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.