but it would be exposed to weather and obvious to others.

If you are into handguns, reload, etc...your practical options are more varied. I'd choose a 5 shot 475 built on a ruger single action, barrel length any where from 4-6".

If not a hangunner by hobby, I'd stick with a 44 mag, S&W 629 or mountain gun, Ruger Alaskan (I'm thinking they are a little heavier, I'd probably get a 480 if going the Alaskan route). Stay away from hollow points, get 270-310 gr flat points for the .44. If a single action is a choice, I'd get a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt...a step above the 44 for grizzley bear defense, IMO, if used with ruger only loads and 300-325 gr bullets.

I'd stick with rubber grips of some kind for that use.

Whatever you pick, spend some time getting proficient with it. If you do have a g. bear hanging around, any handgun will feel puny...thinking you can put the bullet where it needs to go will be of some comfort. My .02, dvnv

[Brazos]

Since you are doing multiday hikes I would skip every suggestion above and get a S&W 360PD (357 mag). It is about as light as you can get in a gun that has some power. I carry this during archery elk hunting. When hiking thru the mountains with a pack on your back you don't need all the extra weight for something you will most likely never use.

[Balrog]

Yeah, after a full day, it gets a little heavy, but I don't care

A full day?

How is it after the 4th day at 10,000 feet, with 30 pounds on your back???

Day hiking and backpacking are two very different things.

[Balrog]

Yeah, after a full day, it gets a little heavy, but I don't care

A full day?

How is it after the 4th day at 10,000 feet, with 30 pounds on your back??? Actually, after the 4th day your pack only weighs about 20 pounds, because you threw away about 10 pounds of crap you brought that you decided you didnt need.

Day hiking and backpacking are two very different things.

[ECVMatt]

gjm551,

How much experience do you have with handguns? Those light .44 are going to have a fearsome kick which might turn you off of shooting them. You will need to practice some to be safe. I shoot a lot and really don't like those scandium guns. They are just not fun. I have a 4" Ruger Redhawk and my buddy has a 4" S&W 29. They are similar guns and both work great. They are fun to shoot .44 special ammo in for practice. Then you can step up to the .44 mag ammo for the real stuff. The Ruger is the stronger of the two guns; The Smith has a smoother action. They are both equal in terms of accuracy.

I just received an email about a gentleman who had to kill a grizzly bear in AK with a Ruger Alaskan .454. I was astounded by the size of the bear and would not want to tackle that with anything less than a .44. In fact I would not want to mess with that bear at all. Neither did he. I came from behind with no warning and he just lucked out.

I would suggest getting a regular weight .44 and carrying it in a chest rig or something similar.

I would look at something like this:
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/redhawk/images/5026.jpg

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/redhawk/models.html

Good Luck, practice and have fun!

Matt

[Guillermo]

As any gun is a comprimise this is a best guess situation.

As to caliber
If your main thought is bears I would consider a 44magnum (45 long colt if you reload)
If your main concern is the North American Primate (and they CAN be nasty) a 357 is all you need.

As to barrel length
If you are in more open territory, longer is better as a threat can be perceived and engaged from a greater distance.

As to finish
Stainless is better the longer your hike is as the chances of getting wet are greater that during a day hike.

BTW, as my daughter and I love to explore the small canyons in the Texas Hill Country I usually carry my wife's stainless 2.5 inch 7 shot Smith .357. If my daughter carries it is usually her blue 4 inch Smith 19 .357 unless plinking is a possibility. She then carries a Browning Buckmark 4 inch Camper.

[ArmedBear]

Ruger's .44s are too heavy to carry. Even the snubbies -- all that weight, and lousy ballistics for what they are.

Smith's Scandium .44s are too light to shoot. Practicing with a 329 and the loads you'd really shoot? Yeah...

Smith's 629 Mountain Gun, at just under 40 oz., is a great compromise, IMO. 4" barrel, heavy enough to actually shoot, but light enough to carry (a bit lighter than a 4" 686). The downsides are that they don't always make them, though Cabela's might have some of the most recent run, and the price, which has risen a fair amount just in the past year.

I wouldn't fool with .45LC for this practical application. It has its adherents, but S&W's .45s are not built for Magnum-level loads, and Ruger's .45s are heavy SOBs just like their .44s.

[ECVMatt]

Here's a fella who did not think his Ruger was too heavy or the ballistics sucked...

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n431/ECVMatt/ATT00041.jpg

Here are his words..

"I heard a twig snap, and looked back...full on charge - a huge brownie, ears back, head low and motorin' full speed! Came with zero warning; no Woof, no popping of the teeth, no standing up, nothing like what you think or see on TV! It charged from less than 20 yards and was on me in About one-second! Totally surreal - I just started shooting in the general direction, and praise God that my second shot (or was it my third?) rolled him at 5 feet and he skidded to a stop 10 feet BEYOND where I was shooting from. I actually sidestepped him and fell over backwards on the last shot, and his momentum carried him to a stop past where I fired my first shot!

It was a prehistoric old boar - no teeth, no fat-weighed between 900-1000 lbs and took five men to DRAG it onto a tilt-bed trailer! Big bear - its paw measured out at about a 9 1/2 footer!

Never-ever-thought "it" would happen to me! It's always some other smuck, right? Well, no bull- I am still high on adrenaline, with my gut in a Knot. Feels like I did 10000 crunches without stopping! Almost puked for an hour after, had the burps and couldn't even stand up as the troopers conducted their investigation! Totally wiped me out - can't even put that feeling into words, by far the most emotion I have ever felt at once!

No doubt that God was with me, as I brought my Ruger .454 Casull (and some "hot" 350 grain solids) just for the heck of it, and managed to Draw and snap shoot (pointed, never even aimed!) from the hip! Total luck shot!"

Just an example of how quickly things can go from better to bad to worse.
I think you need as much gun as you can handle and be able to shoot it quickly.

[Elm Creek Smith]

I'd pick this, (http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=227&category=Revolver&toggle=tr&breadcrumbseries=TS2) but I like Taurus revolvers.
http://www.taurususa.com/images/imagesMain/44Tracker4SS.jpg
I'd load it with .44 Specials for woods work or self defense (including cougars) and load .44 Magnums in bear country for Close Encounters of the Ursine Kind.

Without buying anything new, I'd carry my 4 5/8 inch Ruger Bisley Vaquero in .45 Colt with "B'ar Loads," 325 grain hard-cast WFN bullets at 1300 fps. (No, I won't share my load information.) Of course, I'd carry one of my regular primary carry guns (.38+P/.357 Mag), too.

ECS

[indiandave]

If your talking an 8 day 120 mi. trip. I would carry my 642. For a day hike where weight doesn't matter as much I'd carry whats ever in my holster before I go.

[batmann]

Here's another vote for the Ruger Alaskan in .44M. I carry one and with a Simply Rugged rig, carries well. I have both a S&W 'Mountain Gun' and an Alaskan and I pick the Ruger every time.

[Balrog]

Here's a fella who did not think his Ruger was too heavy or the ballistics sucked...

Was he carrying a 30 pound backpack?

The problem with threads like these is that when people ask about "backpacking" guns they get a lot of answers that apply more to day hiking than multi-day backpacking trips.

The Ruger is a great choice for day hiking, but the weight becomes a problem on multi day backpacking trips. I know guys who cut off the handles of their toothbrushes to save weight... it becomes that important.

[BCRider]

Ideally anyone that wants a gun for protection while hiking would have a few choices in the gun safe and be able to select the one that will fit the expected problems in the area while not weighing down the shooter to excess. Ideally it'll be unwanted baggage 99.9999% of the time. But when it's needed I seriously doubt the user will regret those extra ounces.

At least you folks get to have a handgun as an option. Up this way it's pretty near impossible to get a woods carry permit so it comes down to things like guide guns or short shotguns with slugs for bear or cougar protection. And those are all a lot heavier than even the worst revolver discussed here.

[Vern Humphrey]

Was he carrying a 30 pound backpack?

The problem with threads like these is that when people ask about "backpacking" guns they get a lot of answers that apply more to day hiking than multi-day backpacking trips.
That reminds me of something Colin Fletcher (The Compleat Walker, The Man Who Walked Through Time) said he overheard: "Yeah, he's a real backpacker. He's even got a filed-down toothbrush."

A real backpacker -- a man who's done twenty miles or so a day, day after day -- will understand that. Every ounce counts. A beginner starts by gathering all the stuff he needs for a backpacking trip. An experienced backpacker starts by getting rid of everything he doesn't need.

[roaddog28]

gjm551,

How much experience do you have with handguns? Those light .44 are going to have a fearsome kick which might turn you off of shooting them. You will need to practice some to be safe. I shoot a lot and really don't like those scandium guns. They are just not fun. I have a 4" Ruger Redhawk and my buddy has a 4" S&W 29. They are similar guns and both work great. They are fun to shoot .44 special ammo in for practice. Then you can step up to the .44 mag ammo for the real stuff. The Ruger is the stronger of the two guns; The Smith has a smoother action. They are both equal in terms of accuracy.

I just received an email about a gentleman who had to kill a grizzly bear in AK with a Ruger Alaskan .454. I was astounded by the size of the bear and would not want to tackle that with anything less than a .44. In fact I would not want to mess with that bear at all. Neither did he. I came from behind with no warning and he just lucked out.

I would suggest getting a regular weight .44 and carrying it in a chest rig or something similar.

I would look at something like this:
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/redhawk/images/5026.jpg

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/redhawk/models.html

Good Luck, practice and have fun!

Matt
I agree that you need the extra weight if you are going to be accurate with a 44 magnum. The Ruger Alaskan or the New Model Blackhawk 44 mag 4 5/8 barrel. Either one is a good choice. You can get any number of holster rigs that hold either one of these find revolvers all day.

[ECVMatt]

I guess weight is subjective too. 30 lbs. is a light load to me. I understand the minimalist prospective and think that is very cool, but I am not into that. Heck I have even carried a six pack or two on occasion. Adding another couple pounds to my load is no big deal. On my last multi-day trip over the Sierras, I all my gear plus and six pack and my Marlin 1894 and 50 rounds of ammo. I did not notice much of a difference.

If weight is a big consideration, then a Glock 20 is a good choice for light weight, decent power, and packabiltiy.

I guess these threads are kind of best used by the OP if lots of folks put out what works best for them and then the OP puts all that together and figures out what works best for them.

[Balrog]

I would suggest getting a regular weight .44 and carrying it in a chest rig or something similar.

This is good advice if you are walking around in the woods. It is not so good if you have a backpack on. It is uncomfortable to have on both a shoulder or chest holster and a 30 pound pack. It is also very awkward to get to a gun in a shoulder holster under a back pack.

Again, I surely say to you, decide if you are day hiking or backpacking. Your gun options are entirely different.

I guess these threads are kind a best used by the OP is lots of folks put out what works best for them and then the OP puts all that together and figures out what works best for them.

Yes, I agree. But let me also say, you are a better man than I if you are able to tote a 30 pound pack on a multi day trip over high mountains! Even 20 years ago, I would not have wanted to do that.

[blaisenguns]

I do not have alot of backpacking experience, but purhaps a Taurus Judge would be a good option? .45LC, or .410 shotshell, makes for alot of versitility. Also make sure you are ALLOWED to have a firearm where you are hiking. I know some preserves, and protected areas do not allow guns.

[c919]

purhaps a Taurus Judge would be a good option? .45LC, or .410 shotshell, makes for alot of versitility.

I'd probably rather punch a bear in the mouth than try and shoot on with a .410

[blaisenguns]

I'd probably rather punch a bear in the mouth than try and shoot on with a .410

What about a .45 Long Colt? The .410 is more for snakes.

[Gato Montés]

As an alternative, what about carrying one of those bear mace cans instead? I don't know the weight, or the effectiveness, but if it's light enough you could also carry a light snuby or something in conjunction with it.

[ECVMatt]

Balrog

I am probably not stronger, just dumber. While most of my friends are taking things out of there packs, I am shoving in another cliff bar.

I also am a rambler, not a long distance hiker. I like to walk about 10 to 12 miles a day, looking at animals, fishing, and just having fun.

I agree that a chesty would not work with most decent packs. I guess I would be looking at a way to put a holster on the padded waist belt.

[ArmedBear]

It's true: if you're an ultralight backpacker type, the gun does weigh a lot.

You could get a backpack that's designed for carrying guns, instead of one from the anti-gunners at REI. They have a carrier attachment for a large handgun, among other things. Of course, with a Kifaru hunting pack, you could just carry a Guide Gun and to hell with it.

Here's a place to look: http://www.kifaru.net/ https://www.kifaru.net/images/gb1web.jpg

All told, I guess it comes down to whether you consider the gun to be an essential piece of equipment. There's probably no room for non-essentials.

WRT picking the heavier .44 Alaskan snubbie over the lighter 4" Mountain Gun, I'd say that whoever does that must not handload.

350 grains of .454 is a different story, though I don't know that I'd want to deal with practicing with it unless I actually was in Alaska.:)

[Gato Montés]

^^^
Never heard of the company before, but that gun bearing system looks pretty sweet!

[Balrog]

The problem of gun selection when backpacking is confounded in particular by one (and only one) creature in the lower 48, and that is the brown bear. If you are not in an area with brown bears, then I would carry a 357 magnum with a 3 inch barrel, either a S&W model 60, or a Ruger SP101. These guns are both much easier to carry in conjuction with a pack than the larger guns.

When you throw brown bears into the mix, the decision becomes more complicated. You have to walk a line between protection and weight.

The number of bear attacks is very low, but it is possible.

I would still generally carry a small 357, mainly because I can't figure out a good way to carry a larger gun in an accessible location that allows me to quickly access it yet remain concealed.

[Diggers]

HI gjm551,

It sounds like you hike in areas where you may run across a bear thus the .44cal. is a better choice then the .357.

You said you are leaning toward a Taurus 444. That gun is about 28 oz.

S&W has a light .44 mag also around the same weight, and as many here have said these guns are brutal to shoot with the type of ammo you would want to have for bear.

Its not a gun that you would enjoy practicing with at all.

And of course practice is important so you can hit what you need to hit. (I know, blaa blaa blaa, you heard it a million times :banghead:)

SO because you are looking at the Taurus 444 and thus ok with 28 oz, for about another pound (+ or -) of weight you could carry a MUCH MUCH more shootable .44 mag.

Here are the most popular options out there.

S&W 629 4 inch = 41.5 oz (I have this gun and like it very much)
S&W Mt gun in .44 mag 4 inch = 38 oz
Ruger Redhawk 4.2 inch = 47 oz
Rugar Alaskan 2.5 inch = 41 oz


I'm sure there are all sorts of inventive holsters for backpacking on the market also. You will just have to look around.

[Diggers]

x2 post

[ShooterMcGavin]

The problem of gun selection when backpacking is confounded in particular by one (and only one) creature in the lower 48, and that is the brown bear....
HUH?!?!?! The grizzly is NOT the number one factor, in your opinion??????

I have not shot any bears, so you can call me inexperienced. What I have read tells me that the grizzly is the main animal that MOST requires stepping up from the .357. Although they are few, there are grizzlies in WA state.

[Nematocyst]

Effectively, grizzly = brown bear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Bear).

Grizz is a "subspecies" of brown.

Yeah, I'm one of those ultralight packers.
Ounce count when going up miles of switchbacks.
I find that the older I get, the more they count.

Unless you live in Alaska or country adjacent to Canada in the west,
I'd go with .357 mag in a 3" barrel. In most of the lower 48,
I'm more concerned about 2-legged predators than 4.

Over on the west side of the Cascades,
this far south, I carry an airweight in .38 spl.
No self-respecting bears here going to bother me.

[dmazur]

I'm sure there are all sorts of inventive holsters for backpacking on the market also. You will just have to look around.

Here's one -

El Paso Saddlery Tanker Holster (http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-154-25-1942-tanker-holster-3-to-5-barrels.aspx)

There's also this one from Simply Rugged Holsters -

Chesty Puller (http://www.simplyrugged.com/store/chesty_puller.html)

I have the Tanker for both a 1911 and a SBH .44Mag and it works fine with a backpack. The holster is kind of more on the chest than under the arm, so it doesn't interfere with the pack straps. It looks like the Chesty Puller design would be similar in this regard.

[NWCP]

A S&W .41Mag 657-4 Mountain Gun would be a good trail companion if you are worried about dangerous animals either 4 legged, or 2 legged in the woods.

[Diggers]

Oh...
All those above mentioned guns come in stainless, so weather isn’t a problem.

[Balrog]

HUH?!?!?! The grizzly is NOT the number one factor, in your opinion??????


The grizzly is a brown bear.

SO because you are looking at the Taurus 444 and thus ok with 28 oz, for about another pound (+ or -) of weight you could carry a MUCH MUCH more shootable .44 mag.

A pound is a huge amount of weight for a multi day backpacker, especially for an item you are not likely to use. Even if you need it, you will only shoot it once or twice before either you or the bear are dead. Recoil will not be much of a concern when the bear is chewing off your face. When I feel I must carry a 44 mag instead of a 357, I usually carry the S&W mountain gun.

[Stainz]

I think this stat is still good - more folks succumb annually to moose attacks than all bear attacks combined. Anyone else hear that? Territorial worries in other areas include large felines, feral hogs, and feral dogs. The hogs can be difficult as they are thick-skinned. Still, for me and my hikes - and if I backpack ever again - my 296 will do - with the first two as 240gr LSWC (795 fps) followed by it's normal urban jungle 200 gr Gold Dots (805 fps), as shown below:

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0596.jpg

I like the R. Mika pocket holster - and, after 1k+ of the same Speer #4429 200 gr GDJHP as the Speer/CCI Blazers, but loaded in Starline brass from GA Arms. I had an Al cased Blazer .44 Special split it's case in my 696, so I switched to GA Arms and gained brass to reload. The 296 in the Mika holster fits 2/3 of my britches front pockets - very sheeple-friendly and much faster to present than a pack-carried revolver. The little boot helps with the concealment, at a significant cost in shooting comfort. Loaded, it weighs in at ~22 oz.

The 296 is hard to find, as it was canned 7+ yr ago. The regular hammer 396NG is heavier at ~28.5 oz and harder to hide with it's backstrap enclosing grips, but would be definitely more comfortable to shoot. Sadly, it's MSRP is over a kilobuck.

Stainz

[Naphtali]

Perhaps we are losing perspective on the original query. The gentleman does not mention multiday backpacking, or huge capacity packs. He does mention "hiking." Very few hikers hike for more than two or three days. Most of these max out at a weekend. To backpack for a week requires commitment and skill most of us don't have. How many of you carry backpacks with capacities greater than 4000 cubic inches? Mine is about 2500. Among my frame pack's key features are: external shapeable frame; pack width [shaped to] less than my thorax/hips as clothed; and overall height that limits below the nape of my neck.

The most fun a hiker/backpacker can have in Lolo National Forest where I wander and hunt is to bend his head to avoid an obstacle, and have his super-capacity backpack clip it. As he staggers (and usually takes a header) this is as much fun as a person can have standing up. Assuming no injury other than to pride, the forest is treated to vocabulary building for several minutes.
***
Packing pistols for a hiker - at least the hiker I describe previous - is not as constrained by weight of package (handgun, holster, et al.) as he is by comfort, convenience, security, and suitability-of-purpose of that package.
***
In terms of risk from non-rabid animals, domestic dogs are almost certainly at the top, followed (where I am) by mountain lions.

In terms of pot hunting on the trail, I live where ground squirrels and rabbits are year around targets.

I pack a large bore revolver of modest weight (37 ounces unloaded; package weight unknown) because: I can; I enjoy a little fantasy having the boomer on my hip; 45 Colt shotshells are better than marginal ammunition for year around targets; and - God forbid - if I meet an animal I really wish I hadn't, I have a reasonable likelihood of walking away.

Regarding package weight that is efficiently distributed on your body, that remains tightly controlled during whatever movement you want to do - trot, run, sit, recline, other - a hiker, as I identified previous, will not notice an extra pound. What he will notice are packages that: are uncomfortable; are clumsy; get in the way of activity; bounce and flap; don't do the jobs he wants done.

[Balrog]

The title of this thread is "ideal backpacking revolver", so my comments are in reference to backpacking.

[Nematocyst]

Perhaps we are losing perspective on the original query.
The gentleman does not mention multiday backpacking,
or huge capacity packs. He does mention "hiking." But like Balrog says, "backpacking" is in the thread title, not "hiking".
There is an acknowledged distinction for most people.

Perhaps we should ask the OP - gjm551 - to clarify: day hiking or multi-day backpacking?

[sonier]

ruger Stainless steel, single action 357 mag, i you can a dan wesson 357 maximum would suit you better for bigger game. i haul a 1851 navy .44 BP single action, weighs a good bit. maybe cause im young and i work on a farm and a lot of stuff that i dont mind hauling this every minute im out my door. too many people are complaining about weight. point is are you gimpy and need a lighter gun or can you handle the extra weight and grab a dan wesson 357 max.

i carry the BP with this loading
shot 1-.44 round ball
shot 2-.44 round ball
shot 3-.44 round ball
shot 4- birdshot with wadding to hold, aka my snake charmer load
shot 5 - Blackpowder blank, lot of times i dont want to spit led out in the air, i just want too scare the animal away with noise
shot 6 empty hammer rest on this cylinder

if i am wrried about cougars etc out here in colorado, those nights i pack a colt python

[Vern Humphrey]

Effectively, grizzly = brown bear.

Grizz is a "subspecies" of brown.
The difference between a grizzly and a brown bear is gepographic. Literally. If the animal is on one side of an arbitrary line, he's a grizzly. If he steps across the line, he officially becomes a brown bear.

[sonier]

454 casull would be my choice, or a 357 maximum. grizzlies are tough. its not worth it too try to shave a few ounces of weight off the revolver, and go with a small caliber. remember IF YOU NEED TO USE THIS then your life is depending on it. so id rather pack a extra pound than risk my life further.
snub nose revolvers scare me, there velocity is so low most of time it makes me nervous.
pack over 4inch barrel in heavy caliber, dont cut any corners, your life may depend on this tool.

[Diggers]

Lets refresh the collective memory of what the OP asked.

Hello all, I am looking to buy a gun (pistol/or revolver) that can take a beating in harsh climates. I am a hiker and would like to have a weapon that would be able to stand up against the elements (with proper care of course) and be able to protect me from lions, tigers and bears (oh my). What caliber, finish, and specific gun would you recommend?

I know every thing is taken to the most extreem in these forums, i.e. "cutting off tooth brush handles to save weight" :rolleyes: The OP never said anything about extreem multiday backpacking or anything about counting every oz. His question seems to be more about caliber and what gun will hold up to weather well.

I have backpacked on a number of 5 to 7 day trips, and did not feel the need to cut the handle off my toothbrush at all. ;) I even brought 2 flyrods and reels with me. :what: And my 629 4 inch!!:what::what::what:
Multiday backpacking can be approached in different ways, usually every pound is not counted.

[Balrog]

Multiday backpacking can be approached in different ways, usually every pound is not counted.

It depends. If you were taking fishing rods, I suspect you were not hiking continuously, but taking breaks and diddling around fishing as you travelled.

For the long trip backpackers I know, they absolutely obsess about weight.

[mfcmb]

Whatever gun you choose, you might consider the Safepacker from Wilderness Tactical for your holster.

[Vern Humphrey]

For the long trip backpackers I know, they absolutely obsess about weight.
Show me a man who does 20 miles a day, uphill and downhill, for a week or more, carrying all his food, shelter, and other needs on his back, and I will show you a man who is obsessive about weight.

[amd6547]

I have backpacked on multi-day trips over rough terrain for years. My usual routine is to pack my backpack at home. Then I heft it onto my back. Then, I take it off and decide what can be left behind.
Some things can't. Food. Tent. Sleeping bag. Water purifier. Stove, fuel. Clothing.
My firearm is primarily for protection agains humans. I have never had to use it, but I have had three incidents where I encountered individuals that made me glad I was armed. I carry the minimum amount of ammo for the mission...I am not going plinking. Enough ammo for one full weapon load, and two reloads.
While I have carried many different handguns on my trips, my preferred weapon is my Tokarev pistol. I may start carrying my recently aquired Ruger SP101 3" 357mag.

[SharpsDressedMan]

The S&W Model 500ES, 2 3/4" barreled .500 is 7 ounces heavier than the old 6.5" Model 29 of Dirty Harry fame. I have hefted the 83/8" and 4" 500 models, and the shorty barreled gun gets my nod for a potent, portable gun for serious bear defense. Nothing is foolproof with bears, and rifles and shotguns are out of the question as defensive arms for the hiker or backpacker. There are smaller guns, but nothing as small & powerful. I handload, and have compromised with a load I can handle from this gun. Even reduced, the load I use is better than any and all other standard calibers except the .460, which I would download for the same reasons, and the .500 cuts a bigger wound, given equal energy to the .460. The extra ounces are necessary to keep the gun manageable, and offer the peak of handgun power. Also, pretty impressive "one shot stops" on human adversaries might be highly probable with this gun and load. http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05495.jpg

[blaisenguns]

Nice sidearm, sharp dressed man. That is a realy nice knife, what make is it?

[Naphtali]

Have fun, guys.

[Elmer]

Funny enough, but a friend was hiking in the SoCal mountains over the weekend with his 2 little ones, and they got within 20 feet of a large mountain lion. He looked at them for a moment, then scurried off. Unfortunately here, he doesn't have the option of legal carry, so the only thing he had was a walking stick. Scared the poop out of him.

I think a lightweight .38 or .357 would work fine where big bears aren't an issue.

[Elmer]

Show me a man who does 20 miles a day, uphill and downhill, for a week or more, carrying all his food, shelter, and other needs on his back, and I will show you a man who is obsessive about weight.
That's for sure..... it's been more than 30 years for me, but I sure remember how heavy a loaded ruck gets after that first 4 or 5 hours......

[SharpsDressedMan]

For those that don't believe there are serious threats out there in natureland, while hunting in NW Colorado, I encountered a surprise. I was walking through some scrub oak and junipers, and I heard a "thump" behind me. I quickly turned, to see the butt end of a mountain lion taking off in the opposite direction. I determined that I had just walked under the tree that the lion was in. Had the cat been a little braver, I might have had a problem with a big cat on the back of my neck. After that, I take the presence of critters that can do ME harm very seriously. I know how fast, and how much, a bear can tear you up, so any defense is better than none. Laugh if you want. I won't.

[gjm551]

I would like to do trips between 4-7 days, not marathon distances every day but mid ranges of 10-15 miles per day.

[22-rimfire]

You know, 98% of the time, a 22 revolver or a walking stick is plenty of protection. That other 2% is the killer.... For day hikes, I don't worry about weight much and the big Model 57 Smith Mountain Gun (41 mag) gets my nod or a 3" GP100 (357 mag). I like those two revolvers. But for longer distances, as much as I would love a big 44, I'd probably tote my Smith 442 (38spl+P's) and go with the odds that I would need protection against human aggressors more than wild animal aggressors.

[Nematocyst]

I would like to do trips between 4-7 days, not marathon distances every day but mid ranges of 10-15 miles per day. So, to all you neigh-sayers who said the OP is not interested in multi-day backpacking, I say ... :neener:

Thanks, gjm. That will help the advice become more relevant to you.

[20nickels]

S&W 386. A fistfull of power, lightweight and accurate as you are.

[ECVMatt]

OK, since this seems to be an on-going affair, here are my backpacking guns:

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n431/ECVMatt/BPackGuns.jpg

First is a Ruger SP101 that has been worked over by Hamilton Bowen. I so love this gun that it goes most places with me in the woods. It is all I need for CA mountains where catamounts, canines, and criminals are the usual concerns.

Next up is the Ruger Redhawk 4". The first handgun I bought was a 7.5 Redhawk. I bought while in High School some 15 or so years ago. I still have that one and admit a Ruger bias. This is a good gun that has crossed the Red River from TX to OK and never failed me. It is going to Bowen for a slick up very soon.

Next is my Glock 20. I love this one too. I usually take it when I am car camping with the family and am near other folks. It has also crossed the Red and one time, on a malcontent mule, went swimming in it. It never skipped a beat even after getting some of that nice Red River clay in it. I have taken quite a few pigs with this gun and I took it to AK as well.

I think the OP should go to a range where you can rent the different models of guns mentioned here throughout this thread. Figure out which one works best for you and buy it.

+1 for the Wilderness SafePacker. I can't believe I forgot to mention that. I started using one last summer and it is great. Very easy to carry, can be adapted to many different modes of carry and very fast to draw. It is also very low key.

http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51

Good Luck,

Matt

[Guy de Loimbard]

I carry a Ruger Blackhawk, .45 Colt caliber when out and about in the woods. With a good holster and belt its weight has not been a problem, even when wearing it all day for several days.

[Balrog]

With a good holster and belt its weight has not been a problem, even when wearing it all day for several days.

You carry it in a belt holster?

Does your pack have a hip belt?

If it does, then how do you get to the gun if you need it?

[Guy de Loimbard]

Does your pack have a hip belt?

It used to, I was not a real big fan of it however.

[Nematocyst]

You carry it in a belt holster?

Does your pack have a hip belt?

If it does, then how do you get to the gun if you need it? Those are very relevant questions for backpackers. OWB - or for that matter, IWB - just doesn't work with backpacks having waist belts.

Chest holsters can work, though I haven't tried one, and have heard rumors that there's even problems with them with some backpacks. I suspect it may relate more to the shoulder straps in that case.

I've wanted to find a drop holster made for revolvers that could thread onto a gun belt on the trousers, but hang below the waist belt of the pack at about hand level. (Talk about quick draw on the trail).

There's a bunch of generic drop holsters out there, but most for semi-autos, not revolvers, though I think Bianchi makes a nylon one for revolvers in a tactical style. But it's generic revolver; not a good fit like a leather.

So, I've been on the prowl for a leather drop holster that could be used with a .357 mag revolver with a 3" barrel. Right now, my woods carry (when not backpacking) is a 65. Eventually, I'll likely replace it with a 686.

If anyone knows of such a drop holster for a 65 or 868, please post info here or pm.

I may ultimately have to commission a custom one.

[ECVMatt]

Just read that you don't like the UM84. They do fit quite nice, you might look into the.

If not call El Paso Saddlery. I bet they can make what you need.

Matt

[Nick5182]

For backpacking, personally, I'd go with a smith and wesson 625 Mountain Gun. Stainless steel with a 4 inch barrel and 6 rounds of .45 colt. Not the most powerful round, but will knock down damn near anything you need it to in the U.S.

[Nematocyst]

Nick, could you or others offer a sense of the recoil differences between
that .45 Colt in the 625 v .44 mag and .44 spl in, say, a 629 (same barrel length)?

And, anybody know the weight on that 625?
SW's page about it (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=85953&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=) doesn't specify the weight, oddly.

[Balrog]

The 625 Mountain Gun in 45 Colt and the 629 Mountain Gun in 44 mag will have a negligible weight difference, but the 45 Colt round is going to be much weaker and not as versatile.

Before 45 Colt fans get bent out of shape by the "much weaker" statement, let me say that is with respect to factory ammo that would be suitable for use in the Mountain Gun.

[Balrog]

It used to, I was not a real big fan of it however.

So you are backpacking without a hip belt on your pack? How much does your pack typically weigh? That must kill ya by the end of the 20th mile in a day. If you are strong enough to carry 30 pounds on your back with out a hip belt, then I guess you probably can carry whatever gun you want!

[Proff]

This is what I carry for bumming around the woods, a S&W Model 396 Mountain Lite in .44 Special. It weighs 18 oz empty, has a 3-3/8" barrel, and can shoot lead bullets, jacketed hollow points, or home-made shot shells. It's been discontinued by S&W, but is usually available on either Gunsamerica or Gunbroker. When carrying this thing, I usually forget it's there on my hip. Loaded with five rounds, plus another five in a speedloader in my pocket, and I'm reasonably prepared for just about anything.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/7686/396rightside.jpg
How is the recoil on your .44sp Mountain Gun?

[wheelgunslinger]

So you are backpacking without a hip belt on your pack? How much does your pack typically weigh? That must kill ya by the end of the 20th mile in a day. If you are strong enough to carry 30 pounds on your back with out a hip belt, then I guess you probably can carry whatever gun you want!

:) Funny.


Ideal backcountry revolver has the muzzle energy of a 458 winmag, the weight of a seecamp, the recoil of a daisy bb rifle, and fits in a chest pocket.

[RidgwayCO]

Proff, the M396 Mountain Lite's recoil is definitely there (at 18oz how could it not?), but it doesn't feel as bad to me as a .357 Magnum out of a snubby. The finger-groove Goodyears fit my hand well, and the gun's grip distributes the impact over a fairly large area. For range work I normally shoot 200gr LRNFP handloads at about 850 fps (302 ft-lbs). It's accurate and fun... a "shoot-all-day-in-comfort" type of load. However, I've no problem loading the same bullet up to 950 fps (401 ft-lbs) for social work. Yes it's not as comfortable as the range load, but it doesn't preclude quick double-action followup shots either.

As an aside, last week I finally shot my friend's M329 with .44 Magnum ammo. I'll admit I was apprehensive after all the horror stories I'd read on the internet. But I took a firm grip, squeezed the trigger, and let my arm climb with the gun in recoil. My buddy ribbed me some about letting the gun climb, but I found it effective in maintaining control and getting back on target relatively quickly. Boy, those 240gr JHPs sure do knock down the metal plates with "authority" at 25yds when fired from a full-power .44 Magnum...

[The Bushmaster]

I've been carrying a S&W M-19 with 2 1/2" barrel on my hip as a backup when hunting for as long as I can remember. It would also seem that it would be an excellent backpackers carry, too...

[Leanwolf]

This Ruger Security Six .357 Mag. has been worn by me -- and now my wife -- on many a rugged mile in the boonies, mountains, etc. I used to backpack with it but as we now only do "day hikes," it is still quite packable and sufficient in the back country. (It's a "pre-warning," BTW.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Leanwolf/RugerSSix.jpg

Works for us.

L.W.

[victory model]

Alaskan.