Another vote for the Glock 29. I have one and rides with me on every hunt, hike, scouting trip in a Wilderness Tactical holster. Plenty of power and capacity for what your looking for. The reason I bought the gun was for use as an all around outdoors sidearm.
Backpacking pistol suggestion
- Thread starter IdahoSkies
- Start date
- Status
788Ham
Member
easyg,
I'm not the least bit concerned about the weight of the firearm, loaded or unloaded, its the power of the cartridge sending the bullet out the end of the barrel. Light weight of the firearm doesn't concern me, I can hang onto the revolver!
I'm not the least bit concerned about the weight of the firearm, loaded or unloaded, its the power of the cartridge sending the bullet out the end of the barrel. Light weight of the firearm doesn't concern me, I can hang onto the revolver!
easyg
Member
Okay.
But most hikers are concerned about the weight of their gear.
And most hikers want the greatest amount of usage and functionality for the weight they are carrying.
And the .357 magnum from a 3" barrel really isn't any more effective than the .357 Sig from a 3.46" G33 barrel.
And when both calibers are practically equal in performance, 9 rounds trumps 5 rounds every time...especially when the handgun holding those 9 rounds is lighter in weight than the handgun holding the 5 rounds.
I like revolvers as much as the next guy.
But in this particular instance, the Glock 33 just makes more sense than the Ruger SP101.
SwampWolf
Member
It very well might if you were toting it, along with all your other camping/fishing gear on your back, around on hiking paths or portage trails for long distances at a time. The op was specific in that he is "fairly weight conscious" and, importantly, has some security concerns regarding predators, both man and beast (wolves) types. Whether it's the Glock Model 33, weighing about 20 ozs. (empty), with a capacity of nine .357 SIG rounds as recommended by easyg or the Smith & Wesson Model 6906, weighing 26.5 ozs. (empty), with a capacity of thirteen 9mm rounds as I recommended, it would seem that either pistol offers a better weight to ammunition capacity ratio than the 27 ounce (empty) Ruger Model SP 101, having a capacity of five .357 Magnum rounds.
And while there's no question that either the .357 Magnum or the nearly equivalent .357 SIG cartridges are more powerful than the 9mm Luger, when it comes to stopping a man or (the unlikely) wolf attack, the 9mm cartridge is more than adequate. And, because wolves attack in packs, should such an attack take place, I think most people would rather have thirteen bullets on board than they would five.
No Double Taps for hard hitting 10mm. Their numbers are VERY exaggerated.
Buffalo Bore and Swamp Fox really packs a punch.
I'm not saying Double Tap ammo is bad. I'm just saying that the numbers they post from testing out of a Glock 20 are off by a huge amount. Over 100fps on some tests.
My chronograph shows 1315fps from my G-20. That is 15 fps faster than advertised.
The G-20 is my choice if there is any possibility of bear. Otherwise I'd carry the same thing I'd carry in town, a G-19.
I'd suggest an auto. They are lighter, thinner and easier to pack. Auto's, especially Glocks, are also much less likely to malfunction when carried in dirty outdoor conditions.
A short barreled revolver loses a LOT of velocity compared to the ballistics charts. You may be loading 357 mag ammo into the cylinder, but from a 2-3" barrel you are getting 9mm velocity out of the barrel. I'm getting an honest 1300+fps with 200 gr hardcast bullets from my 10mm. A 357 may do it, but you'd need at least 6" of barrel to make it happen.
The point of a handgun in this scenario is a worst case emergency of some sort. You aren't hunting with it, plinking along the trail or bugging out.
Any 5-6 shot small frame lightweight revolver in .357 should be plenty for defense against most predators in the lower 48. If you aren't in bear country a 38 rated for +p will do.
Get it in stainless / aluminum for weather resistance.
Any 5-6 shot small frame lightweight revolver in .357 should be plenty for defense against most predators in the lower 48. If you aren't in bear country a 38 rated for +p will do.
Get it in stainless / aluminum for weather resistance.
Last edited:
Loosedhorse
member
I don't think they're near as nasty as .357 snubbies! And we're not talking about comfort or fine accuracy during an extended range session; we're talking about emergency use at close range against a bear or human attacker. Sure, you'll need a couple of range sessions, but that's why they make shooting gloves, and soft rubber replacement grips that cover the backstrap!
There you go. And add to that Buffalo Bore makes ammo specifically for the 329--that's still a 255 gr Keith hardcast going 1350 fps.
'Course, neither the revolver nor the ammo are cheap!
I really like Glock 10mms. Short of large bear, it will do great with the right ammo. But my preference might still be toward a revolver in hiking/camping conditions. Plus the Glock ballistics don't match that .44 Mag load, and it weighs more.
Against a human attacker, a .22LR is way better than nothing. Against a bear, a .44 Mag is way better than nothing.
amd6547
Member
I have carried a 38spl snub as a backpack pistol...I once had an older Charter Arms undercover "off duty" model which I found fairly cheap. It only weighed 17oz's as I recall.
A very good backpack weapon.
For me, I don't like to carry an expensive weapon that is going to be beat up on the trail. The Glock 23 I carried was an exception to this rule. On that trip, I did encounter a rare Pennsylvania golden wolf...he walked by our hillside campsite about 50yds away in broad daylight...It was a magnificent sight...the wolf paid no attention to us, but I was glad to have the Glock in my belt, just the same.
Currently, my backpack pistol is a romanian Tokarev. It is pretty compact and flat, it holds 8rds of 7.62x25, and it is stone reliable. With it, I can reach out to 100yds easily, and the 7.62x25 will penetrate just about anything I might care to shoot. Plus, I only have about $175 in it.
A very good backpack weapon.
For me, I don't like to carry an expensive weapon that is going to be beat up on the trail. The Glock 23 I carried was an exception to this rule. On that trip, I did encounter a rare Pennsylvania golden wolf...he walked by our hillside campsite about 50yds away in broad daylight...It was a magnificent sight...the wolf paid no attention to us, but I was glad to have the Glock in my belt, just the same.
Currently, my backpack pistol is a romanian Tokarev. It is pretty compact and flat, it holds 8rds of 7.62x25, and it is stone reliable. With it, I can reach out to 100yds easily, and the 7.62x25 will penetrate just about anything I might care to shoot. Plus, I only have about $175 in it.
Deaf Smith
Member
I got one of the Yogo Toks. Yea with a Spear 'plinker' 100 gr bullet it would make a dandy trail gun. I paid $180 for mine!
Or a good Glock 23/32 (I prefer the .357 Sig for the trail if I pack a Glock.)
Deaf
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
When I go hiking I like to take my S&W 36, 3" barrel small lightweight, comfortable and handy. I would really like it if S&W brought back a nice fixed sight K frame in 22lr. They could do it with a Scandium frame and a standard profile barrel and it would be sweet.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,207
A 10mm Glock 20 is what I suggest for carry in the outdoors.
RedAlert
Member
Once you have chosen the weapon to carry, you need to think about where and how to carry it.
My suggestion, is to use the Wilderness product shown here:
http://www.thewilderness.com/storepinnacle/index.php?p=catalog&parent=171&pg=1
This allows you to carry it close to hand and yet avoid the " WOW " factor of open carry or needing to rummage in your pack to access it.
My suggestion, is to use the Wilderness product shown here:
http://www.thewilderness.com/storepinnacle/index.php?p=catalog&parent=171&pg=1
This allows you to carry it close to hand and yet avoid the " WOW " factor of open carry or needing to rummage in your pack to access it.
Zerodefect
member
I carry a Glock 23 in a pouch on my packs waist band. It is a binocular pouch I believe. Completely conceals the pistol. Most backpackers are hippies and would freak at the sight of it so i keep it concealed.
My total pack weight for a 1 week hike is 35 pounds. 25 or even less for a three day weekend.
I save weight elsewhere so that I can carry the sizeable Glock. That Glock is my heaviest piece of gear. Heavier than my tent and my pack, even my sleeping bag!!!!!!
Some areas I saved weight to make room for the Glock:
-Gossamer gear pack
-Gossamer Gear/ Henry Shires tarp tent
-Gossamer gear carbon poles
-lightweight Pepsi can stove
-MSR water works so I can pump my own water, not carry it
-dehydrated food.
-mountain hardware sleep bag
-Z lite folding foam pad
-only 1 Nalgene canteen. Some folks carry three of these heavy things.
-minimum water. Often only 1000cc's.
-Dryduck thin rain gear.
-only 1 extra shirt and under shorts, two extra socks, and soap.
My total pack weight for a 1 week hike is 35 pounds. 25 or even less for a three day weekend.
I save weight elsewhere so that I can carry the sizeable Glock. That Glock is my heaviest piece of gear. Heavier than my tent and my pack, even my sleeping bag!!!!!!
Some areas I saved weight to make room for the Glock:
-Gossamer gear pack
-Gossamer Gear/ Henry Shires tarp tent
-Gossamer gear carbon poles
-lightweight Pepsi can stove
-MSR water works so I can pump my own water, not carry it
-dehydrated food.
-mountain hardware sleep bag
-Z lite folding foam pad
-only 1 Nalgene canteen. Some folks carry three of these heavy things.
-minimum water. Often only 1000cc's.
-Dryduck thin rain gear.
-only 1 extra shirt and under shorts, two extra socks, and soap.
Mainsail
Member
Where do you hike? I hike all over western Washington with a full sized Glock G20 in plain view, and there's certainly no shortage of hippie libs on the trails around here. Not only have I never had a problem from them, they still stop and chat on the trail.
It's possible you're overacting.
NM Mountainman
Member
Mainsal,
That looks like a pretty good backpacking setup in Post #17. I use the same holster with my Glock 20 when backpacking. I attached an extra 2" strap on the outside of the hipbelt so that it carried on the hipbelt. It is very secure, easily accessible, and comfortable; but I keep knocking my hand, wrist, or pole against it due to the natural swing of my hands while walking. I also had to develop a special procedure for removing my pack to avoid dragging the holster in the dirt as the hipbelt droops while I'm setting the pack on the ground. I am thinking of experimenting with chest carry accessories for that holster or perhaps a Wilderness holster.
On Selecting a handgun for backpacking:
I've backpacked for decades in the Rockies and the mountains of the SW states. For almost 30 years I often carried my S&W Model 19 and 24 rounds of ammo. I've also carried a model 629 (4"), a Taurus Tracker 44 mag (4"), and my Glock 20 as well as a large can of bear repellant pepper spray. (I only carried one handgun at a time.)
I've concluded that whenever I don't feel the need for the power of a .44 mag, my Glock 20 is my favorite backpacking gun. It's rugged, reliable, and easy to maintain. ( If I were to accidentally drop it in the dirt, and a horse were to come along and accidentally kick it off the trail, it probably wouldn't hurt it any. Might even improve its looks.) For anyone who has a large enough hand to use the G20 and who doesn't mind the inconvenience of buying or hand loading the ammo, the G20 is far superior to a .357 revolver with a 4" barrel for self defense. About the only advantage I can think of with my Model 19 revolver is its extreme accuracy for slow deliberate single action shooting. It is more accurate than many custom 1911 .45 target pistols.
I discovered that the S&W Model 19, a 686 Plus, the Taurus Tracker 4", the S&W 629 4", and the Glock 20 were all about the same overall size and weight when loaded. Except for the 629 (47 oz loaded), they each weigh about 40 oz loaded. I also tried a Glock 29, but I couldn't see any advantages in saving a few oz. by settling for a shorter sight radius, a shorter grip, a little more muzzle blast, and a little less velocity. But if you already have one for CCW, it could be a pretty good choice.
I've found my Taurus Tracker to be as good as the S&W 629 for backpacking. Even though the Tracker (which is ported) weighs 8 oz less than the 629, it still has less recoil and muzzle jump. Both the double action and single action trigger pulls of the Tracker are just as smooth as the 629 and only about .5 lb heavier. My Tracker is just as accurate as my 629 with most loads, but I prefer the 629 because it's easy to mount a J-Point mini red dot sight on it. The Tracker has been reliable and problem free except for when I broke a firing pin spring by dry firing excessively. (The Taurus manual recommends no dry firing with the Tracker and recommends ammo with no more power than a 240 JSP at 1350 fps.) And by the way, I just thought that I would mention that Taurus CS is an oxymoron.
I've also tried .357 and .44 mag revolvers with 2.5" and 3" barrels as well as a Mountain Gun. I found they only offered 1 to 3 oz of weight savings and no real advantages in convenience or comfort when carrying. The barely noticeable advantages certainly weren't worth the reduced sight radius, reduced velocity, and increased recoil and muzzle blast.
The Ruger Redhawk with a 4" barrel is also a great backpacking revolver that is only a few oz. heavier than a 629. And if a horse loses a shoe, you can use the Redhawk to nail it back on. (Always remember to unload it first.) It's more practical and useful than the Ruger Alaskan unless you feel the need for a .454. The Alaskan is a specialized one trick pony and is mostly a marketing gimmick, IMO. Kind of cool looking and fun to shoot, though.
And one more thing, Taurus CS is, shall we say, a little less than substandard.
That looks like a pretty good backpacking setup in Post #17. I use the same holster with my Glock 20 when backpacking. I attached an extra 2" strap on the outside of the hipbelt so that it carried on the hipbelt. It is very secure, easily accessible, and comfortable; but I keep knocking my hand, wrist, or pole against it due to the natural swing of my hands while walking. I also had to develop a special procedure for removing my pack to avoid dragging the holster in the dirt as the hipbelt droops while I'm setting the pack on the ground. I am thinking of experimenting with chest carry accessories for that holster or perhaps a Wilderness holster.
On Selecting a handgun for backpacking:
I've backpacked for decades in the Rockies and the mountains of the SW states. For almost 30 years I often carried my S&W Model 19 and 24 rounds of ammo. I've also carried a model 629 (4"), a Taurus Tracker 44 mag (4"), and my Glock 20 as well as a large can of bear repellant pepper spray. (I only carried one handgun at a time.)
I've concluded that whenever I don't feel the need for the power of a .44 mag, my Glock 20 is my favorite backpacking gun. It's rugged, reliable, and easy to maintain. ( If I were to accidentally drop it in the dirt, and a horse were to come along and accidentally kick it off the trail, it probably wouldn't hurt it any. Might even improve its looks.) For anyone who has a large enough hand to use the G20 and who doesn't mind the inconvenience of buying or hand loading the ammo, the G20 is far superior to a .357 revolver with a 4" barrel for self defense. About the only advantage I can think of with my Model 19 revolver is its extreme accuracy for slow deliberate single action shooting. It is more accurate than many custom 1911 .45 target pistols.
I discovered that the S&W Model 19, a 686 Plus, the Taurus Tracker 4", the S&W 629 4", and the Glock 20 were all about the same overall size and weight when loaded. Except for the 629 (47 oz loaded), they each weigh about 40 oz loaded. I also tried a Glock 29, but I couldn't see any advantages in saving a few oz. by settling for a shorter sight radius, a shorter grip, a little more muzzle blast, and a little less velocity. But if you already have one for CCW, it could be a pretty good choice.
I've found my Taurus Tracker to be as good as the S&W 629 for backpacking. Even though the Tracker (which is ported) weighs 8 oz less than the 629, it still has less recoil and muzzle jump. Both the double action and single action trigger pulls of the Tracker are just as smooth as the 629 and only about .5 lb heavier. My Tracker is just as accurate as my 629 with most loads, but I prefer the 629 because it's easy to mount a J-Point mini red dot sight on it. The Tracker has been reliable and problem free except for when I broke a firing pin spring by dry firing excessively. (The Taurus manual recommends no dry firing with the Tracker and recommends ammo with no more power than a 240 JSP at 1350 fps.) And by the way, I just thought that I would mention that Taurus CS is an oxymoron.
I've also tried .357 and .44 mag revolvers with 2.5" and 3" barrels as well as a Mountain Gun. I found they only offered 1 to 3 oz of weight savings and no real advantages in convenience or comfort when carrying. The barely noticeable advantages certainly weren't worth the reduced sight radius, reduced velocity, and increased recoil and muzzle blast.
The Ruger Redhawk with a 4" barrel is also a great backpacking revolver that is only a few oz. heavier than a 629. And if a horse loses a shoe, you can use the Redhawk to nail it back on. (Always remember to unload it first.) It's more practical and useful than the Ruger Alaskan unless you feel the need for a .454. The Alaskan is a specialized one trick pony and is mostly a marketing gimmick, IMO. Kind of cool looking and fun to shoot, though.
And one more thing, Taurus CS is, shall we say, a little less than substandard.
Scipio Africanus
Member
Get a S&W 329 PD. Use .44 special for practice and .44 Mag for carry. You just can't get a more versatile and easy packin' pistol.
Izzy77
Member
I just carry what I always carry in the city...like others I think humans are your biggest threat, and if you pack a decent claliber with a DA trigger with some corrosion resistance ( Nitrided /Glock, Stainless or hard Chromed) you cant go wrong with most of the choices presented here.
The smallest gun I would reccomend would be a g-26 ( 10+1 ) of 9mm, but the moderator 's suggestion of a airwheight type 38 is not so terrible either.
The smallest gun I would reccomend would be a g-26 ( 10+1 ) of 9mm, but the moderator 's suggestion of a airwheight type 38 is not so terrible either.
Long time ago when I spent time with a pack, I crried a 357 mag S&W 65-5. It was clumsy, ill placed and too heavy until I came across what I think was a Bianchi Cross Draw Speed Leather with thumb snap. This placed the gun on the left front and weight distribution was perfect. Cross draw position made gun easily available to free hand. Thumb snap was ideal for retention and came off naturally when gun was drawn. Pack never covered pistol but a light jacket/long shirt was ideal concealment. Modern version seems to be Bianchi Cyclone 111. No matter what you decide on, Bianchi keeps it safe in a holster, or quickly in your hand.
blindhari
blindhari
For the scenario you describe -- two legged predators and wolves -- I think you have a lot of choices: 38 Spl +P, .357 magnum, .45 ACP, .40, 10mm. It could be whichever of those you shoot the best. If you bring bear into the equation, then I think .44 magnum is the minimum. Revolver or semi-auto depends on which you think is more reliable and on how many rounds you think you need to have in the firearm. I think it is very subjective. My own choice would be a 1911 .45 ACP with 8 round magazine if no bears are involved (1911 just because I shoot it the best) -- otherwise .474 Casull or .500 S&W (and forget about comfortable carry). Or maybe both a 1911 and a .500 S&W to cover all eventualities!
Last edited:
Mainsail
Member
Without knowing how you define hiking, it's hard to say. If hiking is strolling around in the forest for a mile or so, other than looking like you're playing soldier, it might be ok. If you're talking about six miles or more on a day hike, then I don't think you'll find that holster very comfortable.
Sam Cade
Member
It would work you to death.
People spend a lot of money shaving every little bit of weight from their boots since you have to lift that weight every time that you take a step.
A thigh holster like that would end of adding over 3 pounds to one leg that would would have to lift ten thousand times or so on a 10 mile hike.
Maple_City_Woodsman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 430
I was about to suggest a Charter Arms 4" 'Pathfinder' in 22 magnum...
But I see that your actually looking for a combat pistol rather than a traditional packing/camping/hiking type weapon. In that case, just carry whatever you would for normal defense. 10mm is as good as a dozen others in this case.
But I see that your actually looking for a combat pistol rather than a traditional packing/camping/hiking type weapon. In that case, just carry whatever you would for normal defense. 10mm is as good as a dozen others in this case.
Backpacker33
Member
There are so many personal issues involved it becomes a matter of "like," or, "because I have one."
I've 'packed for 50 years. In the '70s, my handgun of choice for Colorado, Montana and Idaho Backcountry was a S&W 29 with 4" barrel, loaned to me by a retired USAF Chief Master Sergeant. Will a little thought and research about how to shoot one, it isn't so bad. After the Dirty Harry craze abated a bit, used ones littered the market.
THEN I was able to afford an Anaconda and it would still be my fave except that it is heavy and as I aged I had to lighten the load. Today I carry a modified S&W 329PD. I had it MagNaPorted, added Hog Hunter Lasergrips, Cylinder & Slide Extreme Duty sights with tritium inserts (sighted in for me by C&S) and use CorBon or Hornady 225-gr cartridges, or my handloads (305-gr bullets at about 900fps). Again, with a little study of the techniques of people like John Taffin, one can shoot it without damaging oneself.
In between I've carried a LAR Grizzly .458 Winny Mag; S&W Mountain Guns; and a Hamilton Bowen-modified Redhawk in .500 Linebaugh. Yes, that gun will hurt you.
I have one holster mounted cross draw on my pack frame, and another on a utility belt that also carries the spare ammo, flares, and pepper spray. Both have a thumb break.
Having seen a cougar in full run I prefer shorter barrels so I can draw and swing faster. Bears are more likely to pose, at least for a moment. I've never had to even draw on either.
For the druggies, avoid; or take the M1A or SOCOM and some grenades. If that's where you have to go, live with the weight . . ..
BTW, last year there was a drug bust in the Chippewa flowage here in Wisconsin. I fly into that area to fish, from time to time. After, I asked the rangers if they knew about the bastards, and if they would have warned me of them. They said "No," and "No." Greaaaat.
I've 'packed for 50 years. In the '70s, my handgun of choice for Colorado, Montana and Idaho Backcountry was a S&W 29 with 4" barrel, loaned to me by a retired USAF Chief Master Sergeant. Will a little thought and research about how to shoot one, it isn't so bad. After the Dirty Harry craze abated a bit, used ones littered the market.
THEN I was able to afford an Anaconda and it would still be my fave except that it is heavy and as I aged I had to lighten the load. Today I carry a modified S&W 329PD. I had it MagNaPorted, added Hog Hunter Lasergrips, Cylinder & Slide Extreme Duty sights with tritium inserts (sighted in for me by C&S) and use CorBon or Hornady 225-gr cartridges, or my handloads (305-gr bullets at about 900fps). Again, with a little study of the techniques of people like John Taffin, one can shoot it without damaging oneself.
In between I've carried a LAR Grizzly .458 Winny Mag; S&W Mountain Guns; and a Hamilton Bowen-modified Redhawk in .500 Linebaugh. Yes, that gun will hurt you.
I have one holster mounted cross draw on my pack frame, and another on a utility belt that also carries the spare ammo, flares, and pepper spray. Both have a thumb break.
Having seen a cougar in full run I prefer shorter barrels so I can draw and swing faster. Bears are more likely to pose, at least for a moment. I've never had to even draw on either.
For the druggies, avoid; or take the M1A or SOCOM and some grenades. If that's where you have to go, live with the weight . . ..
BTW, last year there was a drug bust in the Chippewa flowage here in Wisconsin. I fly into that area to fish, from time to time. After, I asked the rangers if they knew about the bastards, and if they would have warned me of them. They said "No," and "No." Greaaaat.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
