Hiking and Backpacking Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mainsail

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
3,252
Location
Washington
As I do a fair bit of hiking, I thought I would post up some pictures of the handguns I’ve carried over the years. I live in Western Washington and hike the Cascade and Olympic ranges. We have a lot of open wilderness out here (unlike my home state of Connecticut) and there’s no shortage of trails. I also enjoy hiking off the trail system to get to remote peaks and lakes.

In the summer of 2006 I hiked solo to a remote forested summit called French Peak. There are no trails and it took me three attempts to reach it. Since I was going alone I decided to pack the gun I owned that was best suited for the task, which was my Taurus model 85. In the first picture you can see the steepness of the terrain, and that was how I spent more than half the ten hours it took me to get there and back.
2a390cdf-1d90-41e9-a033-a4e668f33b24.jpg
On top I took a self-portrait which shows the little .38 in a paddle holster on my pack belt.
a0d7ca20-f9e1-43b2-b5f9-473180cbefdc.jpg
I didn’t carry again until a couple years later when I bought a Ruger Alaskan in .44 Mag. I carried it in a chest holster thusly:
07c597e4-5e57-4b8c-96cc-76d715a3b3c2.jpg?rnd=0.jpg
The problem was that the .44 was a freaking boat anchor, and in hiking or backpacking weight matters. I always get a good chuckle out of the advice given in the various gun forums where people with little or no real hiking experience recommend a shotgun or .454 for the lower 48. The weight of the gun caused me to leave it behind on several solo off trail hikes, the very time I would most need a sidearm. So I sold off the .44 and picked up a Glock G20SF. I carry it with ten rounds in the magazine, and while not light by any means, it’s a lot lighter than the big Ruger.

The other advantage of the G20 is that it’s not too pretty to get dirty, and I still have confidence that it will work even if the slide is full of fur tree needles (it has been) dirt (yup), or snow (that too). Here are a couple pictures of a hike I did last Saturday to the top of Mt Townsend in the Olympics. The hike is pretty short, about 8½ miles round trip, but the first half of that is a 3000’ elevation gain. Conditions on the summit were brutal, with gale force winds and swirling blowing snow. The Glock rode on the pack belt and even though the holster protects it, it still took a beating that I would never want to punish a beautiful Smith & Wesson family heirloom with.
Here’s the summit:
SummitAhead2.png

Here’s my pack after I took it off to zip up my coat and eat some lunch. The G20 is hard to see.
Packinsnow1.png

Packinsnow2.png

Here’s how it looks when I’m hiking:
Packinsnow3.png

And later when I stopped to pull my microspikes off:
Packinsnow4.png

It’s beautiful country out here, and if you’re ever visiting let me know and I will try to arrange a hike to suit your desires or abilities. This was a pretty rough hike in terrible weather, but it sure beat the rain they were getting down in the lowlands.
BootShot.png
 
Wow - Nice photos. Some beautiful country there. I have only been to coastal WA myself, and then only to the population centers for my Naval service.

Very good real insight to backpacking w/ a sidearm from a pistol weight - durability standpoint. - I usually carry a G27 Concealed) or G21 (open or concealed) whilst hiking myself - like you said, not too pretty to get dirty. I didn't know the M9 holster fit the full-size GLOCK - I may have to look into that option for open carry. I also like how you used a paddle holster on your pack - belt - which could easily be transitioned to your pants belt while taking your pack off. I am always looking for the most comfortable & concealable holster system with a pack.
 
Sweet pictures, OP. If you've never done it, Three Fingers is a beautiful hike of moderate difficulty; in the Granite Falls area. I'm not an experienced hiker by any means, but my younger brother and I did it back in June of 2006. We didn't see any snow until the last 3 miles or so, but the weather was excellent.

Think the hike is around 16 miles round-trip, but I could be mistaken. We turned around about a mile from the summit, but my brother went back about a year ago and made the full trip himself. His pictures were amazing. I highly recommend it.

Thanks again for the pics, be safe out there.
 
EVIL said:
I didn't know the M9 holster fit the full-size GLOCK - I may have to look into that option for open carry. I also like how you used a paddle holster on your pack - belt - which could easily be transitioned to your pants belt while taking your pack off.

The G20/21 will fit in the M9 holster but you'll have to jam it down in there and leave it for a while to stretch it out. After that it'll slide right in.

I don't worry so much about taking the pack off and not having a gun on my belt. First of all, none of my hiking pants even have belt loops, so there's no way to wear a belt. Any belt under your pack belt will cause hot-spots which will usually be pure agony after a few miles. Second, I'm hiking, not going into combat; if the gun is nearby that's usually good enough. Remember, the vast majority of hikers are completely unarmed and problems that could be solved by a firearm are extremely rare.

I'm going to be in Kettering taking a gvt class soon. I've been to Wright Pat a couple times, including 1989 when we hur-evac'd the C141s out of Charleston. I really liked the area.
 
The problem was that the .44 was a freaking boat anchor, and in hiking or backpacking weight matters. I always get a good chuckle out of the advice given in the various gun forums where people with little or no real hiking experience recommend a shotgun or .454 for the lower 48.

The heavy magnum handguns usually are boat anchors, and the weight on a belt can be a genuine nuisance after awhile. But in this case bigger can be lighter. It has to do with which muscles you're using and where the weight is. If you rig a backpack scabbard that's properly balanced, a 6 lb. long gun will *feel* lighter than a 2 lb. handgun on the hip. I swear it's true. And it will pack for many miles without trouble.

Not that you need to do so in Washington, of course.
 
The heavy magnum handguns usually are boat anchors, and the weight on a belt can be a genuine nuisance after awhile.
Not sure if it counts as a heavy magnum, but the SW 329 .44 Mag is no boat anchor. As an emergency gun, with proper rubber stocks and loads, it is a nice compromise.

I have taken .38s, 45 ACPs and 10mm hiking, too (not all at the same time!) ;). I wonder if revolvers don't make "more sense" as wood-protection guns (against big animals), as they can't be put out of battery with a muzzle contact shot, nor jam if the slide is in contact with something when fired.
 
I have a Taurus Tracker 617 .357mag (7 shot) that has been my hiking/woods bumming gun for several years. Recently, I have been taking my SP101 more than anything. It is small and light enough to go about anywhere.
 
depending on the conditions etc. I usually take my 386, 2.5 in. barrell 7 shot 357 weighs 19 oz. if I want to conceal the gun some or I take my 329 .44 mag 4 in 6 shooter at about 25 oz. Either one will do for my needs in the Pacific Northwest.
 
Last edited:
Mainsail

Great photos and narrative to go along with them. Really beautiful country up there.

Back east I used to carry a small .22 semi-auto, a 3" .38 Special J frame sized revolver, or small 9mm. semi-auto when I went hiking in the woods. Always appreciated the lighter weight and handiness of the guns I carried and thought they were well suited to the terrain I covered.
 
Why only 10 rds in the mag?

I recently decided on the G20 for a good all around woods gun, but of course I load it up with 15+1 and two spare mags.
 
Why only 10 rds in the mag?

Trying to lighten the load a little. Ten is plenty, like I said, I'm not going into combat. As Cosmoline points out, this ain't Alaska. ;)

I recently decided on the G20 for a good all around woods gun, but of course I load it up with 15+1 and two spare mags
I take it that the term "woods gun" when you use it has nothing to do with hiking or backpacking.
 
Last edited:
The G-20 is also my gun of choice if in bear country. If there is zero possibility of bear, then I'd carry anything I'd carry around town. Probably a G26.

The G20 is a lot smaller and lighter than almost any revolver. Actually about the same length and weight as a 3" Ruger SP-101, but with 3X the ammo and considerably more power than the 3" Ruger.

Hot 10mm loads and hot 357mag loads are about equal, but you'd need at least 6"-8" of barrel on a 357 mag to match the performance you get from the much smaller Glock. From a 3" barrel a 357 mag is just a very loud 9mm.
 
The G20 unloaded weighs 27.68 oz, the 329PD weighs 25.1.

6 rounds of Garrett's 310 gr 44 weighs 5.89 oz, for a total weight of right about 31 oz.

Glock lists a loaded weight of 39.14 oz. They don't say what bullet weight that's assuming, but (39.14-27.68)/16 works out to .716 oz per cartridge. At that rate, the Glock with 6 rounds weighs 27.68+(6*.716)= about 32 oz - an ounce more than the 329. Carry a full load and the Glock gets even heavier. If Glock was assuming lighter bullets than the ones you'd want for bear, the comparison is worse.

Mind you, I think the Glock is a fine woods gun - people may feel the higher capacity is worth the extra weight, or that they can fire it more quickly. But it's not lighter than the 329PD, and even the 220 gr loads have a lower sectional density than a 310 gr 44.

(What I wish was that S&W would make a 4 inch scandium J frame, at 14 or 15 oz, for hiking in places without brown bears)
 
The actual weight of my G20 with 16 rounds of 200 gr hardcast bullets is 39 oz. (weighed on my postal scales) About the same as an unloaded 1911. My 3" 629 with 6 rounds of 240 gr ammo is 44 oz., 48 oz for the 4" gun. Yea the 329 is lighter, but it is also longer, thicker, and twice as expensive.

Not only that, but it is underpowered. My Glock gets an honest, chronographed 1300 fps with the 200 gr bullets. My 3" 44 can't make 1,000 fps with typical 44 loads and I'm sure the 2.5" 329 isn't any better.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

If the G20 is too big, there is always the G29, they will weigh 33 oz loaded according to Glocks website. Only 2 oz heavier than the loaded 329. It will be smaller and more powerful.

I own and have the option of using either 3" or 4" 44 mags. Even if the weight were the same I'd still pick the 10mm. To be really effective the 44 needs at least 4" of barrel and 6"+ is even better. The snub 44 mags are just really loud 44 specials.
 
FWIW, the 329PD has a 4 inch barrel.

You may be thinking of the '329 Night Guard', which has a 2.5 inch barrel, and weighs a quarter pound more to boot (stainless vs titanium cylinder). I'm not sure what it's intended niche is, but I don't think it's optimized as a backpacker's gun, where weight matters and size doesn't (to me anyway, I'm carrying in a holster, and the extra 1.5 inches of length doesn't seem to be an impediment. Heck, if they had a 5 329 inch I'd get that).

We'll have to disagree about whether the 10mm is more powerful than a 44. But again, carry what you like. I was just pointing out the relative weights; I hope that's not controversial. There are tradeoffs; pick the tradeoffs that suit you best.
 
Trying to lighten the load a little. Ten is plenty, like I said, I'm not going into combat. As Cosmoline points out, this ain't Alaska

that's why I like my 5 shot .38s. :D I don't need no stinkin' cannon. Ain't no griz where I hike. I will occasionally carry a 4" medium frame DA .357 magnum if I want longer range effectiveness, though. I did that recently in Big Bend Ntl Park. I worry about drug gangs in that country, not so much the wildlife.

Rugged country. Looks cold. :D
 
I have 2 holsters like that - one specifically for Glock. Both my G20 and G29 fit in it nicely. Nice choice of backpacking equipment!
 
Trying to lighten the load a little. Ten is plenty.

I was afraid you'd say that.

If you're going to carry a gun in the first place, if seems silly to me to short change yourself 1/3 of your ammunition in an inane effort to save an ounce or two. Seems there are other obscure places and ways to save that ounce than your emergency life-saving gear, but that's just me.
 
I was afraid you'd say that.

If you're going to carry a gun in the first place, if seems silly to me to short change yourself 1/3 of your ammunition in an inane effort to save an ounce or two. Seems there are other obscure places and ways to save that ounce than your emergency life-saving gear, but that's just me.

I agree with the amount of rounds however if he is a TRUE hiker/extreme backpacker then everything in his gear has EARNED it's place. I started out with 15lbs more equipment in my first few hikes merely out of paranoia. After some experience and situational evaluations the load started to lighten and objects no longer deserved their valued and limited space. Especially in my 72 hour bag which I keep in case of an emergency like natural disasters (no zombie stuff.)

An experienced hiker/backpacker knows more is less and practical items play a huge roll. For example I was carrying 4L of water in a camel pack into the nearby trails when I decided to carry a water filter instead that weighed just under a pound. I saved almost 10lbs!:what: by using close by water streams. I was also able to save some space by carrying high calorie MRE packets instead of huge energy bars. I also cut my cordage from 100ft to 50ft. I decided not to cut my first aid supplies but drop splints and use branches instead. Instead of a survival mirror I decided I could use the reflective thermal blanket which has a much larger surface area and folds down to a small size.

If you've done what we've done it's all about weight and space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top