What handgun for general outdoors use...

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // I think you should stick with the 686.

My 6" S&W 586 has served me well as a woods carry handgun.


I add three speed loaders of various ammo to a belt pouch.
In the cylinder, first round is .38 birdshot, next five are Fiochhi 142gr. Truncated FMJ.

I tried several types of ammo, including Buffalo Bore 180gr HC.
The 142gr proved accurate with quicker follow up shots, especially one handed if necessary.

 

[CraigC]

The fat people in Denver breath thinner air and work harder climbing the stairs to their apartment.

Condecenscion noted. Last I checked, Kentucky is nowhere near the Rockies.

...when you intend to live on what you have for 5 days a pound does make a difference.

Not if you value your self preservation more than comfort and convenience.

 

[CAS700850]

To clarify a few things...
1. I'm not in the market for a new handgun. At least not for this trip, thank you.
2. At this point, I'm thinking Glock 21 or Smith 686. They are similar in weight, when loaded. Right now, my Glock weight just over 38 oz. loaded, and the Smith weighs around 44 oz.
3. I plan on using Blazer aluminum case ammunition. The weight difference is impressive, and I have no function problems in prior experience with either gun.
4. I'm planning on buying a SafePacker holster, which is, in my opinion, one of the best carry methods for outdoors use on the market.

The reason for my questioning was to debate the revolver vs. auto for outdoorsman use. In the past, my thought was that the ability to function without a magazine made the revolver superior. With years of gun experience and CCW under my belt, I think that I may have overemphasized the "problem" with magazines. If I pack the gun and a couple of mags, especially for just a few days of hiking and camping, I've got nothing to worry about. Anyone disagree?

And, as for the hike, it's pretty hilly at Daniel Boone National Forest, and can get pretty remote. but, as said above, it's not the Himalayas.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, the magazine issue is really not one. The difference is a revolver like your 686 offers far superior sights, greater accuracy and a better trigger for outdoor use. I require a packin' pistol to be capable of easily hitting a small target at 50yds. Something very difficult with your average service pistol, which is best for larger targets (like 2-legged varmints) at much shorter ranges. Which means, self defense. So I reckon what we're seeing here is a distinct difference between different shooter's needs and expectations. Perhaps some may have a rather narrow frame of reference.

 

[Shadow 7D]

It depends on you, short of wading a mud hole or braving a sand storm, there really isn't much difference, which one do you trust, which one do you like more etc. I'm an auto guy, so you know my choice, If you want to plink, afew boxes of .22 and a conversion isn't that much more weight.

 

[bhk]

My favorite hiking gun is a SW 60 .357 with a full-lugged 3" barrel and adjustable sights. Light and very easy to shoot accurately when shot single action. My next choice is my 4" SW66. These guns, when shot single action, are much easier to shoot accurately than the typical service auto. My informal rule is revolvers for the country and autos for town. I break the pattern sometimes, but not often.

 

[kingcheese]

Honestly, I don't see the whole "autoloader failing" as a decent reason not to take one with you. How many police departments have a revolver as standard issue?

how many officers carry a second gun for backup?

Then, why not just leave the fancy autoloader and extra mags at home?

because the autoloader magazine is easy to keep on you then a speed loader

got me there If weight didn't matter in backpacking then you wouldn't see the obsessive counting of oz's. when choosing gear and the presence of scales when gear is sorted and packed, this isn't so important on a simple overnighter up to a fishing lake but when you intend to live on what you have for 5 days a pound does make a difference

what good is loosing a pound if it gets you killed for beng under prepared, honestly on this short of a trip you save weight by ditching a lot of extra clothes, electronics and the sort, when i go on a trip like this, i have a set of clothes, a jacket, a small tent, a rope, a knife, water, food, first aid kit, all that together is whopping 40-50 pounds, i weigh 280, im not going to struggle with an extra pound, and most people wont, weight isnt really the name of the game, size is, and a gun can be strapped anywhere

well im done ranting.

if you are going to stick to one gun, and its going to be a gun you already own, id still rather have the revolver, because its simple in a mechanical sense, and near impossible to make fail if loaded properly and remotely clean

a glock is somewhat complicated, and when you think about it, you would almost expect it to fail more often, its a good design, just i little over engineered

 

[yhtomit]

If you bring a .357 and a .22 in identically framed revolvers, I'd rather be the one carrying the (ammo for the) .22

This whole thread is making me remember that I need to brush up on where I can carry, when it comes to parks / hiking. Haven't gone on a hiking trip in long enough that I think things have changed.

timothy

 

[doc2rn]

I often carried on walk abouts, but the prefferred metal has always been a 3" in either .44 or .357. The one .22 I routinely take everywhere (or so it seems) is my Ruger Standard. It goes everywhere and has taken quite the beating, but I know that gun inside and out.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

how many officers carry a second gun for backup?

I'd guess the majority don't...I've been OTJ for nearly 2 decades and don't know any that do.

 

[Deaf Smith]

A good GP100 like mine! Or Security Six!

Get a used one at a pawn shop. Skip paying $500 $600 bucks!

Deaf