Camping with guns

[silverbullets]

I would just use the waste strap on your back pack. I love my G20 SF, it is the perfect woods gun and a great shooter. I am also out here in cali, I always open carry in the woods. :thumbup:

 

[bulgron]

I would just use the waste strap on your back pack. I love my G20 SF, it is the perfect woods gun and a great shooter. I am also out here in cali, I always open carry in the woods. :thumbup:

mmmm.... You mean "waist strap" right? How do you put a holster on that? Backpacking hip belts are pretty thick and tall.

 

[reconranger]

Have you shot the .500 or .460 Smiths yet?

Sure. The Smiths are a huge heavy piece of steel, and that helps. Plus, they have a compensator so that really helps the whip of the barrel. Big thing is that I don't like the guns ergonomics all that well. But, bigger is better, right!

I don't like the clunky chunky grip they put on the current crop of Ruger Alaskans, either. It tends to send the recoil straight back into your wrist. A little muzzle flip isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case, so I am on a hunt to find some of the older style grips that Ruger use to use. If all else fails, I am going to pull the old style grips off a couple of my older model SuperRedhawks, and put them on the Alaskans.

Old: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=GDWUTL2DD4K6sAP8g-W_Cg&ved=0CCUQ9QEwAw

New: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=GDWUTL2DD4K6sAP8g-W_Cg&ved=0CCcQ9QEwBA

 

[vchacon]

Depending on you waist strap you can get a kydex holster with a Tek-Lok or some other loop configuration.
http://www.blade-tech.com/Holsters-w-Tactical-Light-c-280.html

Just curious but is there any particular reasons you are chosing the full size over the compact. I was thinking of getting a 10mm but thought about the 29 with the 20 barrel. Easier to conceal if you needed to and a bit lighter. Felt recoil would increase which would be a down side.

 

[dogboye]

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.

A .45ACP or .357 will do whatever I need it to, and is usually the least I carry with me into the woods.

 

[Les Snyder]

a comment about holsters on rigs not secured to your body... they will move around a lot, and typically point at you when your release the straps... would suggest some form of kydex holster with a retention system, Safariland,Serpa,5.11 etc and the TekLocs work well....most do not consider the mass of a loaded magazine inserted when comparing weight of blasters, and the weight typically causes the pistol to rotate outward which points the big hole at you...see which way they point before you put one up the pipe...

 

[sambo.]

A huge help is if you are out in the hotter part of the day, when the snakes need to stay in the shade so they are off the trail. In winter, when they have hibernated, you can let your guard down a little, but I never take anything for granted.

we have kind of the opposite problem.

the hotter the weather, the faster our snakes move.

a brown snake in ~15C weather is kind of sluggish and can easily be avoided. come across the same snake when it's 45C and the damn thing moves like greased lightning.

even in winter daytime temps can still get up over 25C, so you never "safe" from snakes. even worse, they've been known to crawl into tents at night and curl up against the nice warm bodies therein. they give you one hell of a shock come morning.

one nice little tip (one i nabbed off Steve Irwin actually), a snakes strike is very precisly targeted when it launches. you only have to move ~1" backwards and it's strike will miss. i know this works as i've had to do it. still, i don't reccomend getting inside strike-range of any Australian snakes if you can possibly avoid it.

Sambo... I live in the approximate area that Swampdog does, and there must be an enclave of the .1% of the cotton mouth moccasins that don't know they are supposed to run...some are down right ornery

hehe. i know all about ornery snakes.

i'd still use a shovel or a knife lashed to a hiking staff over a gun.

on that note, i might look at making a snake-decapitator kind of head that can be slipped and locked onto the end of a staff.

all that said, it's been ages since i had to kill a snake. regular stamping of the feet does most of the job for me.

 

[bulgron]

Just curious but is there any particular reasons you are chosing the full size over the compact. I was thinking of getting a 10mm but thought about the 29 with the 20 barrel. Easier to conceal if you needed to and a bit lighter. Felt recoil would increase which would be a down side.

I have several reasons.

The weight difference between the 20 and the 29, unloaded, is only 3 ozs. Not nearly enough to swing me towards the 29. Because I live in CA and so am limited to 10 rnd mags, that means there is really only a 3 oz weight difference between the two for me even when loaded.

The longer barrel on the 20 will result in slightly higher pressures which means a slightly higher muzzle velocity and therefore a slightly bigger punch at the target. (370 m/s vs. 350 m/s in muzzle velocity, or in muzzle energy, 750 m/s vs. 670 m/s). Because I'm going to a 10mm for the bigger punch, it seems like I should get as much punch out of the package as is possible.

The bigger frame should make the 20 easier to handle on the recoil than the 29 (product reviews confirm this). Since shot placement is everything, the bigger frame wins.

Honestly, if I wanted to carry a 10mm concealed, I'd go with the 29. But I already have a Kimber Ultra Carry II (.45) and a Sig P229 (.40) that I can use for CCW purposes, so I don't really need this gun to conceal.

Of course, if I can get the 29 for significantly less money than the 20, I might decide to change my mind. But for now, the 20 has my attention.

 

[vchacon]

Good reasons. I think the longer barrel and the better ergonomics would be hard to beat. I shot the 9mm and .40 trios extensively but never shot any of the .45 or 10mm Glocks. I definitely agree with you on the longer barrel for higher velocity and better ergo for better placement. Since I haven't handled either one of the 10mm I'd have to before making a final decision for a carry pistol for myself. If you do get it out in the wild I hope you post how it worked out. I'd look forward to reading up on it.

Take it easy

 

[reconranger]

I've been thinking hard about a sidearm for hiking in the Sierra next summer. For size, weight and performance, I'm edging towards a Glock 20 (10mm). Ought to be good for just about anything I could possibly run into up there.

In general, I think you will find that revolvers make better "outdoor/trail" guns, and automatics make better "city" guns. If you are a dedicated frequent outdoorsman, I think it makes sense to look into getting a revolver as well. However, if you are only an occasional outdoorman or have limited funds and will only own one gun, then an automatic will have to do you.

If you are set on a 10mm Glock, do yourself a favor and get the 29, not the 20, and stay as stealthy as possible. You will be best off with a gun that will fit nicely in as small a fany pack as possible. That way, you can wear it and not attract any unwanted attention. Out on the trail or in camp....it just looks like a "natural" piece of your gear!

 

[vchacon]

Hey recon, just wondering what makes a revolver a better trail gun over a pistol, specifically a Glock.

I've seen an chamber open Glock rolled around in wet sand, picked up, smacked, loaded, and fire 30 rounds with out so much of a hiccup. The only time I've seen Glocks fail is with limpwristing. I've also seen a S&W and a Ruger revolver jam up. Having said that I have seen more pistols jam up, usually brand new ones or issued ones.

 

[bulgron]

In general, I think you will find that revolvers make better "outdoor/trail" guns, and automatics make better "city" guns. If you are a dedicated frequent outdoorsman, I think it makes sense to look into getting a revolver as well.

I understand about the revolver, and I was going to go that way, until I started looking into the Glock 20. I think that for the weight, performance and it's universally noted reliability, it is hard to find a revolver that beats the Glock 20. However, if I wanted to go even bigger than a 10mm (e.g. .44 mag) I'd definitely be looking into a wheel gun. But since there are no grizzlies where I'll be hiking, that really isn't necessary.

If you are set on a 10mm Glock, do yourself a favor and get the 29, not the 20, and stay as stealthy as possible. You will be best off with a gun that will fit nicely in a small to medium fanny pack. That way, you can wear it and not attract any unwanted attention. Out on the trail or in camp, it just looks like a "natural" piece of your gear.

Unfortunately, because of the legal and political situation in CA coastal counties, it is impossible for me to get a CCW. And I'm not willing to break the law by carrying a firearm concealed when loaded open carry is legally available to me.

If the state of california wants me to not go wandering around the Sierra Nevada with an openly carried firearm, they can damn well instruct the sheriffs and CLEOs in this state to start issuing CCWs to common folk such as myself.

In a few years I expect various legal battles both inside and outside of California to force the state to go to a CCW system that is effectively shall-issue, even if it is may-issue in name. If that happy day ever arrives, I'll seriously reconsider my carry options in the wilderness. But since they make a safepacker that will hold a Glock 20, I imagine that will continue to be my field gun even if the federal courts order California to pull its head out.

 

[vchacon]

Unfortunately, because of the legal and political situation in CA coastal counties, it is impossible for me to get a CCW. And I'm not willing to break the law by carrying a firearm concealed when loaded open carry is legally available to me.

In a few years I expect various legal battles both inside and outside of California to force the state to go to a CCW system that is effectively shall-issue, even if it is may-issue in name.

bulgron, living in So Cal I know exactly what you mean. I wish that day was here so I could get a CCW for the city and the wilderness. (not sure where I'd need it more )

 

[bulgron]

bulgron, living in So Cal I know exactly what you mean. I wish that day was here so I could get a CCW for the city and the wilderness. (not sure where I'd need it more )

City, without question.

 

[koyote]

I don't carry concealed in the bush, don't see a reason. A lot of people want to hide their civic duty, I don't.

In CA, having the same limits as most of the populace, it was obvious that carrying open was smarter. In NV, it's a lot easier to get a CCW, but there's no reason to bother trying to conceal.

That can of worms has been sitting staring at me for a while and someday maybe I'll post a whole thing about it.

I think the best hiking and field rigs are designed for use, not concealement.

There are several reasons that revolvers make better field/trail guns. It's far from exclusive, but:

in general, you get more accuracy. for raged work, the SA trigger pull will tend to be light, with - in general, better sighting.

shotshells and specific loads for the environs will be more reliable overall. SWCs are often very good things to have loaded up, and you won't have to worry about feed issues.

Stoppages generally just don't happen- a misfire can be handled by pulling the trigger again.

and lastly, while the thread as a whole is focussed on small, stubby, close range personal defense- in a trail gun, you want barrel. a 4 inch is about the lower end of what I'd carry unless I'm just tooling around the little parks with a .32 - barrel measurements in revolvers do NOT include the chambering (cylinder) whereas they do in autos. my 6 inch K-38 is really 6 inches. with an extra inch odd of sight radius on top of that. Barrel length has a huge impact on actual performance of the round, as well.

my 25 cents. But I carry a dinky ass .38

 

[Oakietree]

I live in California. I live in the woods. I have legal carried a glock 20 concealed for the past 5 years or so. This was taken a few minutes walk from my house.

I am not really worried about wild animals getting me. I am more worried about them getting away. I like being able to carry one hand gun and if the opportunity presents to take local big game then I am prepared. (pig hunting is open year round in CA)If I stumble open a situation where I need to defend myself or family then I am prepared.

Here are some modern balistic charts for the 10mm round.
Ballistic performance
Bullet weight/type Velocity Energy
150 gr (9.7 g) Nosler JHP 1,475 ft/s (450 m/s) 725 ft·lbf (983 J)
165 gr (10.7 g) Golden Saber HP 1,425 ft/s (434 m/s) 744 ft·lbf (1,009 J)
180 gr (12 g) Hornady XTP 1,350 ft/s (410 m/s) 728 ft·lbf (987 J)
200 gr (13 g) WFNGC HC 1,300 ft/s (400 m/s) 750 ft·lbf (1,020 J)
230 gr (15 g) WFNGC HC 1,120 ft/s (340 m/s) 641 ft·lbf (869 J)
Test barrel length: 4.6 in. For 6 inch barrel, add ~100 FPS[3]
Source: DoubleTap Ammunition C.I.P.[4] S.A.A.M.I.[

These are all substantially more powerful than the loaded down versions that most manufactures put out.

I have never had a problem keeping it concealed anywhere, including some very un-gun-friendly places.

Most, not all, but most pistols triggers are able to be fired from single action. Most stricker fired pistols are cocked by the slide. Most with an external hammer can be cocked like a revolver. The trigger on my G20 is better then my S&W mod 14 K-frame. Plus I have to cock the .38.

The worst stoppage I have ever seen was on a double action ruger revolver when a small object got wedged between the cylinder and frame. It had to be hammered open.

Javalina dont grow to 500lbs. They are not the same as wild pigs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccary

I like the g 20 because of the versitlity it offers. It is comforting in the woods or the city. I was born and raised in SoCal so I am familiar with city life.

I think the new SF Glocks are even better.

I also have a S&W 422 that travels w/ me most places. Its so light but still has a full size grip. I love that pistol.

Bulgron, I live in a "shall issue" coastal county in California, Maybe you should get a P.O.Box

Matt

 

[bulgron]

Bulgron, I live in a "shall issue" coastal county in California, Maybe you should get a P.O.Box

Matt

Sadly, just getting a P.O. Box won't do it.

I tell my wife we need to leave Silicon Valley at least once a week. She simply won't have anything to do with it.

Oh well!

If you see a middle aged guy out there backpacking with a Glock 20 strapped to him somewhere, just wave and say "hey".

 

[reconranger]

Hey recon, just wondering what makes a revolver a better trail gun over a pistol, specifically a Glock.

Going undergunned....is just inviting natural selection to work on you!

Mostly....the revolvers are available in big bore magnum calibers. I commented on this several times earlier in this thread, but with the advent of so many light/short barreled .44's, I don't see the upside in carrying anything else in black bear country. In really big bear country, you won't find any automatic that even comes close to matching the .454, .460, and .500, so absolutely no contest there (also says volumes about the strength of a revolver vs an automatic!).

In the "city", I definitely go with a Glock 22/27 combination! But, I don't carry the same knife in the city as I do in the bush....why would I insist on carrying the same handgun?

For example: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57773_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Everyone has to settle into what they personally like, and what will work for them. Years ago, guns I once dreamed about and thought were wonderful, I later discarded without a second thought (same goes for some women!). I have tried them all...and experience is the best teacher. After years of bashing around the winderness all over North America, this is what I'm going with....and I would recommend it to any dedicated oudoorsman!

 

[bulgron]

Going undergunned, is just inviting natural selection to work on you!

Mostly....the revolvers are available in big bore magnum calibers. I commented on this several times earlier in this thread, but with the advent of so many light/short barreled .44's, I don't see the upside in carrying anything else in black bear country.

The problem with light/short barreled .44s is that you have to be able to control them. From watching people at the range (I'm a RSO), I'd say that the vast majority of shooters are not capable of controlling a piece like that. Worse, they probably hurt to shoot, which means people won't practice with them.

Shot placement is everything. If you can't control your firearm, there's no point in carrying it.

Here's an account of a hunting guide in Alaska who had to shoot a problem black bear (~500lbs) with a Glock 20. Based on this account, and other research, I'm comfortable with the Glock 20 as a field gun in the lower 48. If I was wandering in grizzly country, then I'd carry a shotgun loaded with slugs, and a Ruger Super Redhawk with a 6" barrel in .44 magnum for backup.

But as you said, everyone has to carry what they're comfortable with. I admire shooters who can control and reliably hit with a lightweight, short barreled revolver in big bore magnum caliber. Most people can't do that. I'm not sure I could even do that, and I've been shooting most of my life.

 

[reconranger]

The problem with light/short barreled .44s is that you have to be able to control them. From watching people at the range (I'm a RSO), I'd say that the vast majority of shooters are not capable of controlling a piece like that. Worse, they probably hurt to shoot, which means people won't practice with them.

Shot placement is everything. If you can't control your firearm, there's no point in carrying it.

I guess I made a mistake! I don't disagree that the "vast majority of shooters" should not have or will ever need a big magnum....but I thought anyone who would be in a forum like this would be a dedicated rugged outdoorsman, who was willing to put in the time to practice with their gun, control their firearm, develop great shot placement even under stress, and wouldn't mind if their hand hurt a little! Anybody still has a pair of nuts out there???