Best Backwoods Gun

.45 ACP not known for excess penetration? Really? That's news to me. The 230 grain .45 ACP round was engineered for penetration.

It does not take a magnum loading to kill the three animals the OP listed, I'd feel just fine with .45 ACP against them.

Now, if i was in Alaska, different story. I'd want the largest magnum my hip could stand! I'd 100% be looking at a S&W 500 magnum.
 
.45 ACP not known for excess penetration? Really? That's news to me. The 230 grain .45 ACP round was engineered for penetration.
Click to expand...

45 ACP is among the worst rounds available if you need penetration, espeially against tough hide, heavy clothing, or any barrier. When shot into unprotected flesh it works well enough.

This was a BIG reason why the military wanted to upgrade to 9mm right after WW-2. Their testing found that 9mm rounds performed much better at defeating barriers, heavy winter clothes, etc. During one test the 45's were bouncing off a GI helmet at 30 yards while the 9mm rounds were still giving complete penetration beyond 100 yards.

The 45 is a good round that serves a role, this ain't one of them. Use something else if there is any remote possibility of bear. The 357 and 10mm are good choices.
 
In the area and for the purpose your talking,Id feel just fine with my Smith 4"
357 or one of my 1911's loaded with a warm hard cast.
 
I'm partial to the 10mm. You can get loads just above the .40 in power, to much more powerful loads (Double tap is good, but there is better). You could also "do your own thing" and reload for what you need (within reason of course).

If I was going to buy a gun for the woods right now, I'd pickup a glock chambered for 10mm. I HATE glocks, don't like the way they shoot or feel, but they go bang every time and can take some abuse.

Besides, I'm way too fond of my Colt Delta Elite to risk banging it up in the woods. :D
 
Jmr40; it's always good to learn something new, and what you wrote is news to me. I read a lot of such history and am not familiar with the tests you mention. Where do I find that info?
 
My vote goes for the 10MM. I never seriously considered the 10MM until I saw Ted Nugent dispatch several wounded hogs and Axis deer on TV with a 1911 style 10 MM gun. Those Hogs can take several rounds to finish off...I can't imagine what a much bigger black bear can endure.

I think nearly everyone can learn to shoot a 1911 well. 10 MM works really well against most North American four legged critters as well as dangerous 2 legged critters too:)

I would shy away from a 44 Magnum simply because they are usually packaged in large N frame S&W or Ruger Redhawk/Blackhawk revolvers which you don't really want to tote on your hip if there was a better alternative. I would choose those only if I were dedicated to handgun hunting and wanted a shoulder harness carry.

Whatever you choose, use hardcast nonexpanding bullets for maximum penetration against tough hardy creatures rather than self-defense oriented expanding ammunition suitable for use on thin skin two legged ones.

Unlike rifle bullets fired at high velocity, handgun bullets don't fly fast enough to cause significant tissue damage outside of the wound channel caused by the bullet itself. Bullets from calibers that start with a 4 make holes that start at .4 inches in diameter. Thus, there is an inherent advantage over bullets from calibers that start in the .355 range (i.e. 357 Magnum).
 
Last edited:
the 10 mm is an excellent choice in the lower 48 unless you are in Montana, WY or Idaho with grizzly. I prefer the reliability of a revolver and truly love my great big huge Ruger SRH in .44 magnum. Yup, it is big and heavy, but that is part of why I like it, recoil ain't much more than my Ruger SP101 in .357. For hiking which I don't do a whole lot of anymore, the 10 mm is a great option and I have considered getting one myself. It has more rounds available and ballistics similar to the .357 magnum. I believe it is the minimum round you would want with hardcast bullets for bears should you encounter them.
 
$H!t I was born in the back woods of the Ozarks:D ain't met anything can't be killed with a .45 LC or acp. Now that said a guy from Alaska told me he carries a .460 S&W but thats ALASKA ya know the last fronter,:D and they have BIG BEARS:eek:
Mace
 
quit worryin so much

Get yourself a good accurate .22 revolver or auto and have some fun in the woods. Nothin is gonna get ya.
 
Mercenary:

When I was hunting for bear with my rifle I also carried a 6.5 inch Smith & Wesson model 29 .44 magnum just in case that a bear followed the frying bacon smell into my camp site. The N frame Smith rode at my side just in front of my hip and it wasn't uncomfortable. If I were you, I would get a four inch Smith & Wesson model 25 in 45 Colt. I once killed a boar with my Smith & Wesson model 625 in .45 ACP.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
 
I'm of the revolver generation,,,

So it's a bit amusing when I read about carrying semi-auto pistols in the woods.

Not that they aren't perfectly suitable mind you,,,
And the high capacity is enough justification,,,
But I always think more of a .357 Mag.

Old school attitudes are pervasive aren't they.

I could never picture myself hunting with an AR style rifle,,,
Nor could I see myself with a semi-auto on my hip.

Believe me, I'm not ragging on modern hunters,,,
Just waxing philosophical on the differences twixt then and now.

Aarond
 
I have read about people hunting mountain lions with the 45 ACP, but would it have enough penetration against a black bear?
Click to expand...
Personally, I wouldn't and don't trust it against blackies. I regularly carry .45 ACP, unless I'm at my northern place in the Huron National Forest. If Cougars were the biggest thing I had to worry about, I'd still carry the .45 ACP. But with the possibility of black bears, I want a bit more.
 
Its the two legged critters Ithink about in NC.MTS.
Click to expand...
With the mountain folk of NC, you're more in danger of gettng your ears talked off than being physically attacked.

You'll see alot more crime in the Charlotte region of NC than the mountains.
 
But I always think more of a .357 Mag.

Old school attitudes are pervasive aren't they.
Click to expand...

Excellent point my initial thought was .357/.44Mag. but after reading the thread it sounds like the consensus might be 10mm. The reality is it would probably be sufficient for the various critters we encounter in the South East.
 
obviously nothing smaller than this should be taken into the backwoods...

m136-AT4-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top