Better Camping Gun?

D

defjon

New member
Well its getting warmer, time to spend some time under the stars and as far out past the raggedy edge as possible! My selection is a little limited, had to sell off a ton and I'm still behind over here. Sigh.

Anyway, would you pack a ruger SP101 or Glock 26 in your bag? I have to point out, the ruger is the shortest barrel example, chambered in 357 magnum. I've heard that out of a short barrel you lose a lot in the magnum.

For the 26, I have a glock factory 31 rounder...which, I would think, if pressed into service could dissuade most wild critters, two or four legged, towards a less nasty target.

I'm sure either would work alright against anything but bears, but the glock certainly trumps the ruger as far as weight ratio to fire power. However, I was thinking that the ruger could be loaded up with heavy grain JSP that might perform better. I'm fully aware that the chances of having to use either one are slim in the first place, but...you just never know! :) I was a boy scout, and you know the motto.
 
It depends on the area and what you're most comfortable with. For anything eas of the Mississippi, either one will offer sufficient power so it comes down to a choice of auto or revolver. If you're west of the Mississippi, I'd take the revolver with heavier bullets. As far a velocity loss from the snub barrel, you can expect to get velocities in the 1200-1300fps range with 125grn .357 Magnums, 1100-1200 with the 140-158grn Magnums, and 900-1000 with 180grn Magnums.
 
I carry wheel gun(s) when I am participating in an outdoor activity (i.e. camping) because they are somewhat more reliable than semi-autos when it comes to abusive environment operation.

However, in your case, a Glock 26 is likely be as reliable as th Ruger 101 IMHO. If you are looking for some serious stopping power tho, I'd still go with the 101. (But if you have a high-cap glock available, i'd go with that as well)

357 mag will stop anything but an elephant :)
 
Last edited:
PHP: 
I was thinking that the ruger could be loaded up with heavy grain JSP that might perform better.

.357 beats 9mm 8 days a week, regardless of barrel length.

If toothies are a concern though... don't go JSP. Go hardcast lead. LSWC design punches the biggest and hardest hole in dense muscle and bone.

158 or 180 grains of LSWC medicine in the SP101. A speedloader of .38's if 2-legs are a concern too.
 
+1 to the SP101, I have one stuck in my survival case for the very reasons already stated. Reliable, and with 158 gr. bullets it beats the 9mm hands down. If you want a lil' more firepower, get a couple of speed strips or speed loaders...shouldn't need more camping.
 
I guess it depends on what part of the country you live in, if you're hiking or have a camper, how much equipment you take with you- boat etc.
At camp I usually have a shotgun with Dixie Tri-ball. When hiking, fly-fishing, or bare-minimum tent camping with a backpack, it's a .357. I even still have an old AR-7 survival rifle that I take on canoe trips.
Another Boy Scout (many decades ago).
 
I think I'd go with the Glock. The .357 is awsome, in a real, full length tube. Either one is lacking in the woods. More rounds is better in my opinion, and if you have the 30+ rounds in one backup, not a hard choice for me. You can always make more noise as the bear eats you.;)

I have never heard the argument that a revolver was tougher than a glock, until today.:confused:
 
Oops, one point for the glock now :)

To be honest, I have food for thought. I was kind of thinking more along the more firepower line myself. The glock packs mighty easy, and accepts 12 rounders flush with mag extensions, and tiny ten rounders and easier to pack than pez.

Yep, sure could make a lot of noise and flash as that bear enjoyed dinner...;)

But the arguments in favor of the sp101 are sound.
 
Either is a fine choice. If you have serious worry for large 4 legged things I would lean towards the SP, if you might stumble across meth heads in an old farm house I'd lean towards the glock.
 
Do we seriously think the sp101 with the short barrel is that much better for four legged problems? Either one seems weak to me, and the Glock would be better for the two legged types. Either one is firecrackers to a bear. If you can, get a full sized revolver, if not, take the glock. JMHO
 
I do a lot of camping, horseback riding, and fishing. I see no reason to carry anything differant then I do at home. Unless I'm hunting and have a rifle, I only carry my 642 in my pocket. I use 150 grn cast SWC bullets (Lyman 358477). Its good for snakes or discouraging bad behavier in 2 legged critters. Also good for an odd cottontail or two for the camp pot.
 
dang sounds like someone needs to get a gp100 or a glock 20!

my vote goes for the sp101, actually I say just take both.

I would also be on the lookout for a good used .357 with a 4" barrel or better.
 
5 heavies or 10 lightweights

So, defjon, what kind of creatures do you need protection from in Illinois (if that's where you do your woodcraft)?

A short-barrelled 357 pushing hard cast, flat point, solid lead bullets would be marginal for black bear or wolf. Coyote, OK. Hollow points, not so much.

9mm may have more rounds, but putting 10 flesh wounds in a dangerous critter will not stop it as well as 1 solid hit with enough energy to penetrate and break a shoulder bone. Once you have rendered a bear incapable of running faster than you, it doesn't matter how many times you have to (or don't have to) reload.

If my main concern were a 300 lb black bear, 9x19 would not even be a candidate unless it could throw a 180 grain slug at 1000 fps. Bullet count does not matter if they can't break bone or penetrate to vitals.

My advice is get something at least 4" long and with a "4" in the caliber name. But if a choice between 357 or 9mm, 150 grains minimum and at least 1000 fps, 1200 better, and no expanding bullets. Flat point, chilled lead hard cast solids. Nines don't play at that level.

That said, my first line of defense agains bears is OC spray. If that doesn't work, the 454 Casull 7.5" is my backup. But then this is in an area where bears run 500-1,000 lbs and more. My friend carries a 500 S&W.

If you are more likely to run into dangerous humans than dangerous animals, take the spray for the furry critters and the Glock 26 as a noisemaker for the bear and as a shooter for people. (I'm only half kidding, but which half?)

Happy camping.

Lost Sheep

(I recall one thread where a poster did recommend a 9mm for dangerous game. The 9x57 Mauser.)
 
I've spent the last two weekends in the woods and faced a similiar decision of carrying my 6" .357 S&W 686 or my Glock 22 in .40. The Glock won out because of the shorter overall length making it easier to carry and move around with on my hip.
 
You inspired me to see if a Corbon 200g hard cast would fit in my SP101, and it did.

If you can get the first shot off, that would be the round I'd want.

TBS, the G26 has 10 rounds,"If" you could get them off at the thing that is attacking you.

PS: I now have the last round, a .357 200g Corbon hard cast in the cylinder of my SP101.
 
Last edited:
Glock.

With hot 9mm loads you are going to get almost the same fps in a 9mm as 357 loads from a short barreled revolver. The Rugers are one of the toughest revolvers out there but in the dirt and mud possible in a camping situation there are far more ways for it to get into a revolver and cause problems than with an auto.
 
Personally think they both have advantages and disadvantages that no one here can help you sort out. Carry the one you like the best.

But IMO, it sound like a perfect reason to get another gun! Neither is a gun that I would "like" to carry out camping. May I recommend a SA .32 mag or .357. 22LR's are great if plinking opportunities are available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top