Camping with guns

[koyote]

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.

More than that. While I acknowledge that the thread has become "what do you use to shoot bear at 5 yards or less" instead of "what to carry while camping" - I'll harp on my point a little more. The sight radius on a 2.5 inch barreled .44 is goign to make it very difficult to use the firearm for anything but 5 yard or closer bear defense.

But even more to the point- at 3 inches of barrel, you are losing 15-20%* (depends a lot on load) of muzzle velocity performance** versus a 6 inch revolver. If having a big enough ultramagnum destroyer caliber is that big a deal, why on earth rape it by going for a barrel length under 4 inches?



*I'm being conservative, some of the charts I'm looking at for .44 magnum specifically show closer to a 300 fps drop in muzzle velocity between 2.5 and 6 inch. As I said, and I can't stress enough, because you need to read it- it depends on load!.


** muzzle velocity is not exactly the same as calculating muzzle energy
A useful example follows: (based on reports of a .44 magnum load from 7 and 2.5 inches)

240 grain with a MV of 1250 fps = 833 foot pounds

240 grain with a mv of 850 fps = 385 foot pounds

(I get right at 300 foot pounds with 160 grain lead out of my .38 special in a +p loading, for reference)

math, it's delicious

 

[Melvin-Purvis]

Mid 70's J.P. Sauer & Sohn German made .44Mag SAA 5.5" w/Buffalo Bore 305gr. hard cast solids - may not be the best game in town, but it works for me.

These photos were taken a few days ago while hiking in the Swan Mountain Range or NW Montana - my back yard, prime Grizzly country. We've had our first dusting of snow, late season huckleberries are out, and the bears are fattening up...

Also, FWIW, I had a very aggressive, drunk, large young man (6'3 230 or so) get his head and shoulders into my tent up in Yosemite a few years back around 2am; wanted to have a word with my late wife IIRC - a steel .45 1911 banged into his forehead cured his amorous ways pretty quick...

Guns and camping go together like peas and carrots in my book.

 

[termiteslayer]

Pepper spray at the least. It can be more effective for someone not proficient with a firearm. Don't bring a gun if you're a spaz. Be honest with yourself about your limitations.
I try to have at least some kind of defense.
Years ago I was on a bicycle tour down the Pacific Coast.
One day I set up camp, a truck pulled over, two guys got out and beat the living shit out of me. Guess they just felt like kicking the shit out of somebody. I'm lucky to have made it out alive and my right leg is permanently damaged.

The moral, you ask?
Be prepared.

Always did want a 41 mag...

 

[bulgron]

I guess I made a mistake! I don't disagree that the "vast majority of shooters" should not have or 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! Who still has a pair of nuts out there???

Got a bit of an attitude on you, don't ya?

Plenty of newbies floating around this forum. In fact, that's why newbies come here ... to learn.

70% of the population in California lives in highly populated areas where being a "dedicated rugged outdoorsman" is difficult to be.

The decision to carry a firearm, and what firearm to carry, should never be about whether you've got balls. Leave the testosterone poisoning at home. Carry the gun that is appropriate for your environment, and that you are comfortable with.

And never go up a trail with someone who carries a specific gun because it makes him feel special or like a man or something equally obnoxious.

 

[bulgron]

More than that. While I acknowledge that the thread has become "what do you use to shoot bear at 5 yards or less" instead of "what to carry while camping" - I'll harp on my point a little more. The sight radius on a 2.5 inch barreled .44 is goign to make it very difficult to use the firearm for anything but 5 yard or closer bear defense.

But even more to the point- at 3 inches of barrel, you are losing 15-20%* (depends a lot on load) of muzzle velocity performance** versus a 6 inch revolver. If having a big enough ultramagnum destroyer caliber is that big a deal, why on earth rape it by going for a barrel length under 4 inches?

These are excellent points. If you need the power of a .44 mag, then why would you neuter it with a 2.5 inch barrel?

2.5 inch barrelled firearms have a place, given the modern movement towards CCW. But then, you probably are defending against humans and maybe dogs, not bears. If so, a .38 - .45 should do the trick. No need to go to a .44 mag. In fact, given the energy loss on a probable through and through from a .44 mag against a human predator, it's probably the exact wrong weapon to pick for in-town self defense purposes.

 

[Melvin-Purvis]

TS, in my early 20's I used to thumb all over the western states; from the interior of Mexico into BC, Canada - from the Pacific ocean to east Texas, from El Paso to Sheridan, WY. and all points between. I learned early on to be wary of two or more young guys as it was almost always gonna be trouble.

The single gay guys didn't bother me much as they always took no to mean no (although there were a few real creeps), couples were fine, and I was always happy (and surprised) when a single woman or group of girls gave me a lift - but two young guys, man, that almost always meant trouble.

So yeah, you're right, be prepared - and that doesn't just mean having the tools and the willingness to use them, but also the ability to 'share' that willingness with those that would do you harm...

 

[termiteslayer]

TS, in my early 20's I used to thumb all over the western states; from the interior of Mexico into BC, Canada - from the Pacific ocean to east Texas, from El Paso to Sheridan, WY. and all points between. I learned early on to be wary of two or more young guys as it was almost always gonna be trouble.

The single gay guys didn't bother me much as they always took no to mean no (although there were a few real creeps), couples were fine, and I was always happy (and surprised) when a single woman or group of girls gave me a lift - but two young guys, man, that almost always meant trouble.

So yeah, you're right, be prepared - and that doesn't just mean having the tools and the willingness to use them, but also the ability to 'share' that willingness with those that would do you harm...

I hitched around for a couple years in the '80's.
Kinda scary when the shit hits the fan and you're all alone in unfamiliar territory.
Thankfully, there are a lot more good people out there than there are bad people.

 

[koyote]

Got a bit of an attitude on you, don't ya?

Plenty of newbies floating around this forum. In fact, that's why newbies come here ... to learn.

70% of the population in California lives in highly populated areas where being a "dedicated rugged outdoorsman" is difficult to be.

The decision to carry a firearm, and what firearm to carry, should never be about whether you've got balls. Leave the testosterone poisoning at home. Carry the gun that is appropriate for your environment, and that you are comfortable with.

And never go up a trail with someone who carries a specific gun because it makes him feel special or like a man or something equally obnoxious.

He doesn't have attitude, it's all my fault. scroll up and see!

I've been through every part of California, and planning your carry based on bears strikes me as silly, but I wouldn't tell someone not to consider it.

But camping does NOT equal bear defense. There's a lot more going on, and a lot more reasons to carry than the dreaded last grizz in san diego county.

Anyone who cannot function with a smaller calibre firearm is someone I want to be far away from. And I am, yes, going to be highly suspect of anyone running around the socal canyons with a .44mag belly gun, unless they have a better reason than "mo' powah!"

Some of the guys out here carry .44mag- but long barreled blackhawks and redhawks predominate, not 4 inch or other snubby lengths. .357 is the hands down winner in popularity, and it's a very versatile cartridge adequate for most of what can happen in rural and outback northern nevada. I'm not the only one wearing .38, though, by far.

I don't think our population out here is low due to some sort of under-armed "natural selection"

My personal attitude is that a trail gun needs to be conservative, mid-range powered, and usable for sustenance hunting. If you want a combat handgun on top of that, that's your deal, but that's not a camping handgun, that's a combat handgun that you happen to have in addition to camping.

 

[dogboye]

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.

Let's not forget the hiker(s) in Alaska that just recently got charged by a bear. Guy was carrying a .45ACP and pumped 9 rounds into the bear. This stopped the bear's charge, although it didn't drop the bear in his tracks. He fell about 100ft in the opposite direction from the hikers.

This isn't the first instance of that level of power stopping a bear, even an angry grizzly. Then there was also the guy that got charge by a grizzly in, I think Anchorage, last year, and was carrying a Ruger Alaskan in... ah... maybe .454. He emptied the revolver, as I recall, but I think he only connected twice. Supposedly he had to sidestep the bear as its momentum carried it by him even though it was out of commission by that point, apparently.

I'll carry something about the level of a 10mm or hot .45 ACP anywhere and not worry about it. And I'd trust a 10mm Glock's reliability over ANYTHING, including one of my Ruger single-actions. I know how the Glock works, and I know how the Ruger works. Heck, I've practically built a Ruger up from the serialed receiver, and not far from that with a Glock. While I'm quite partial to my Ruger 44Spc, 44Mag, and .45Colt, I wouldn't feel undergunned or worried carrying either a G20 or G21.

 

[desmobob]

I wouldn't feel undergunned or worried carrying either a G20 or G21.

Another huge plus for the Glock (or current similar designs of handguns) is the fact they are not only as simple to operate as a revolver but have more capacity.

In the event of a horrifying bear attack, I don't know how many shots I could manage to get off with a single-action revolver. I am pretty sure I could manage to empty the magazine of a Glock. That's a crapload of flying lead and loud noise.

I do wish I had bought one of the 10mm Model 20s back in the day....

Stays sharp,
desmobob

 

[Oakietree]

If you want a combat handgun on top of that, that's your deal, but that's not a camping handgun, that's a combat handgun that you happen to have in addition to camping.

Thats a funny statement considering the K framed .38 was designed to be a combat handgun. Hence the term "Combat Masterpiece". I have nothing against the .38. I have a model 14 that I think is a great trail gun. It just isnt my first choice for what I want a trail gun to do or for what I want a city go to do. A 4" barrel 66 is real close though. Even modern single action hunting revolvers are based on combat designs. Saying certain guns arent camping guns because they dont fit some old timey nostalgia notions while carrying a side arm that was designed for combat is ,IMO, a little off base.

I do agree with alot of your other points.

Matt

 

[koyote]

Thats a funny statement considering the K framed .38 was designed to be a combat handgun. Hence the term "Combat Masterpiece". I have nothing against the .38. I have a model 14 that I think is a great trail gun. It just isnt my first choice for what I want a trail gun to do or for what I want a city go to do. A 4" barrel 66 is real close though. Even modern single action hunting revolvers are based on combat designs. Saying certain guns arent camping guns because they dont fit some old timey nostalgia notions while carrying a side arm that was designed for combat is ,IMO, a little off base.

I do agree with a lot of your other points.

Matt

Most handguns can be traced to combat origins, yes. My target masterpiece included. But, if you extend the notion of a combat handgun to an 8 inch SA revolver, what is a "trail gun"?

I think the idea of 'combat' has changed. the modern reasonable idea in carry is 14+1 in a DAO auto (trail gun?!?! ayiiii) with 2 spare mags minimum. Pretty much anything with less than a 10 round cap, excepting some .45 autos, is relegated to "backup" status.

Combat now means autopistols- increasingly, DAO ones, at that. Fairly minimal sights, double tap drills at 7 yards.

While you can fight with a K-38, it's not a modern combat pistol, by any stretch.

43 rounds ready ..... Versus 3 or 4 wheel lock pistols or a pair of 5 shot SA revolvers.... different ideas. (remember, it was originally the military and police, at a time when police were not considered military!)

Yet, the fact is, an SA/DA revolver with limited flip is going to do the duty if you do find yourself shooting two legged critters.

I don't actually expect most people to find a .38 special to be an ideal trail gun, however accurate, well balanced, or useful it is. Simple fact is that for a small penalty in size, you can have a .357.

And a lot of younger people wouldn't feel safe on a trail with a .357!

So, it's fine if the ideal trail gun for anyone is different. I know an old timer out in CA who thinks anything over a .22lr is silliness in a trail gun. This crotchety dude is in his late 60s and hasn't been naturally selected out for his poor choice of handgun yet.



Remember that a trail gun is supposed to be able to fill the cookpot, too. 95% of someone's shooting may be humans and bears, but that 5% might mean starvation if you get stuck in the outback.

 

[Bapple]

My camping/hiking gun has been a Glock 20. Several reasons why I choose this particular gun.

1. With the right loads (not the 10mm stuff loaded to the .40 S&W stuff) the Glock 10mm has plenty of power for all 2 and 4 legged animals. I prefer using DT 200 gr hardcast @1300fps / 750 ft/lbs. Nasty, nasty stuff. :thumbup:

2. Glock reliability, second to none.

3. Capacity. The Glock 20 has a 15+1 capacity magazine. I will take that over a 6 shot revolver anyday of the week. 16 rounds of 10mm 200gr hardcast is no laughing matter. That is called "being prepared for anything" in my book.


This is just what I like to use, and has worked thus far for me. I do practice regularly with my G20. That is key, make sure you are comfortable with what you are carrying. My .02 cents, YMMV.

 

[Rotte]

I don't usually carry a gun on the trail. I carry pepper spray (unless I leave it at home ).

I know a couple guys who do carry, and their choice is either a .357 revolver or a 12ga shotgun. The 12ga makes the most sense to me, although I have carried a .357 a couple of times. The 12ga has a wide variety of rounds, including non-lethal rounds. It is easier to aim in a hurry, gives a better chance of hitting the target, and packs a bigger wallop.

I guess I'm wondering why, if one is going to carry, one would pick a handgun when you could carry a 12ga? Or even a short lever-action carbine? Handguns just don't make much sense to me in the woods.

I should add that I've never need a gun or my pepper spray when out in the woods. It sometimes strikes me as a little paranoid to even carry the pepper spray....

 

[Bapple]

Depends on what kind of hiking/camping you are doing. If you are driving to a trailhead, hiking in 30 mins or so, I guess a large, heavy shotgun could work.

That is not the type of hiking/camping I do. Weight is a huge issue in my hiking loadout. So, do I want a big, heavy, rifle/shotgun, that has to basically be carried in my hands (no way I could sling a rifle/shotgun over my pack) or do I want the lightest protection (with the most firepower) I can comfortably carry in my loadout?

This is why people take handguns. They are lighter and alot smaller than a shotgun/rifle. Therefore, you also want to choose a caliber that is powerful enough that you can shoot comfortably as your hiking/camping firearm protection. :thumbup:

 

[koyote]

heh. my brush gun (12ga) is 6 pounds, 8 ounces with 2 slugs and 3 buckshot in the saddle. Yeah, that's nearly double a glock 20 with spare mag. But it's not "lugging a heavy shotgun"

Shotgun pack holsters are available, too.

Again, depends on what sort of camping you do. multiday solo backpacking I'm likely to leave everythign home but a .22 pistol, anyhow. (and yes, a revolver. I know I could get a .22 with a 30 round mag. 9 is fine.)

We're again creeping into territory where campign with firearms means solo hiking into combat


a nice, light pistol is great for tooling around the desert outback with the family or whatever, which doesn't mean there isn't a longarm in the van (or truck), and there's always something at camp if we are camping.

 

[Oakietree]

Most handguns can be traced to combat origins, yes. My target masterpiece included. But, if you extend the notion of a combat handgun to an 8 inch SA revolver, what is a "trail gun"?

I think the idea of 'combat' has changed. the modern reasonable idea in carry is 14+1 in a DAO auto (trail gun?!?! ayiiii) with 2 spare mags minimum. Pretty much anything with less than a 10 round cap, excepting some .45 autos, is relegated to "backup" status.

Combat now means autopistols- increasingly, DAO ones, at that. Fairly minimal sights, double tap drills at 7 yards.

While you can fight with a K-38, it's not a modern combat pistol, by any stretch.

43 rounds ready ..... Versus 3 or 4 wheel lock pistols or a pair of 5 shot SA revolvers.... different ideas. (remember, it was originally the military and police, at a time when police were not considered military!)

Yet, the fact is, an SA/DA revolver with limited flip is going to do the duty if you do find yourself shooting two legged critters.

I don't actually expect most people to find a .38 special to be an ideal trail gun, however accurate, well balanced, or useful it is. Simple fact is that for a small penalty in size, you can have a .357.

And a lot of younger people wouldn't feel safe on a trail with a .357!

So, it's fine if the ideal trail gun for anyone is different. I know an old timer out in CA who thinks anything over a .22lr is silliness in a trail gun. This crotchety dude is in his late 60s and hasn't been naturally selected out for his poor choice of handgun yet.



Remember that a trail gun is supposed to be able to fill the cookpot, too. 95% of someone's shooting may be humans and bears, but that 5% might mean starvation if you get stuck in the outback.

A "trail gun" is a gun I or someone else would carry on the trail. Different guns are going to be better at some trail duties then others. I just dont think saying that something cant be a camp gun because it was designed after a certain date is accurate. I think saying it cant be a camp gun because it was designed for combat is also inaccurate. Its like saying only single action pistols make good woods guns because double action pistol were designed to kill people. Or no one needs to carry them new fangled wheel guns with there percusion caps, only flintlocks are real woods guns. Sure you can say its not what you would chose but thats not what you said.

To me handgun selection is always a compromise especially for woods carry. To me the g-20 offers the the most versitlity for my needs in areas where I frequent. Mainly it has the ability to fill the pot emergency or not. I can mount a highpowered flashlight to it that really comes in handy tracking wounded game shot at last light or night hunting in an emergency. Having 15...oh I mean 10 rounds, in the gun gives me that much more ammo to sustain myself in an emergency. Modern combat handguns are generally very weather resistant. Besides I can get a .22lr slide for it which would make it an even more versatile "trail" gun. I am not trying to convince you that you need to change what you carry. I think the k-38 is a fine gun to carry in the woods. Even if I didnt I would try to tell you wrong. I would probably opt for a .357 like a mod66 instead but I like having the ability to more effectivley take bigger game. Like I said I am not afraid of bears. They are edible.

Matt

 

[Rotte]

So, do I want a big, heavy, rifle/shotgun, that has to basically be carried in my hands (no way I could sling a rifle/shotgun over my pack) or do I want the lightest protection (with the most firepower) I can comfortably carry in my loadout?

I hear you about the weight. I consider every ounce when packing for longer trips, i.e. multi-day trips. And that's why I leave the firepower at home: too much weight for too little utility. Even so I still carry too much weight.

But once you've committed to adding the weight of a firearm, why not take something effective and versatile? You can easily get a 4-5 pound, pistol-grip shotgun with a tube mag and carry 5 rounds of 12ga. Sling it from your shoulder and it is more accessible than a holstered handgun. Alternatively, my pack could easily keep a shotgun in the side pocket with a quick release buckle to secure it (instead of my fly rod). So I'm not buying the argument that it weighs too much or is too difficult to carry. If you are carrying, you've already decided to add extra weight to your load.

There are some situations where a pistol has a tactical advantage, but they are usually in urban environments (or the tunnels of Cu Chi). Everywhere else the rifle or shotgun is the preferred firearm of professionals. Remember that with high stress situations, fine motor control rapidly deteriorates. And Grizzlies or pissed-off Moose are no joke.

There was a recent case of a Grizzly being killed by a hiker in Denali who used a .45ACP handgun. 9 shots and the bear still walked off to die elsewhere. The hiker was under investigation for an illegal killing last I read.

Here in Wyoming, a guy was found guilty of illegally killing a grizzly (with a rifle) when he felt threatened during a hunt last year. The jury found his use of deadly force to be inappropriate under the circumstances. Wyoming is a pretty gun friendly state, everyone carries a gun it seems. But the decision to carry may have some unanticipated consequences.

One of the arguments against him was that he was NOT carrying pepper spray--a non-lethal defense. He didn't demonstrate a willingness to use the minimum force necessary.

Like I said before, I have carried a .357 a couple of times--mostly because it is light and I can shoot it well. But if I'm really honest with myself, a shotgun makes more sense. Albeit at the expense of a little more weight.

 

[koyote]

Matt-

I hear what you are saying. personally can't stand the ergos on glocks, so I don't shoot one. From what I understand, the 20 is accurate enough for small game work at 25 yards, but what are you going to eat out of what gets left behind?

I think you are reading a bit much into this 'combat handgun' phrase. Whent he main criteria are:

concealability

throwing massive amounts of lead downrange fast

being a real man, even if your hands hurt (I know, I should leave that alone. But it's such a good straight line....)


Well, then we're talking combat. belly gun revolvers, maximum concealability in heavy autos, reduced barrel lengths and sight radii, reduced accuracy potential. fast, close range, combat handguns. to me, that is in no way a trail/camping gun, it's strictly personal defense at close range.

I'm not arguing with your choice. Nor am I arguing that no auto is okay. I have my preference for revolvers, but if i ever get my hands on another hi-power, you can bet it will see trail time.

 

[Rotte]

Like I said I am not afraid of bears. They are edible.

Matt,

I used to think I wasn't afraid of bears. I've seen 'em in the wild many times. But I was once walking through some dense brush and smelled a funny smell. The little hairs stood up on the back of my neck and I didn't know why. Then I realized I was smelling bear. And I knew it was close but I didn't know where it was. But I did know I was scared.

I was holding a loaded .300WM in my hands at the time. If you claim you aren't scared of bears, I'm betting you haven't smelled one up close. Any animal that can kill you in a matter of seconds probably deserves a little respect.

Just sayin'....