Camping compromise gun, animal vs. people

[TexAg]

When out hiking or camping (in a place you can legally carry, openly or concealed) what is your gun of choice? Is it a compromise gun for all occasions whether you expect to meet backwoods pot-growers or a bear? Or do you weigh your likeliness of meeting either one and adjust your preferred gun to meet the more likely encounter?
For instance, if you're very far out and think you're much more likely to enounter a grizzley, do you take your .454, .500, etc?
Or if in another location, you think you're more likely to enounter 3-4 armed dudes that don't want you blabbing about their secret meth lab, so you carry your high capacity semi-auto?
Do you adjust accordingly on your percieved threat or do you have a standard do-all?
Personnally, I've done all three and not necessarily for genuine percieved threats, but more for the fun of it and an excercise in the philosophy behind it.
I've carried a Ruger old Vaquero in .45 Colt, S&W Model 19, 6" GP100, and a Glock 17 while hiking.
I'm not really talking about Taffin's Perfect Packin' Pistol, similar, but with more of an anti-personel role.
I found the Model 19 with 4" barrel a pretty good compromise (in non-brown bear country), easily loaded with heavy, deeper penetrating rounds and more quickly reloaded than a single-action.
I'm sure many would say the Glock 20 or 29 would fit their likes better.
And if in the great north, I'm sure there are more who prefer a .44 Mag.
So what is your do-it-all compromise gun when you're away from civilization?

 

[David E]

I've always thought that man presents a greater threat than animals. If I had to choose for one threat, it'd be for the two-legged snakes.

But I do have wild hogs and black bear in the woods I frequent, so the Glock Model 20 in 10mm gets the nod. Easily concealable, reasonably powerful, good capacity, easy to carry, easy to shoot and reload.

 

[jmr40]

If in an area where there are no bear, the same gun I'd carry in town. Usually either a G-26 or G-19.

If bear are in the area a G-20 with 200 gr hardcast bullets @ 1300 fps work great. A 2nd mag is with me loaded with lighter HP ammo for human SD which I actually consider to be the far greater threat anyway. A 357 or 44 mag revolver is my 2nd choice and a good one.

I own both 357 and 44 revolvers in 3 and 4" versions and greatly prefer the Glock for several reasons. For one thing it is an inch shorter and 14 oz lighter than my 3" revolver. When backpacking 15 miles a day that is huge. I don't live or hike in grizzy country but would even prefer the Glock if I did. That is what I carried to Yellowstone and would probably do the same if I ever get to Alaska.

On paper the magnum revolvers appear to have a great advantage in power. But those numbers are from 8" test barrels. If you are carrying a handgun that big, then yes, but when fired from 3-4" barrels both 357 and 44 mag revolvers are much closer to the actual numbers you will get with a 10mm. In fact with the best loads a 10mm will beat the best loads in 357 when fired from shorter barrels.

For a hunting handgun I'd much prefer the magnum revolvers with longer barrels and better target type triggers. But for close range SD I prefer the Glock.

 

[scaatylobo]

Depends

2 legged,its the Glock 23 or 19,or 30.

4 legged including boar & bear,its a Ruger .44 mag in El Paso chest carry and loaded with Buffalo Bore 300 grainers.

And yes,sometimes its both,the G-23 is hidden.

 

[336A]

On paper the magnum revolvers appear to have a great advantage in power. But those numbers are from 8" test barrels. If you are carrying a handgun that big, then yes, but when fired from 3-4" barrels both 357 and 44 mag revolvers are much closer to the actual numbers you will get with a 10mm.

While I think the 10mm is one heck of cartridge the above is just wrong on so many levels. The 10mm is no where close to a .44 magnum period, even if the .44 mag is fired from a 4" barrel. However the 10mm and the .357 mag are neck and neck in performance. If you look at Rem, Win, and Fed ballistic charts most of they're ammo is fired from a 4" barrel, not 8" test barrels.

I researched a little bit on the 10mm and came up with these real world results. The actual shooting and chrono work can be viewed on youtube. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjsXvXEryDJjdFhsRUcwSHRUcktCMmhOMTVFa25xa1E#gid=0

On the other hand here are some real world results of various .41mag ammo fired from a 4" revolver. Ammo is from the big three not some boutique ammo supplier with the exception being the corbon entry. However the corbon entry is listed for personal defense on they're web site. The Win 175gr STHP has always been billed as a self defense loading in this caliber despite what is on the box. However the Federal and the Rem loads meet or exceed the manufacturers claims.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/259886-awesome-s-w-41mag-2.html

Even with current loading data there is no sane way your going to get a 200gr bullet close to 1300fps from a 4.6" Glock. Not without bending or splintering something anyway. On the other hand it is no great feat for me to get a 220gr Keith bullet going 1350fps from my 4 5/8" .41 mag Blackhawk. Or I could always cherry pick my ammo from a boutique supplier, in which case the 10mm is left even further behind

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=322

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=90

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=92

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=95

http://www.underwoodammo.com/41remingtonmagnum210grainxtpjacketedhollowpointboxof50.aspx

 

[TexAg]

Scaatylobo, Ruger Redhawk or Blackhawk?

 

[22-rimfire]

I go with my gut sense. I am not particularly worried about running onto a meth lab or a pot operation out in the woods. Just act stupid and move on. But if I see a number of people out in the woods "huddled up", I will generally avoid them. It is likely I would see them first unless they are up to no good.

I will often have a revolver with me in the woods; generally a 41 mag or 22LR. It often depends if I want to do any shooting. I don't live my life in fear of what I might encounter out in the woods.

Hiking, it will depend mostly on black bears in terms of which choice I make and whether it's over night. Most of my hikes are day hikes. I feel perfectly fine armed with a 22 if I encounter a 2 legged threat. But I enjoy carrying my 4" M57 a good bit. Sometimes I will just take my carry gun (M442 38spl) if I don't want anyone to know I have a gun with me. If I am actually worried about encounters in a particular area, I don't go or go somewhere else.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I carry a .357 Magnum in most cases. If the possibility of meeting something very large that can eat you is present I carry a .45 Colt as a sidearm.

 

[David White]

Any thoughts on the .40. Cal under the same topic?

 

[David E]

.40 would be fine in most casual outdoor situations.

 

[TexAg]

In what platform do you carry those calibers ArchAngelCD?

 

[R.W.Dale]

My compromise is part gun and part ammo.

The gun is a glock 36 that's the single stack 45acp. 3.8" barrel carried with a plus one grip/mag extension giving me a capacity of 7+1 (sound familiar?) In the gun.

As to the ammunition. I've researched this very subject extensively and its become my opinion that modern jhp loads are in terms of penatration dumbed down to a minimum that makes them wholly unsuitable for anything but defense against 2 leggers not hiding behind "stuff"

But when loaded with hardball I still retain a fairly good track record of effectiveness against 2legged critters albeit not the best. Yet I get the penatration required for defense against Dixielands four leggers or to take targets of oppurtunity in the back country




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

 

[TexAg]

R. W. I've got a Glock 36 myself that I failed to mention that I too carry with FMJ occasionally, though it is Doubletap hot FMJ.

 

[montanaoffroader]

When I lived in Northern California I usually carried a Colt SAA in .357 Magnum, plenty of gun for anything I was likely to encounter there.

Where I live now there are a few grizzlies roaming around, so these days it's a Ruger SBH in .44 Magnum.

 

[fastest45ever]

.45 Colt. Not much 260 grains of flat point at 950 fps won't solve.

1911 honorable mention with heavy, FP bullets, or 255 grain HP's.

Other approach is any .475 Linebaugh or bigger caliber, in BFR or FA 83, with light for caliber bullets, say 275 grain to 350 grains. It's pretty amazing the velocity you can get in a packable barrel, when your bullets weigh that much, or more.

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm paying off my solution - a S&W 625 .45 Colt Mountain Gun. Like a service revolver on steroids, with 9 grains of Unique behind 250 grains of LSWC, I'd be happy with either problem. The only difference is how many reloads on my belt.

 

[scaatylobo]

@ texag

Its a customized SuperBlackhawk.

Grip was changed to stainless blackhawk,and barrel cut to 4 3/4".

I would rather a Redhawk,just not seen one recently in the barrel length or price I want.

 

[mdauben]

In the areas I fequent, feral dogs and feral humans are probably the greatest threat. For protection from both I'd probably pick a .357 with a 3-4 inch barrel.

 

[TrueTexan]

For the woods I carry a S&W 686 357 mag ether a 6 inch or a 3 inch

 

[Mosbyranger]

Usually, when out in the woods of Colorado, I carry a Ruger Vaquero in .45 colt. Plenty of oomph for anything I'm going to run into. If I'm in really rugged country and the .45 is too heavy (hey toss the thing on, with a belt, holster and extra ammo it's about 5 lbs) for uphill and downhill all day, I'll take the SP101 in .38.
MR

 

[David E]

the .45 is too heavy. for uphill and downhill all day, I'll take the SP101 in .38.
MR

That logic should bring you to the S&W Model 317 Airlight.

Usually, carrying an item that will do the job you're carrying it for is worth the extra weight. Carrying something that will NOT do the job you're carrying it for is worthless weight, no matter how light.

 

[Mainsail]

Any thread where the word 'bear' is used should specify about what kind of bear you're referring. Lower 48 black bears are by no means the same as Alaska's brown bears, so you end up with a thread that diverges in two different directions, and all to often becomes a pointless argument about the merits of this or that cartridge and its effectiveness.

Second, you need to identify the type of hiking you intend to do. If you're talking about real hiking; long distances and severe elevation gain/loss where the gear you carry is limited by its weight and volume, then you will get different answers than if your idea of hiking is to stroll down some trail for a mile or two.

 

[TexAg]

Actually that's the point of me not specifying which bear or if there are bears at all. I pointed out that carrying guns will differ on location and perceived threat. I'm just curious what folks are using for their perceived threat and how they balance it with what they carry. I've also asked not only caliber, but platform.

 

[rjinaz85308]

Hot 10mm. 200 grn Underwood


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zaydok Allen]

no bears = .357 or .45 acp depending on how I feel that day.

Bears involved = .460 magnum