Quantifiable Criteria for a "Woods" gun?

[RPRNY]

Even for lower 48 black bears?
Buffalo Bore has a good story of an Alaskan guide stopped a brown bear with his 9mm+P
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=388

But does this convince you a 9mm is good enough for bears?

That Phil Shoemaker was able to stop a brown bear with a 9mm does not make it a good choice for a defensive weapon in brown bear country. It remains Darwin Award material in my opinion. The risk of black bear attack is, in my opinion, less by a magnitude than the fairly slim risk of brown bear attack, outside some fairly well defined geographies. So, 9mm might well do. As I said, if I were deeply concerned about "hostile animals" other than humans, I would choose a rifle or 12 ga and slugs. If a handgun is enough for someone, then 9mm should do for black bear.

 

[NorthBorder]

I hike mostly alone, whether it is in Glacier Park or the local forest service roads. There can be a lot of trepidation and thrill(?). The closest bear encounter I had was a blackie and her cubs about 20 yards away. She didn't seem to want any part of me and likewise for me. Somehow my .357 didn't feel adequate so I held on to my bear spray. So I got a .45 colt and stoked it w/ 255 hard cast and W296. Then, when I encountered a grizzly while fishing in the Park I don't know that I had confidence in the .45. The griz didn't see me and I made sure of that. But the thrill was there. I have a pretty fertile imagination. I'm kinda hoping the loud "BANG" will be deterrent. All this to say I don't know what is the best woods gun. Short of a rifle my .45 is my biggest so that's what I carry. And bear spray.

 

[Armored farmer]

no big 4 legged threats around here.
A nice. 22 is pretty popular woods gun for me.

 

[CDW4ME]

Glock 20 (10mm) with a 180 gr. at ~1,150 fps (or heavier) bullet designed to penetrate.

 

[bannockburn]

Probably the biggest four legged threat where I use to go backwoods hiking was with feral dogs. Over the years I have carried a .22 handgun (Beretta Model 70S and Ruger Single Six), or else a .38 Special/.357 Magnum (Rossi Model 88 and Ruger Speed Six). For the majority of those trips I felt I was adequately armed for whatever I might encounter.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I think you are over analyzing this. Are you in the woods? Do you have a gun? If you answered "yes" to both these questions, you have a "woods gun."

I like the Glock 20 10mm loaded with a 200 gr bullet at about 1250 fps because this provides an exceptional amount of firepower for its weight, and gives me a warm cozy feeling on my hip. But I know people who take a 5 inch bladed knife and a single-action .22 Mag revolver into the woods. It's your hide; you assess the potential risks plan accordingly. I've seen dozens of black bears in the wild. Only two have done anything but run away as fast as possible. One of those two was dealt with adequately with harsh language and throwing our gear at it. The other took a load of birdshot from a 12 gauge and decided he'd seen enough. If you plan to carry in the unlikely event you are attacked by a bruin, it will require a certain minimum of power, certainly penetration, but this will be an arbitrary minimum decided by you. Most will opt for a hot loaded .357 Magnum with a 158 gr or heavier non-expanding bullet or a 10mm Auto with a stiff 180 gr non-expanding bullet as a reasonable minimum, but you may decide properly loaded, your .45 ACP will fit the role. It is your hide. You decide.

I will tell you that even a small-ish 600 pound NW MT grizzly will seem large and intimidating enough up close that no handgun on earth is likely to feel adequate. So if you really think that is an option, I will suggest a 12 gauge loaded with Brennekes or a .45-70 lever gun loaded with a hot hardcast load as bare minimum.

 

[22-rimfire]

I'm in the southeast, so the dangers in this area are primarily black bears, feral pigs, poisonous snakes, dogs, and people. Some claim that there are mountain lions. In my years, I have only encountered one person that "concerned me" in the woods and I had a 22 revolver with me at the time. Even the 22 was comforting.

I have encountered black bears at less than 7 yards in the woods. I've had false charges to that distance as well. You don't know they are false or bluffing/warning until they stop and you back away. I often will have my camera with me, so I'm taking or trying to take pictures. The most hair raising experience I had with a black bear was one I saw at about 50 yds. I started taking pictures. He was slowly moving toward me and hadn't seen me yet. It saw me and stood up at about 20 yds.... moments later it charged to about 20 feet. Believe me, that's close!! He closed that distance in a couple seconds. Scared the crap out of me. There have been other close encounters, but not that scared me like that one. I doubt I could have stopped that bear with any handgun if it chose to attack me because it was such a surprise. Big learning experience!

I can't quantify what handgun I would carry in the woods for encounters with predators. I don't expect it to happen. As a result, I often will have a 22 revolver with me. Sometimes the little Ruger SR22P in a pocket... On occasion I will carry my 38spl carry gun or if I am just wandering around, I might take my M57 Mountain Gun (41 mag). The 22 is the most common gun I carry in the woods and I feel okay with it. For the most part, I carry for the fun of it in the woods.

The biggest danger I face in the woods are slip and fall injuries, not animals or people. The second and third ranked dangers are poisonous snakes and the damned ticks. As a result, I keep a small first aid kit with me and enough stuff to spend the night in the woods if I need to, To date, there have been no unplanned over night stays in the woods.

 

[huntsman]

I maybe opening a can of worms by asking this. Why it has to be a revolver?

When I was a kid I used to tote the old man's Woodsman on campouts, until I lost a mag. After that I switched to a SA revolver .22lr, so that became my default woods gun platform except now it's a .45

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I live in the woods, 3/4s of a mile off the county road and often ride or hike deep in the hills. I may encounter a black bear -- and he'll leave as soon as he knows I'm there. I have encountered feral hogs, and they couldn't get away fast enough. So usually, I carry my Colt Woodsman -- and I've taken a bunch of squirrels and rabbits with this gun.

Sometimes, however, I'll carry my Colt New Service in .45 Colt -- just in case I encounter a feral hog that I can get to with a tractor to haul the carcass out.

 

[Deaf Smith]

My 'light' woods gun (plenty for all of Texas, but I don't hunt with it.)

My 'heavy' woods gun (either I'm deer hunting with it or I'm in BIG bear country.)

I can use .38/.44 bird shot, light .38/.44 specials, full house magnums of a wide range of weights in these two guns.

Deaf

 

[22250Rem]

A light woods gun for me is a 22 cal. Ruger Single 6 Convertible for the option of using 22 LR or 22 Mag.. For some of the more remote woods I sometimes frequent which are large tracts of wooded state land which hold a few black bears there's a 357 Magnum handload featuring a hard cast, gas checked, 180 gr. Flatnose that can be loaded into a Ruger Blackhawk and that should be enough for anything in the woods around here.

 

[Bad Ninja]

I try to use the right tool for the job.

Usually a .22 will suffice.
When in "large predator" territory,
This SA Ruger SBH in .44mag flavor will satisfy the Elmer in me and can handle pretty much anything.

 

[WYO]

All that is needed is a hard cast flat point bullet travelling at a speed that makes it capable of penetrating deep and breaking bone. The Buffalo Bore 9mm +P 147 grain HCFP Outdoorsman fired out of my Glock 19 (actual chrono 1058 f/s) penetrated 8-1 gallon water jugs before continuing to head down range. The Buffalo Bore .45 ACP +P 255 grain HCFP fired out of my Glock 30SF (actual chrono 925 f/s) penetrated 10-1 gallon jugs before continuing to head down range. Either is fine for my woods, which have no grizzlies. The Glock 19 weighs less, carries easier, shoots better, has better split times, and holds more rounds than the Glock 30. The 9mm also made a more explosive impact on the water jugs than the .45 due to the velocity differential.

 

[oldrevolverguy]

I carry a Glock 29 when in the woods whether in Texas, Oklahoma or Colorado. It is typically loaded with 180 grain Gold Dots at 1150 fps. I shoot it well and I am confident in my ability to use it effectively. I have never fired it outside the confines of the range and hope it stays that way. For me it is light and compact enough to not interfere with the experience of being outdoors. I see it as a part of the kit I carry whenever my wife and I go day hiking which includes a good blade, a powerful flashlight (X2), plenty of water, protein bars, first aid kit, fully charged cell phone, rain gear and TP. These items provide us with a sense of well being that allow my wife and I to enjoy nature.

 

[zb338]

My Grandson shot a 500 Lb. Black Bear with a 20 gauge 1100 Remington shotgun.
In New Jersey of all places. It took a gang to drag it out of the woods. One shot in
the neck with a rifled slug at about 15 yards.

Zeke

 

[ThomasT]

There is an almost identical thread on this over at TFL. A poster named "Deserted" posted my favorite response to this question. And it sounds like he really knows what he is talking about.

I've wandered the Sierra Nevada, the Northern Rockies, the Great Basin, and the Colorado Rockies on foot and horseback for over fifty years. Worked and lived in the woods, and currently live alone on the side of a high desert mountain, with no neighbors to speak of for miles in any direction. I have never felt unarmed with only a .22 SA revolver (a Colt New Frontier Buntline, if anyone is interested). I have very likely spent more time in the woods than 95% of posters here, and: Have never seen a mountain lion but one time in 1966 in California, and it was high-tailing it over the next ridge; saw a bear once in the Bitterroot mountains, scrambling to get away up the hillside. I see coyotes now and then but again, they are always making tracks away. I shot a rattler a couple years ago out in the yard, but have not come across any in my foot travels. All that said, these days I carry a .327 Federal on a Single Seven frame, as I can load for it cheaper than I can buy .22, and it is WAY more fun to shoot than any .22 and will do whatever task needs to be done out here in the desert. Two-legged varmints are more dangerous and concerning than any four-legged one.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hmmm . . . I hike and ride over the Ozarks, and I have seen many a black bear -- including in my back yard. I have seen one mountain lion, beau coup coyotes (okay -- I call 'em up). Rattlers are rare, but I know where a den is -- in the spring, as I hike the county road I occasionally find a young rattler (probably just hatched) crossing the road. And there are feral hogs and feral dogs -- my neighbor was held in his shop one day by a pack of dogs that wouldn't let him out for lunch.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

All that focus on velocity in the OP but not a word about accuracy and reliability. The best ammo in the world will do you no good unless you hit what you shoot at. (as I have said over and over)

 

[ThomasT]

For the last several years my choice for a woods and trail gun has been my Ruger single six 32 mag. I have two of these with adjustable sights and 5.5" barrels. And they are accurate. The 327 never appealed to me because I seldom load full power 32 mag loads. Most loads are hard lead at 1000fps. If I need more power than a 32 mag can give I just go up to the 38/357 class of gun.

Here in Tx about the most dangerous animal would be a hog. But the very few I have seen of them leave the area very fast when they know a human is around. I almost came face to face with a mountain lion once. But it spotted me before I saw it and it dived into the bushes and was gone. All I saw were its tracks where it jumped sideways from the trail. I worry much more about dope growers than I do animals.

I have been to Colorado several times to mule deer and elk hunt. The first time I went to Colorado I thought the woods and fields would be teeming with rabbits, squirrels, deer and other wildlife. I thought it would be like seeing game in Africa. I was shocked how many hours and miles you could walk and never see a single living thing other than a small bird ever so often. I saw far more deer than small game. There I think a bigger gun like a 357 and up would be a better choice.

In my Tx wood walks I see many times more small game than large game. Here a 32 mag or the same gun in 22/22 mag makes more sense. Your choice of woods gun really depends on the woods in question.

 

[CraigC]

Folks from the concrete jungles tend to favor service autos chambered in self defense cartridges. I don't. I've been hunting with handguns since childhood and prefer something that is capable of either taking game or defending against would-be predators. I also don't limit myself to 15yds. With that in mind, I arbitrarily dismiss the service auto for field use, save for a nice and accurate adjustable sighted 1911. Folks can tout the "firepower" of the Glock 20 all they want but they lack the precision I prefer. For me, a proper wilderness companion is a medium to large frame revolver with a minimum 4" barrel, chambering at least the .357Mag but a big bore would be preferred. Here is where I like the .38-40 (180-200gr), the .41Mag (~215gr), the .44Spl, .44Mag and .45Colt (~240-260gr). All loaded with cast bullets 1000-1200fps. These loads are more than capable of taking game up to elk and any black bear that walks.

If I'm in a place where a run-in with a big brown bear is possible, then I simply go up in bullet weight. Here is where a 330-360gr .44/.45 really shines. Contrary to popular belief, rifles are not more capable, they simply have more range and are easier to hit with. Also contrary to popular belief, shotgun slugs would be my absolute last choice.

 

[RPRNY]

....Contrary to popular belief, rifles are not more capable, they simply have more range and are easier to hit with. Also contrary to popular belief, shotgun slugs would be my absolute last choice.

Craig,

1) With the greatest of respect, I suggest that simply re-reading your own post above will necessarily dispel your own belief in the first of your erroneous contradictions of "popular belief" or, in this case, "wisdom". The very definition of "capable" would almost certainly include "more range and easier to hit with". Your preference for handguns may be well based, but suggesting that rifle and handgun are at least equally capable, outside your own obviously skilled hands, beggars belief. It certainly doesn't dispel popular wisdom.

2) Again, with the greatest of respect, your opinion and preferences do not constitute a credible basis for contradicting "popular belief". You may not like shotgun slugs. You may have excellent reasons why you prefer the handgun calibers/chamberings you reference. You may be better with them than a shotgun and slugs. All share-worthy personal opinions. You, however, are not the arbiter of popular wisdom.

Categoric dismissal of long guns is just a bridge too far.

 

[CraigC]

Craig,

1) With the greatest of respect, I suggest that simply re-reading your own post above will necessarily dispel your own belief in the first of your erroneous contradictions of "popular belief" or, in this case, "wisdom". The very definition of "capable" would almost certainly include "more range and easier to hit with". Your preference for handguns may be well based, but suggesting that rifle and handgun are at least equally capable, outside your own obviously skilled hands, beggars belief. It certainly doesn't dispel popular wisdom.

2) Again, with the greatest of respect, your opinion and preferences do not constitute a credible basis for contradicting "popular belief". You may not like shotgun slugs. You may have excellent reasons why you prefer the handgun calibers/chamberings you reference. You may be better with them than a shotgun and slugs. All share-worthy personal opinions. You, however, are not the arbiter of popular wisdom.

Categoric dismissal of long guns is just a bridge too far.

Bias and preference have nothing to do with it. I am still primarily a rifle hunter. I enjoy busting clays and wingshooting regularly. I bought four shotguns just last year. So I am not unfamiliar with any of these.

Bear defense does not happen at rifle ranges. Which negates the effective range of a rifle in this context, which is terminal effectiveness. In terminal effectiveness, a rifle gains you nothing. They are easier for most people to hit with and that is all. They are also notoriously difficult to fit into a holster. A heavy slug from a .44 or .45 (or bigger) gives up nothing to a rifle. "Conventional wisdom" is decidedly handgun-ignorant and heavy on myth.

Furthermore, shotgun slugs are TERRIBLY overrated. Yeah, people 'think' they're the Hammer of Thor. Lots of folks believe a lot of crap that isn't true. There's no magic here, shotguns are not exempt from the rules. They have the absolute worst shape imaginable. Even the Brenneke Black Magic has less sectional density than a round ball. The greatest penetrating rifle bullets have a sectional density well over .300. The greatest penetrating handgun bullets have a sectional density of around .270. A Black Magic is .161 or equivalent to a 110gr .308 and a 200gr .44 bullet. That is dismal. Anyone who knows anything about terminal ballistics, by experience or research, knows that sectional density is a critical factor affecting penetration. A projectile with the sectional density of a frisbee is not going to penetrate well. Testing proves this. My own testing showed t hat the Brenneke penetrated the same as a .45 Keith bullet that flattened and deformed significantly. Falling WELL short of the better handgun bullets. That is performance WAY out of proportion to the level of recoil and not in a good way. A shotgun slug may get the job done but it will fall well short of a good .44/.45 or .45-70. The idea that it is comparable or somehow superior is just not founded in reality.

 

[RPRNY]

Craig, Craig, Craig. Since your sources of affirmation and negation are "everybody" and "nobody", I will only rebut using your own criteria. 'Everybody' knows that long guns are preferable to hand guns in all but a few situations and conditions, none of which you have made a compelling case of application to this query. And 'nobody' believes that your narrow focus on sectional density is the only criteria by which this question can be answered.

So there.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know about "everybody and nobody" I just know about me. The one shotgun slug I shot for a test was a Foster slug fired into a piece of yellow pine board 2x8x16" leaned up against a cedar tree. The slug blew an impressive hole through the board, hit the tree and fell on the ground. I used to have that flattened out slug but now it has disappeared. But I was not overly impressed with it. But it flesh it would have been a different story I think.

But I feel that a 357 lead slug would have went through the board and buried up in the cedar tree. So does that make the 357 better? I don't know. But I do know I am a real fan of penetration over and above all especially when coupled with accuracy. And I don't care if that comes from a rifle, handgun or shotgun. I like bullets that dig deep on any game bigger than game that falls into the small game catagory.

But like in my earlier post I carry what I think fits the area I am exploring in. If I were in wilderness that just might contain big bears I would carry a big gun shooting big bullets. But for my area the smaller 22s and 32s suit me just fine.

 

[CraigC]

Craig, Craig, Craig. Since your sources of affirmation and negation are "everybody" and "nobody", I will only rebut using your own criteria. 'Everybody' knows that long guns are preferable to hand guns in all but a few situations and conditions, none of which you have made a compelling case of application to this query. And 'nobody' believes that your narrow focus on sectional density is the only criteria by which this question can be answered.

So there.

My "sources of affirmation and negation" are the experience of those who actually hunt with handguns, myself included. I said that sectional density was one of the most important factors affecting penetration, which is undeniable. While not all high sectional density bullets will penetrate well, ALL those that do have one thing in common, high sectional density. If you can name me one other cartridge/load that is a proven great penetrator against dangerous game but has a dismally low SD, I will eat my hat. I also said that nose shape was extremely important. The slug falls well short in that regard as well. A bullet must also be well balanced, another shortcoming of the slug. A 12ga slug would do a much better job if it were about twice as heavy as the Black Magic, which would make recoil horrendous but still not penetrate as well as a good handgun bullet. As evidenced by testing done with the Dixie Terminator.

I offer years of experience and virtually any book you read on the subject is going to jibe with my comments. Including the one featuring my article on this very subject. I tested various loads in SIMTEST ballistic media at considerable personal expense and meticulously recorded the results. And proponents of slugs offer what supporting evidence, exactly??? I've had this argument many times and the proponents of shotgun slugs NEVER have any supporting evidence. Just myth & legend masquerading as "fact".

Everybody who? Rifle hunters who believe in foot pounds??? This thread is about handguns for woods carry. Long guns are only preferable because they're easier for the average person to hit with. A heavy recoiling revolver is not something you just pick up and shoot for an afternoon and call yourself ready. It takes years of dedication to attain any level of proficiency. It represents a far greater challenge to master than the long gone and that is why few choose to do it. Same for handgun hunting where you won't be making any 300yd shots across a field.

I'm sorry but this is just more of the same ole crap we've been hearing about how puny handguns are for decades from folks who never gave them a chance and refuse to hear anything different. If you think a heavyweight big bore revolver bullet at 1200-1300fps gives up anything in terminal performance to a rifle, it's because you've never used one.

My position is as it has always been. Shotguns with slugs are oft-recommended because they are cheap & plentiful, most people already have a 12ga pump and it can do a respectable job. NOT because it's the best tool for the job. Respected bear guide Phil Shoemaker, who recently made headlines for killing a charging bear with a 9mm, says he'd rather have a .30-06 than ANY shotgun.