.45 1911 vs .44 Redhawk as Wilderness Gun

[Floppy_D]

I feel like a silly goose with an autoloader in the woods. In all honesty, they'll both do the trick... what are you better with? Got the Redhawk? Take the Redhawk. Like the 1911 more? Take it, but remember that you'd be a lot cooler if you brought the Redhawk.

 

[trickyasafox]

you don't have to chase lost brass in the woods with the revolver. . . . just saying

 

[Murdock]

O jeepers not again!

One thing that I did not see mentioned here is the reliability factor in a revolver. They handle dirt, mud, rain and whatever else the wilderness may throw at you better than a semi-auto, and with less maintenance

That people continue to accept this old saw as fact stuns me.

I enjoy and collect S&W revolvers in several calibers. But...

Revolvers skip. They can't handle mud, dirt or sand. They go out of time. They develop end shake. Ejector rods unscrew and prevent cylinders from turning or opening. Spent brass gets caught under the extractor star and ties up the gun. Tools are usually required to work on them when they fail.

Revolvers have at least as many problems as semi-autos, and are usually more difficult to make right when they misbehave (Time and $).

If bears are not a concern, carry the 1911 in the back country. The only really dangerous critters out there are the rare, cowardly puma, wild dogs, wild people and the occasional rabid fox, coon or skunk. All perfect targets for the .45ACP, which is lighter and handier than the .44 Magnum.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Murdock:
That people continue to accept this old saw as fact stuns me.

I enjoy and collect S&W revolvers in several calibers. But...

Revolvers skip. They can't handle mud, dirt or sand. They go out of time. They develop end shake. Ejector rods unscrew and prevent cylinders from turning or opening. Spent brass gets caught under the extractor star and ties up the gun. Tools are usually required to work on them when they fail.

Revolvers have at least as many problems as semi-autos, and are usually more difficult to make right when they misbehave (Time and $).

If bears are not a concern, carry the 1911 in the back country. The only really dangerous critters out there are the rare, cowardly puma, wild dogs, wild people and the occasional rabid fox, coon or skunk. All perfect targets for the .45ACP, which is lighter and handier than the .44 Magnum.

+1

Amen! I agree with you completely.

The semi-auto is used almost exclusively by every significant military organization on the planet.

The revolver is virtually extinct in all the military and police organizations of every single European country.

In the U.S., thousands of police departments in all 50 states have switched to semi-autos over the last few decades. The state police of all 50 U.S. states now issue semi-autos as their primary duty weapons.

Semi-autos will undoubtedly withstand greater abuse and more adverse conditions than revolvers.

 

[easyg]

First of all, you have to ask yourself this "When in the wilderness, what circumstances would require that you need a firearm"?

Answer:
Hunting and self defense.

And if you're not going to be using your handgun for hunting, then the purpose is really narrowed down to self-defense only.
Now, what would you normally carry for self-defense when not in the wilderness?

 

[dubious]

First of all, you have to ask yourself this "When in the wilderness, what circumstances would require that you need a firearm"?

Answer:
Hunting and self defense.

And if you're not going to be using your handgun for hunting, then the purpose is really narrowed down to self-defense only.
Now, what would you normally carry for self-defense when not in the wilderness?

Very nice answer.. really boils it down.

 

[koja48]

I always carry a 1911 (city wilderness, mountain wilderness), but if I felt I needed something more, I'd add my Model 57 in a cross-draw rig & a .45/70 lever carbine on my shoulder.

 

[JShirley]

Hunting: use enough gun. .44 wins.

Self-defense: ammo capability/ease of carry/reduced follow-up shot time: 1911 wins.

I'd carry the 1911 myself. I've humped many a mile, and those extra ounces add up. Also, the part about which firearm is stronger is fairly laughable. Able to fire larger calibers- well, that part is obvious, but slam either one sideways against a wall. The 1911 should only suffer cosmetic damage, whereas the wheelgun won't be safe to fire. The other stuff about mud, etc, is also true.

Don't get me wrong- I love a good revolver, and like them much better now than when I was younger, but ultimately, a good autoloader's a hard-use tool.

John

 

[Dilbert]

Look at a 10mm 1911. With full power loads you are up there in magnum power land.

 

[Supertac45]

If your 1911 isn't C&L, it's a club.

 

[easyg]

If your 1911 isn't C&L, it's a club.

This is total nonsense.

Can a club be quickly converted in to a bullet launcher in less than 1 second?

If your opponent has a 1911 that is not cocked and locked, would you say "don't worry men, all he has is a club"?

A agree that condition 1 is the best way to carry a 1911....but only a fool would dismiss a person with a 1911, that is'nt cocked&locked, as only having a "club".

 

[koja48]

not cocked and locked

Nope, but mine would be in action "less than 1 second" quicker . . . time matters, but to each his/her own.

 

[Zach S]

I'd prefer to carry a 1911, however I think I'd look into a 10mm instead. But I wouldnt have a problem carrying a .45 as a wilderness gun untill I got a 10mm. You could get a glock 20, cheaper than a 10mm 1911 and its already ugly as sin, so you dont have to worry about it getting beat up in the woods.

I'd stay away from .45 super unless you handload. Ammo isnt exactly readily available, then you have to worry about making sure you have the right recoil spring if for whatever load you're using, maybe a POI shift.

Having the right spring isnt really a big deal, but I worry about stuff like that since I left the house with a 5" Kimber and two officer's model magazines. The way my luck runs I'd load up with .45ACP and still have the .45 super spring in the gun.

 

[DFW1911]

You have two great firearms to choose from. I'd heed the advice of the others regarding weight: the ounces add up.

I've actually gone with one of the S&W scandium, etc, models in .44 when I'm out in the wilds. Depending on where I am I have the option of .44 Special or Magnum (the magnum recoil is pretty brutal, though).

Try each of them out and make your decision based on your experience - that's what I did.

Take care,
DFW1911

 

[Fishman777]

Use the Redhawk...

With the Ruger triple locking cylinder, your Redhawk will probably never go out of time and Ruger ejector rods don't unscrew. I've never heard of a Ruger DA revolver with a triple locking cylinder going out of time. And believe me, I've tried to find reference to timing issues with Rugers DA revolvers before I started buying them. That being said, no gun is 100% reliable, but a good Ruger double action revolver will be extremely reliable. I own a 4" Redhawk and think that it is an excellent hand gun for use in the woods, but there are other great choices out there as well: Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan, S&W 460, and S&W 500, Glock 20.

I personally would not take a 1911 out in the woods. 1911s are too nice for that kind of application. The 4" Redhawk was intended to be used for woods carry. I wouldn't be too upset if I banged up my Redhawk on a trip, but I would be really pissed off if I did that with a gun like a 1911. That is just me.

 

[JShirley]

I tend to think the other way.

I can see a 1911 or Glock dirty or with a scratch or ding. Thousands of 1911s have seen mud and blood. A nice wheelgun? Hm.

John

 

[Lazuris]

If your hunting i would go with the .44. If your crusin about its a toss up. I'd go with a .357 lighter than a 44, more than enough ump to hunt thin skin game and built like a tank.

 

[mr.trooper]

11oz is nearly a POUND chief...

Like ANY hunting cartridge debate, whats "better" is completely speculative. If you want to use the 45, and its legal, then load up with some Buffalo Bore 185gr+P and keep it short. No biggie.

 

[Markbo]

Actually 11 oz is closer to a 1/2 pound than a pound. The OP's OP asked about a 'wilderness gun'. What exactly are you looking for? Are you talking about "Man in the Wilderness" for months? A weekend hiking? A hunting specific trip?

It seems to me your criteria are too large. Narrow down exactly what you intend to do in the woods and it would be much easier to make educated suggestions.

A. 1911 - Comfortable. Utilitarian. Good protection against 2 legged varmints and even Cougars. I wouldn't WANT to shoot a black bear with it, but I would. I would not choose it as a primary big game hunting arm unless outfitted with another caliber. FWIW my .460 Rowland has not exhibited any of the destruction apparently inherent in everyone else's... all you other guys that say they won't hold up DO have one, right?

B. .44 Mag - will handle anything in North America and their ain't no Grizz left in CA. Rethink to a single action Blackhawk with a 4" barrel and you can handle anything alive at less weight that the overbuilt Redhawk unless you want to hunt with 300+gr loads. If you are not hunting and it is just a defensive and small game choice, the .357, .32 H&R, .327 Federal all make fine choices and can be had in medium frame revolvers and less. I have a .32 H&R Single Six and a .327 Federal waiting to be built which is basically even to the .357 without the recoil. Fine, handy little sixguns!

C. California Bureaucrats - I am at a loss why, but they as a group seem to be the most myopic bunch of ninnies I have ever witnessed. "Soft point or expanding ammo" only??? Clearly a good hardcast bullet avoids ALL of the problems an expanding HP can cause in handgun hunting. But you are specifically not allowed to use them. These people are not your friends. Why do they continue to hold office?

 

[tom1200]

Go with the .44 for the woods. The .45 1911 was never designed for this purpose.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Go with the .44 for the woods. The .45 1911 was never designed for this purpose.

The .45 M1911 works fine in the woods. But carry a metal detector in your other holster, so you can find your brass.

 

[Confederate]

In my opinion, the .45 1911 is not a great wilderness round. Going against it is the comparitively poor trajectory of the ammo, even the lighter hollow points.

There's no doubt about it in my mind, a .44 mag, .41 or .357 mag are the way to go. A 6-inch .357 cranks out a respectable amount of horsepower and handles predatory humans and animals with no problem.

The problem nowadays is finding a good .357 6-incher for carry. If you can land a pristine Ruger Security-Six, they're great, or if you can get a Smith & Wesson 686 with a tapered barrel, that, too, would be wonderful. The full length underlugs are a pain and are difficult to line up with moving targets. A 4-incher might be ideal. They still pack a tremendous punch, have a flat trajectory and generally get the attention of whatever's being shot.

The Redhawks are a bit too much of a horse pistol for me to haul around, but a 629 Smith would be just right with a 6-inch barrel.

The .45 would be okay for short range defense, but again, the .357 would be my choice.



Regardless of barrel length, a good .357 is hard to beat.