Camping with guns

[Cpl Punishment]

I didn't read bernoulli's statement as "profiency is the ONLY importance"

I wasn't talking directly about Bernoulli's statement, which is why I didn't quote it.

I'm talking about the internet tendency for people to polarize, and make outlandish claims to both extremes, and tend not to take environment into account.

For instance, some will go the small route, claiming that a .22 is all they need, including for two-legged critters (sorry, man), but it isn't true. Then they'll claim that more people are killed with a .22 than anything else. But the folly in that argument is that the majority of those are suicides or murders where the bullet is shot into one of the few places it'll actually do the trick. There's been far too many cases of people trying to fight -- with whatever type animal -- with a .22 and it didn't even penetrate to the brain cavity.

So, a choice based solely on proficiency, is a poor one, if it leads you to pick a caliber in which the bullet is incapable of reaching the vitals of the target you're intending it for.


Now, the choice based solely on power. Yes, in most cases, it's folly to buy the biggest hand cannon you can find if you simply can't control it. Misses in any caliber won't do the trick, ever. However, there is an exception: Brown bear country (grizz is a subset of brown bears). The reason people pack BIG handguns in addition to long guns, is that there are many reasons by which you won't be able top use a long gun, or use it effectively. Most of these are because of the close proximity of the target. When a bear is at biting your head off distance, you don't need to be a great shot (it'll be hard to miss), but you DO need something that will penetrate very thick layers of fat, muscle and bone, and destroy the vitals. If you don't have such, you'll just piss it off.

Is that a little clearer?

I think I also mentioned taking your environment into consideration. MOST of us here, do not live in an area where a handcannon is required. Black Bear are nothing like browns (or polar bears).

The most versatile handgun cartridge for the lower 48, Hawaii, and most of Canada is the .357 Magnum. You can go from 125-gr to 180-gr bullets, depending on what you're wanting to kill. You can use .38Spl on medium to small game, and shot shells for small game and snakes. You can have a mix of shells loaded at once, you can have speedloaders with specialty ammo ready to go, and since you aren't relying on a recoil spring to actuate the action, you can go from baby-soft loads to hand-bleeders with a simple reload.

.45 Colt and .44 Magnum are also great, and recoil isn't as "snappy" with the .44 Magnum, and there's plenty of sub-maximum magnum loads and Spl loads and shot shells available.


Personally, i like to run a change-up. Meaning one big, one small. Either a full power rifle or shotgun and a .22Mag Handgun, or a .22 Mag rifle and a centerfire handgun (right now, my Glock 21, but when I get the funds I'm getting another 4" GP-100 .357). All the bases covered, either way.

Just because I see them as the most versatile, doesn't mean I think they are the only choices.

AGAIN, let me state, for those who may have forgotten, my view: PICK WHAT'S RIGHT FOR YOUR AREA.

 

[Smash05]

I wasn't talking directly about Bernoulli's statement, which is why I didn't quote it.

I'm talking about the internet tendency for people to polarize, and make outlandish claims to both extremes, and tend not to take environment into account.

For instance, some will go the small route, claiming that a .22 is all they need, including for two-legged critters (sorry, man), but it isn't true. Then they'll claim that more people are killed with a .22 than anything else. But the folly in that argument is that the majority of those are suicides or murders where the bullet is shot into one of the few places it'll actually do the trick. There's been far too many cases of people trying to fight -- with whatever type animal -- with a .22 and it didn't even penetrate to the brain cavity.

So, a choice based solely on proficiency, is a poor one, if it leads you to pick a caliber in which the bullet is incapable of reaching the vitals of the target you're intending it for.


Now, the choice based solely on power. Yes, in most cases, it's folly to buy the biggest hand cannon you can find if you simply can't control it. Misses in any caliber won't do the trick, ever. However, there is an exception: Brown bear country (grizz is a subset of brown bears). The reason people pack BIG handguns in addition to long guns, is that there are many reasons by which you won't be able top use a long gun, or use it effectively. Most of these are because of the close proximity of the target. When a bear is at biting your head off distance, you don't need to be a great shot (it'll be hard to miss), but you DO need something that will penetrate very thick layers of fat, muscle and bone, and destroy the vitals. If you don't have such, you'll just piss it off.

Is that a little clearer?

I think I also mentioned taking your environment into consideration. MOST of us here, do not live in an area where a handcannon is required. Black Bear are nothing like browns (or polar bears).

The most versatile handgun cartridge for the lower 48, Hawaii, and most of Canada is the .357 Magnum. You can go from 125-gr to 180-gr bullets, depending on what you're wanting to kill. You can use .38Spl on medium to small game, and shot shells for small game and snakes. You can have a mix of shells loaded at once, you can have speedloaders with specialty ammo ready to go, and since you aren't relying on a recoil spring to actuate the action, you can go from baby-soft loads to hand-bleeders with a simple reload.

.45 Colt and .44 Magnum are also great, and recoil isn't as "snappy" with the .44 Magnum, and there's plenty of sub-maximum magnum loads and Spl loads and shot shells available.


Personally, i like to run a change-up. Meaning one big, one small. Either a full power rifle or shotgun and a .22Mag Handgun, or a .22 Mag rifle and a centerfire handgun (right now, my Glock 21, but when I get the funds I'm getting another 4" GP-100 .357). All the bases covered, either way.

Just because I see them as the most versatile, doesn't mean I think they are the only choices.

AGAIN, let me state, for those who may have forgotten, my view: PICK WHAT'S RIGHT FOR YOUR AREA.

+1 very well articulated.

 

[Zombie Zeke]

Every time I am out hiking I have a knife on me, in my tent or vehicle is usually a .45 ACP S&W M&P stoked with 230 gr Starfires.

 

[sams]

In the 60's when I was a camper, I had some real experiences that I won't go into because it resulted in blood shed.

Now that conceal carry is pretty much in all my surroundinding states, I rarely have trouble. 5 years ago, I was chased off my fishing spot in Mosquito Lagoon. I had a locked and loaded 45 acp on my hip under my shirt. I apologized for taking "their " spot and politley requested a few minutes to pick up my bait and poles.

They waited, drinking their beer in the cab of the truck, cussing me to hurry up.

 

[Kirk_Ferentz]

Koyote, you really think that a .357 is all you would ever need in California? I have never really run into any dangerous animals in California other than seeing a few rattlers and a mountain lion and a coyote right near me (okay I guess I have ... but I actually went after the coyote to take a look, I'm just excited to see them), but I have heard that the javalina can easily get up to 4 or 500 pounds, and if one of those beasts were bearing down on me, I don't even know if I would feel great with a .44 mag aimed at him. I'd feel the same way about a black bear.

And yes, I recognize that you can easily take a bear or javalina with a .357, but killing power and stopping power are very different things, especially when a boar is on the dead run and in a fury. I mean don't safari hunters use huge calibers (what are they? .600 nitro express or something?) that you would expect for pacaderms to hunt dangerous cats for this reason?

 

[koyote]

Koyote, you really think that a .357 is all you would ever need in California? I have never really run into any dangerous animals in California other than seeing a few rattlers and a mountain lion and a coyote right near me (okay I guess I have ... but I actually went after the coyote to take a look, I'm just excited to see them), but I have heard that the javalina can easily get up to 4 or 500 pounds, and if one of those beasts were bearing down on me, I don't even know if I would feel great with a .44 mag aimed at him. I'd feel the same way about a black bear.

And yes, I recognize that you can easily take a bear or javalina with a .357, but killing power and stopping power are very different things, especially when a boar is on the dead run and in a fury. I mean don't safari hunters use huge calibers (what are they? .600 nitro express or something?) that you would expect for pacaderms to hunt dangerous cats for this reason?

I'd much rather have a .44 special with handloads over a .357 against pig in norcal. BUT, the times I've been out in that country, I've had a shotgun. I have a 20 inch brush gun that's quite handy.

Out here in Nevada, I'm happy with the .38 for anything where I'm not toting a long gun.

I've been javelina hunting, with a .270, and tagged 2. They can be a scary beast, but I've not seen them at 500 pounds out in the desert.

right now the family is getting ready for a quick desert walk out past grimes point here, and I'm taking the mauser HSc today.

 

[reconranger]

Another story....A friend was out deer hunting with a .308 rifle, in the Coast Range of south central California (San Luis Obispo County). He worked his way down a heavily brushed hillside (poor visability!), and at the bottom found himself standing between a mother bear and her two cubs. The mom charged, and he had to fire three shots to stop her! Now, if it takes three shots from a .308 rifle that produces 2650 ft-lbs of energy to put down a wimpy little "California" bear, just how effective do you think a .357 that produces only 600 ft-lbs is going to be??? I would say the .357 is the bear minimum. For the record, he now carries a 4" .357 revolver as a "backup" gun.

The theme here seems to be that everyone wants to shy away from the big bore magnums. I'm out shooting these for "fun" most any weekend, so I guess I don't personally see what the objection is....except for the size and heft (poor packability) of some of the guns.

 

[Mountainman38]

Actually, in and of themselves both of these statements are foolish:

1.) You need a cannon of such and such a caliber and so and so muzzle velocity and energy (you actually need the momentum, not the energy, but no one calculates that)

2.) You need maximum proficiency.

Why are they, in and of themselves, foolish? Because like all things Internet, people always go to the extreme of one and exclude the other. You'll have one guy arguing that you need a revolver in .45-70 (ever try shooting one?), and the other that wants to take on grizz with a .22LR because he's soooo accurate with one (ever try to stop anything of any real size with a .22LR?).

When in fact, what you need is a gun that is powerful enough, that you are also proficient with.

In reality, last I checked, there's less than 400 grizz in CONUS. I've camped in those places, and seen plenty of sign (front paw prints the size of dinner plates, rear paws that looked like it was wearing wheel rims as shoes), and NEVER saw a grizz. They'd run a commando raid into our camp at night -- waking NO ONE -- see there's no food and move on. Eerie feeling. But I think that grizz learned to fear man in CONUS, after being hunted to near extinction.

In certain arts of Canada and Alaska, such is not the case. They are above you on the food chain and know it. Talking to people who lived in AK, they all said the same thing, the top three guns were a .338 Win Mag rifle, a 12 gauge stoked with Brenneke hard slugs, or a .45-70 all long guns. If you were stuck with only a handgun, a .44 Mag was considered marginal, a .454 much better. It was a simply fact of life that you learned to shoot them well by shooting them, not pussyfooting with light calibers hoping your proficiency would transfer when the bear stuff hit the fan.

So, if you live there, you darn well better get a big lead thrower and you'd better get proficient with it.

Anywhere else, a .357/10mm will do anything you need, unless you want to hunt bears or moose with a handgun, where a .44 Mag would be a good idea.


Wilderness topics really always boil down to one decision making process:

Determine what is needed where you live, and become proficient with it. Doesn't matter if it's knives, axes, guns, shelter, etc.

Very well spoken. It's always bothered me when people say that the most important thing is a gun you're comfortable with, and for the very reasons you've listed.

I'm far more comfortable shooting my .22's, and pretty accurate with them, but I carry my 10MM (that I'm decently accurate with) when I'm hiking/camping/biking in the woods. I don't have grizzly to worry about, so I don't need the 45/70.

If I go to griz country, I'd want that 45/70 with Garrett rounds, or a S&W 500 in a chest holster.

 

[sambo.]

omg. i just have to laugh at American's love of huge calibre guns.

the "standard" rifle round used in Australia is the .223. it's the calibre of choice for vast the majority of professional 'roo shooters.

there are quite a few who use a .222. i myself have taken >75kg boars with a single .222 shot. it all comes down to marksmanship.

the .22-250 is seeing some more regular use among the roo shooter fraternity, but the .223 and .222 are more popular simply because loads are so cheap.

in bigger calibres, the venerable .303 British has a cult status in Australia (it was the weapon of choice in WWI and WWII and is still in service in the Australian military to this day).

bottom line is: it doesn't really matter what calibre you shoot. a well placed shot with a smaller calibre is going to do substantially more damage than a badly placed shot (or a flat out miss) with a cannon.

marksmanship > rifle power.

 

[reconranger]

omg. i just have to laugh at American's love of huge calibre guns.

the "standard" rifle round used in Australia is the .223. it's the calibre of choice for vast the majority of professional 'roo shooters.

there are quite a few who use a .222. i myself have taken >75kg boars with a single .222 shot. it all comes down to marksmanship.

the .22-250 is seeing some more regular use among the roo shooter fraternity, but the .223 and .222 are more popular simply because loads are so cheap.

in bigger calibres, the venerable .303 British has a cult status in Australia (it was the weapon of choice in WWI and WWII and is still in service in the Australian military to this day).

bottom line is: it doesn't really matter what calibre you shoot. a well placed shot with a smaller calibre is going to do substantially more damage than a badly placed shot (or a flat out miss) with a cannon.

marksmanship > rifle power.

Better stay in Australia where you are safe! We are talking about life and death defensive shooting under extreme stress against a large predatory carnivore, not some carefully aimed lung shot taken while hunting. There is no way to equate the two!

I think most folks just don't want to get caught up in an "arms race" when selecting a gun. Of a truth, most folks who are not into shooting and will rarely if ever practice, are best off with a .38+P revolver for protection from humans. But they will be better off with bear spray out in the woods, than that .38.

 

[koyote]

Another story....A friend was out deer hunting with a .308 rifle, in the Coast Range of south central California (San Luis Obispo County). He worked his way down a heavily brushed hillside (poor visability!), and at the bottom found himself standing between a mother bear and her two cubs. The mom charged, and he had to fire three shots to stop her! Now, if it takes three shots from a .308 rifle that produces 2650 ft-lbs of energy to put down a wimpy little "California" bear, just how effective do you think a .357 that produces only 600 ft-lbs is going to be??? I would say the .357 is the bear minimum. For the record, he now carries a 4" .357 revolver as a "backup" gun.

The theme here seems to be that everyone wants to shy away from the big bore magnums. I'm out shooting these for "fun" most any weekend, so I guess I don't personally see what the objection is....except for the size and heft (poor packability) of some of the guns.

You are confusing foot pounds with killing force. I'd love to get into the actual details, mechanics, and odd randomness of bullet impacts with you, but....

Based on your general level of rudeness, I'm going to pass.

I'd like to politely ask you to tone it down. Way down.

 

[sodak]

omg. i just have to laugh at American's love of huge calibre guns.

the "standard" rifle round used in Australia is the .223. it's the calibre of choice for vast the majority of professional 'roo shooters.

there are quite a few who use a .222. i myself have taken >75kg boars with a single .222 shot. it all comes down to marksmanship.

the .22-250 is seeing some more regular use among the roo shooter fraternity, but the .223 and .222 are more popular simply because loads are so cheap.

in bigger calibres, the venerable .303 British has a cult status in Australia (it was the weapon of choice in WWI and WWII and is still in service in the Australian military to this day).

bottom line is: it doesn't really matter what calibre you shoot. a well placed shot with a smaller calibre is going to do substantially more damage than a badly placed shot (or a flat out miss) with a cannon.

marksmanship > rifle power.

Laugh all you like, a well placed shot with a cannon is going to do substantially more damage than a well placed shot with a small caliber, especially on large game and bear. Don't assume that just because someone is carrying a large caliber rifle or pistol that they don't know how to use it. My Casull is very, very accurate, and can easily take anything on this continent with the right load.

 

[Zombie Zeke]

Another story....A friend was out deer hunting with a .308 rifle, in the Coast Range of south central California (San Luis Obispo County). He worked his way down a heavily brushed hillside (poor visability!), and at the bottom found himself standing between a mother bear and her two cubs. The mom charged, and he had to fire three shots to stop her! Now, if it takes three shots from a .308 rifle that produces 2650 ft-lbs of energy to put down a wimpy little "California" bear, just how effective do you think a .357 that produces only 600 ft-lbs is going to be??? I would say the .357 is the bear minimum. For the record, he now carries a 4" .357 revolver as a "backup" gun.

The theme here seems to be that everyone wants to shy away from the big bore magnums. I'm out shooting these for "fun" most any weekend, so I guess I don't personally see what the objection is....except for the size and heft (poor packability) of some of the guns.

Bears are weird critters two summers ago I chased off a good size Black Bear in the Sequoia's at two in the morning with an entrenching tool and harsh language from our campsite after some of the kids left out the mini donuts. I had my pistol on me but didn't see the point in killing something I knew I didn't have to.

As far as bears go, I've been in the California mtns all up and down the state enough to know that a gun is good, a bear bell and combined with common sense make for a better all around package, for me.

 

[Codger_64]

I haven't a clue what a .357 will do to a bear, black, brown or grizz. But I do know well what it will do to a deer. Even at substantially lower velocities when launched from my 700ML, it will put the smack-down on them. From my 6" Ruger wheel gun, a head shot is devastating. As has been stated again and again, shot placement is of prime importance. Practice makes that more likely.

Is that the caliber I would choose for hunting bears? Not bloody likely! The one bear I have faced with a pistol, I had an 1851 Colt Sheriff in .36 cal. When the bear charged I fired three shots into the ground, which the bear ignored, and I made a fast escape while the bear stopped to ravage my camp.

 

[hoopster]

I carry when I mow the yard, shop, go to church, and, yep, it's on me on vacation - where legal.


Stainz

Ditto. :thumbup:

 

[reconranger]

You are confusing foot pounds with killing force. I'd love to get into the actual details, mechanics, and odd randomness of bullet impacts with you, but....

Based on your general level of rudeness, I'm going to pass.

I'd like to politely ask you to tone it down. Way down.

What you are ACTUALLY saying is that anyone who disagrees with YOU needs to tone it down!!!

 

[reconranger]

Bears are weird critters two summers ago I chased off a good size Black Bear in the Sequoia's at two in the morning with an entrenching tool and harsh language from our campsite after some of the kids left out the mini donuts. I had my pistol on me but didn't see the point in killing something I knew I didn't have to.

As far as bears go, I've been in the California mtns all up and down the state enough to know that a gun is good, a bear bell and combined with common sense make for a better all around package, for me.

I have had a bear walk right through my campsite in broad daylight. I also once rode my mountain bike right up to a bear in the shadows at sunrise...close enough to touch him. (From a distance I thought he was the neighbors very large dog, and I was concentrating on climbing the hill not on the "dog"!). He was way more scared than I was, and bolted off the trail into the brush.

Our rule is that if it comes to that, the first round goes into the ground (unless someone is actually being attacked). If all the noise and confusion doesn't send the animal running, then we can get more serious. The worst thing would be a wounded bear runing around the woods.

 

[koyote]

What you are ACTUALLY saying is that anyone who disagrees with YOU needs to tone it down!!!

Not at all. I expect disagreement. I'm quite used to people telling me that if I'm not packing a .44magnum I'm guilty of child neglect.

What I will do, is call you on telling people they are stupid, bigotry based on nationalism, or anything else that's just rude. your tone has been rude from the third or fourth post. (before that I actually wanted to talk about the unloaded carry of firearms in CA with you because you've got a few things backwards that most cops don't even know)

I've had numerous differences of opinion on the forums, and very few actual fights.

Now, please stop telling me what I am saying, because you aren't in my head. Go about your business.

 

[coyotebc]

When I was younger, I never thought of camping with a gun. But due to the present climate, I have strongly considered it. What do you think? I'm not as worried about the animals of the 4 legged variety, as I am with the 2 legged ones. What weapons, if any, would you recommend? Any opinions would be appreciated.

Depends on your area.
Where I live you cannot carry a handgun, so for me my choices are limited to long guns.
The two that I use the most is a Marlin in 44 mag, it is small, fun to plink with and effective (a 357 would be good as well).
My other one is a mossberg 500 with 18 1/2 inch barrel, the only thing I don't like is that it has a bead instead of ghost ring sites.
If I had a bear gnawing on a buddy and I had no choice but to shoot, I think I would have better luck not hitting my buddy with a single projectile fired from a sighted firearm than shot from a bead sited shotgun.

When camping in grizzly country I most often use a winchester model 94 in 450 marlin.

My camp guns normally stay in camp when I am out hiking though

 

[sambo.]

Better stay in Australia!

happily.

why would i want to go anywhere else when i'm already in the greatest place on earth?

We are talking about life and death defensive shooting under extreme stress against a large predatory carnivore, not some carefully aimed lung shot taken while hunting. There is no way to equate the two!

the only large, human eating carnivores we have in Oz are the Saltwater Crocodile and Sharks.

in either case, you'll only get eaten if your either very unlucky, or very, VERY stupid. (swimming an a Northern Territory waterhole at night counts as extreme stupidity).

Laugh all you like, a well placed shot with a cannon is going to do substantially more damage than a well placed shot with a small caliber, especially on large game and bear.

ok, i'll keep laughing at you.

fyi: i never said a well placed shot with a smaller calibre does more damage than a well placed shot with a larger calibre.

kindly don't put words in my mouth.

Don't assume that just because someone is carrying a large caliber rifle or pistol that they don't know how to use it.

when and where did i make this kind of statement?

i never assume anything, when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.