Woods weapons, are they really neccessary

G

g123

Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
329
Hey Guys,

We have a lot of threads on rifles and handguns for the woods, but are they really necessary? I have done a lot of backpacking and hunting, but this usually takes place over a three to four day period and not an extended time in the woods. Therefore I do not consider myself to be able to bring actual fact to this conversation.

So here is my question for you guys that have spent long durations of time in the woods, do we really need any type of rifle or handguns to protect ourselves and if so, from what?

Practical experience is always the best teacher and gives the best answers!

Thanks,

Geoff
 
I consider it the same as carrying (CCW) in town. although I will sometimes open carry in the woods but not in populated areas.

Necessary? It depends on the situation. When you need it you need it, kind of like insurance. In the woods, I am more worried about humans than wildlife. There have been many murders on the AT as well as other trails. Sh*t happens. Be prepared.

I always carry in town or the woods.
 
Weapons aren't necessary in my opinion. I've been playing in the woods on multiple continents for 40 years and never needed a weapon. I once had a spooky experience with a bear nearby while I was hunting and was glad to have a rifle in my hands. In Africa I had a tense moment facing down a leopard and was also glad to be armed. But it's hard to say I needed a weapon in those situations since the rifles' only roles were to give me a sense of confidence (probably false). There are some stories of guys defending themselves from lions and tigers and bears, oh my, but those seem to be pretty darn rare.

Pilot brings up a good point about two-legged critters I guess....
 
I do not carry or own any firearms at this point in my life. Nor have I ever had the need for a weapon n the woods.

However, every piece of kit that we carry in the woods will not get used as often as others. In the case of firearms. If we're talking about extended periods, then it is more of a tool than a weapon. A tool for getting food. That is IMO its primary function. Now for the same reason that a knife, ax, baton or staff can have a dual purpose, a gun also can serve to protect you in the unfortunate circumstance that you are attacked or menaced with an attack by two or four legged animals. I think that it's most effective aspect is as a deterrent. If I were a baddy, I would think twice before messing with someone aiming a barrel at me. If I were a protective mother, or territorial male or a hungry beast. that deafening crack that perhaps simultaneously coincides with some excruciating pain might give me pause for long enough for the offending party or treat as the case may be to create some distance. Each level of protection be it knife, stick or gun is a more effective measure for that purpose; to create distance first and as a last resort to dispatch with the threat.

Rotte said:
Weapons aren't necessary in my opinion. I've been playing in the woods on multiple continents for 40 years and never needed a weapon. I once had a spooky experience with a bear nearby while I was hunting and was glad to have a rifle in my hands. In Africa I had a tense moment facing down a leopard and was also glad to be armed. But it's hard to say I needed a weapon in those situations since the rifles' only roles were to give me a sense of confidence (probably false). There are some stories of guys defending themselves from lions and tigers and bears, oh my, but those seem to be pretty darn rare.

Pilot brings up a good point about two-legged critters I guess....
Click to expand...

That sense of confidence may have made a very perceptible change in your demeanor, enough for the animal to back down. I don't know who said this but I heard a very interesting point about predators: They are very wary of getting hurt and do use prejudicial reasoning because if they do, their ability to eat may be seriously compromised.
 
Last edited:
As the old saying goes..."Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it."

In NJ I cannot carry a weapon in the woods unless it's hunting season. A side arm is a definite no-no. I have never encountered any problems with humans but I have come in close contact with black bears. They have been a problem here for quite some time. When I hike in PA I do carry my firearm. I have never had the need to use it let alone brandish it. But it's nice knowing it's there, especially on my canoe trips. I am far more likely to encounter a human problem on the river. Excessive alcohol consumption on the offenders part is usually the cause and I do my best to avoid such instances.
 
I have a Ruger .357 Vaquero to take if i am ever camping in an area I believe I may need it. Only as a defense against animals. If its humans I'm worried about, well I carry a big machete...
I have been on the trail and camping in Colorado and have found extremely recent evidence of Mountain Lion and bear (once i found a very recently half eaten mule deer leg right next to the trail!).
In most cases, though, I think a big dog is best of all... My buddy has a Rodesian Ridgeback (Similarities with a Great Dane), and I pity the fool or big game that trys to get near us when we camp with him.
Unfortunately, I have a Jack Russell!
 
Own a .45. Never taken it camping or hiking. Considering it as I'm planning a trip for this summer to northern WI. Just considering though...I'm not really worried about bears or 2 legged critters. I just like to shoot so maybe a bit of target practice.
 
I have never had any trouble and I pretty much don't fear any animals I'm likely to encounter, depending on their posture. I also feel that I will never be required to defend myself in the wilderness, I have never gone out feeling that this could possibly happen to me. I've never needed my flint and steel but I carry them everywhere, as I do my pistol. Bad things can happen to good people.
 
I also wanted to add that if it's animals we're talikng about, then a protective ungulate can be more dangerous than a hungry carnivore.
 
Marcelo Cantu said:
I also wanted to add that if it's animals we're talikng about, then a protective ungulate can be more dangerous than a hungry carnivore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, worse scare I ever had was being charged by an Elephant protecting her calf. My bad.

I'm proud to say I didn't soil myself.
 
Rotte said:
Never underestimate a JRT. :D
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't. She's been everywhere with me, and outlasted me many a time. Been up over 11k elevation with me in the Rockies, and, at 9 1/2 years old this past summer, did a 20 miler in the Alleghenies.
Super smart, and a great watch dog, but I don't know exactly how much she'd intimidate a bear! :)
Now, any good big brown dog from a shelter is gonna do just fine instead of a handgun IMO, on the trail. But, to treat 'em proper, they sure do cost more!
Bit harder to clean, too!
 
I think a weapon in the woods is needed more than on a city street.

In a city, you can take action to avoid a two legged threat, or a situation that looks like something you'd rather not deal with. Out in the woods, there youare. No gtting around the situation or thw two legged threat that just apeared around the blind bend in the trail. Is a woods weapon needed?

I guess you could ask the victims of Gary Hilton, if they were still alive. An elderly couple and a young woman, both robbed and murdered in woods parks areas. The Appalation trail has a history of some murders taking place with some of them unsolved. Ask any park ranger about the increase of crime in National Parks. Were else can a criminal get a victim in any more isolated spot for no-good?

Ironicly, I feel less a need of a weapon when my better half and I are going around Washington D.C. museum or art gallery hopping, than I do when we're out in the woods by ourselves. In all the years we've been going downtown, we've never had a problem, but in the last 25 years there has been two times I was glad I had a small handgun along, even if I was carrying it outside the law. I have a great respect for the law, but my first moral obligation is to my loved ones to keep them safe. My family comes first.

I think there has allways been some two legged varmits around, but in the last twenty years I feel a great deal of the feeling of sollitude and safty the woods once offered, are gone now. It just seems to me that in the last few years, there's been an increase in the weirdo's we meet on the trail. Take that, plus becoming senior citizens, we feel a little bit more vulnerable these days, and realize we may look a little easy to would be two legged varmits.

I think a carefull and prudent individual going into a wilderness area should carry a handgun of some sort. Sometimes bad things can happen to good people who did not prepare properly.
 
g123 said:
Hey Guys,

We have a lot of threads on rifles and handguns for the woods, but are they really necessary? I have done a lot of backpacking and hunting, but this usually takes place over a three to four day period and not an extended time in the woods. Therefore I do not consider myself to be able to bring actual fact to this conversation.

So here is my question for you guys that have spent long durations of time in the woods, do we really need any type of rifle or handguns to protect ourselves and if so, from what?

Practical experience is always the best teacher and gives the best answers!

Thanks,

Geoff
Click to expand...

Your area isn't listed, maybe there's no potential need for firepower for varmints, two legged varmints are another matter entirely.

Lack of civil authority (LEO's), distance from help, lack of secure areas, these are all risk increases. 99.9% of the time you'll probably be just fine, it's that 0.01% that you need to decide whether a life saving tool is worth carrying.

That's just one good reason for carrying.
 
Apple Pie is German :p

Just kidding.

The 2nd ammendment is what separates us from other dveveloped nations that can be subjugated by the government in an instant.
 
Read some books by Richard Laymon and you would never go in the woods unarmed! ;)

I usually don't carry a gun unless I camp somewhere really desolate where the nearest civilization is 20 miles away or more. Also depends on what I have with me, if it's just me and the dog a knife is fine, if it's me and a bunch of buddies I am sure we are fine. If I have my truck and boat and my family with me then yeah it's better safe than sorry.

I live in Maine which is a pretty safe state but even here we have home invasions and the like so if I got $50,000 worth of gear and a woman with me and I'm out in the willy wags than yeah I am armed. I will wear my .45 right on my thigh out in the open. I figure just the sight of a gun can make most people rethink any nefarious plans.
 
akthor said:
I figure just the sight of a gun can make most people rethink any nefarious plans.
Click to expand...

I don't pack my gun on most of the local trails, as they're usually pretty well populated and fairly well patrolled, but I've always got a belt knife and usually a chopper handy and prominent.

I gotta admit, though, I was surpised once. When I did the Fisher Towers hike a couple of years ago, on the return we came around one of the slickrock fins and there were three guys, one dressed normally on his cell phone, one in armour with a sword and one in robes with a big spear:eek: Kind tired, it took me a minute to realize they were shooting a movie:D The guy with the sword apologized for the weapons, I just smiled and said I had nicer ones at home:p
 
Animals such as bear can sense a person's level of confidence. Carrying a weapon will raise a person's level of confidence when danger is lurking. The bear or other threat will sense that and keep their distance for as long as the person's confidence remains high.

An unarmed person may feel threatened by the animal, the animal will sence that and that unarmed person may become prey. Some of these situations written in this thread from armed persons may have turned out ugly if they didn't have their weapon.

It's always better to be armed than to be unarmed.
 
I have had two occasions inthe bush where if I had not been armed I would have been in serious trouble. Two guys tried to attack me at in PA on an isolated part of the AT. They literally brought knives to a gunfight. No shots fired.

Here in Brazil two guys tried to jump me and a friend in the dunes behind an isolated strip of beach. I had a machete, they didn't. No cuts, stab, or chops were necessary.

In both of these incidents the fact that I was armed caused the attackers to stop any further aggressive acts and back down. Would I have used the handgun or machete had they not backed down? Absofreakinloutley. Mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top