Camping gun

I'd go with a Glock 27, the hottest non-hollowpoint available and pepper spray.
It holds 9+1 of .40 and would be very easy to carry owb or strapped to a thigh.
It's accurate at its effective range and is about as versatile as any pistol could be - it can also run 9mm and 357sig if you want.

If thats not enough then the next stop would be a Glock 29 running quality/proven full-speed 10mm non-hollowpoints.
Its a little bigger, but still light enough for a pack/camp gun.

On the magnum revolver vs auto pistol debate, consider this...
The long trigger and recoil of a short 44 (or any magnum) is going to make followup shots a real challenge, even if you see trouble coming.
Get ahold of a short 44 and try to rapidly unload it into a paper plate - You'll spend a fortune practicing enough to be quick and confident, and the results may still fall well short of your count and placement with a auto.

I'd rather get 2 or 3 rounds of .40 into a bear than only 1 round of 44.

No matter what pistol I took, there is no doubt I'd take spray into areas with bears.

Oh.. and I totally agree with the guy who said that most close calls have been with snakes - me too.
I'd definitely keep snake shot chambered for areas they are frequently found.
 
Last edited:
youngunz4life said:
I really need to get a 44 redhawk. I love the weapon + have room in the safe. I tried to buy a super redhawk alaskan one time but they were out of stock.
Yesterday 12:42 PM
Click to expand...

Be careful. The original Redhawk is different from the Super Redhawk. The Super Redhawk action & frame is more akin to to the GP100 action wheras the original Redhawk is a different animal altogether.
 
For that type of situation, which is just for up close shooting, I carry my S&W Model 66 2 1/2" on my belt, with the first two rounds snakeshot, and the other four 357's. Good possibility of running to snakes in my area,and maybe a coyote or two.
 
Living here in boring ol' St Louis, I'm jealous of those who actually need to worry about these things.
A PM9 and a walking stick is about all I need around here...
 
Last edited:
Oh yea, for those that think .357 is enough...then why do some States require .40 cal or bigger when you hunt for black, and non black, bear(s)?
Click to expand...

Because the bureaucrat that wrote the regulation knows squat about guns if the regulation is as simple as that. By that reasoning a 40 S&W is "BETTER" than a 35 Rem. out of a T.C. which is "UNDERSIZED". For that matter a 7mm-08, 308, 375 JDJ, [add your rifle caliber in a T.C. here] are also considered under gunned by those regulations.

A 357 with 158gr. hardcast or soft point will out penetrate and deliver more energy to a bear than anything 40 S&W which is technically legal. That argument needs to be better backed up...got a Game code to reference? Does it have a minimum energy floor component that you may have forgotten or are unaware of?

I personally have no problem facing a black bear with a 357 loaded with hardcast; BTDT. I would have no problem shooting that bear out of season if it endangered me or someone else with that 357. That bear would be dead; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I am that confident with my Blackhawk and my ability with it. This is not hubris, conceit, or arrogance; this is borne out of shooting, carrying, and using that gun for over 22 years. I'll also take my GP100 which was my duty carry piece and currently my hunting carry piece, had it for 20 years now. Familiarity and confidence in your chosen arm go a long way when your life is on the line.
 
I'm not much into hiking in the wilderness, but now and then we visit a State Park or State Forest area here in Hoosierland. I used to put my 357 snubby in the picnic basket, "Just in Case" but never had cause to make use of it. I do keep a light 22 revolver on a pocket or vest holster when we go out, since the biggest issue we will face is a snake.....or a meth-lab, and backing away to use a cell phone is the smartest way I know of to deal with either one of those cases. (not for the snake !!:rolleyes:)
 
efield

Be careful. The original Redhawk is different from the Super Redhawk. The Super Redhawk action & frame is more akin to to the GP100 action wheras the original Redhawk is a different animal altogether.
Click to expand...

thx, I didn't know that & it makes a difference to me.
 
Today, 09:48 PM #70
youngunz4life
Senior Member

Join Date: November 15, 2010
Posts: 1,462
efield
Quote:
Be careful. The original Redhawk is different from the Super Redhawk. The Super Redhawk action & frame is more akin to to the GP100 action wheras the original Redhawk is a different animal altogether.
thx, I didn't know that & it makes a difference to me.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the original Redhawk, both are great guns as many can attest. I have the SRH because it felt better in my hand. Many prefer the Redhawk and who can argue that it looks better as well.

Tim Sundies has put over 5000 rounds of his +P+ 340 gr Buffalo Bore Ammo his standard Redhawk with no problems at all. Both are great guns.
 
Coming late to the party

Sorry to be late to the party, but I wanted to address everyone who is thinking about Bears (Especially Browns or Grizzlies).

Heed the advice of ones who have been there.

Read this thread, especially post #18 The 44s and 45s used by Murphy on Black Bears in Maine and North Carolina all had considerably more energy, momentum and mass than any .357 Magnum.

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?t=54852
or if the link does not work, paste this into your web browser
forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?t=54852


Then read this newspaper story from 4/18/08, Anchorage Daily News,

http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/147318.html
or if the link does not work, paste this into your web browser
adn.com/bearattacks/story/147318.html

"Bear spray stops charging sow .. SAVED: Couple hiking Peters Creek Trail used Counter Assault."

This was not an advertisement. Craig Medred is an outdoor writer on staff and the Anchorage Daily News.

A followup story ran on 4/20/08
http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/381252.html
or
adn.com/bearattacks/story/381252.html

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.main
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.bearfax
http://www.forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?t=546

An exception to the spray recommendation is this one, which happened on Friday, August 07, 2009. I wonder if spray would have helped, but still, it might have.

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/080709/out_478669517.shtml
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/897940.html

and for a direct quote from the surviving party with pictures

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,179994.0.html

And I saved this one for last because I believe only those who read to the end my posts deserve to get the best survivability advice: (sorry, it's late and I tend to get curmudgeonly when I am tired).

The post by windwalker, about 2/3 of the way down the page
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=51538&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

Lost Sheep
 
I just bought my wife a canister of that but I ain't going to leave my .44 magnum at home out in the Idaho woods. There are no studies that can definitively state that bear spray is better than a gun since no one will ever perform a randomized and controlled trial comparing the two. Observational studies cannot answer that question, they can only suggest the question but not answer it. Just the nature of scientific studies.

I believe you are best protected by having both. That is my strategy and that is the strategy of James Gary Shelton, a bear expert from British Columbia who lives with those monsters in the Bella Coola area. He runs a bear defense course where his students learn how to shoot against fast moving targets coming at them.

Guns are not always the answer nor is pepper spray, both leave gaps in coverage. So, take your camp gun and the pepper spray, but don't leave home without them.
 
To show that "The exception proves the rule", I submit this in contrast to my earlier post

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

It proves that hubris, stupidity and blind luck can combine to save your butt.

A 45 ACP (I am assuming it was not a 45 Super, 45 Grizzly or other such superpotent cartridge, which would be marginal anyway) against an interior Alaskan grizzly? Lucky in the extreme.

I also have (undeniable) reports of a guy in Eagle River fighting his way to a "tie" with a Grizzly. If any fight resulting you you being hospitalized and the opponent walking away with nothing but bad feelings can be called a "tie".

http://www.adn.com/2008/08/05/484087/eagle-river-man-fights-attacking.html

Sorry, if you want to compare the advisability of any handgun vs Grizz against the advisability of spray vs Grizz. There is no contest.

Spray every time. When I go in the woods, if only one, I carry spray. If both, I will grab the spray first (depending on circumstances, the 454 Casull IS actually closer to my hand). The 357 Mag is not even present in grizzly country.

Now, if I was in the lower 48, I would probably carry 45 ACP or 9mm for the high capacity against human threats and the spray for bears. I tailor my carry defenses for the REALISTIC more PROBABLE and MOST EFFECTIVE statistical record.

I devote more thought to my canteen and to my tent than to my firearm. I am just sayin'. Put your efforts in the directions that deserve it.

Lost Sheep
 
Alaska444 said:
I believe you are best protected by having both. ...
Guns are not always the answer nor is pepper spray, both leave gaps in coverage. So, take your camp gun and the pepper spray, but don't leave home without them.
Click to expand...
I second your suggestions, whole-hearetedly.

He runs a bear defense course where his students learn how to shoot against fast moving targets coming at them.
Click to expand...
I have not reviewed James Gary Shelton's course, but here is my practice regemin for anyone who wants to rely on a firearm for bear defense:

Go to a place where the ground slopes toward you for 25 yards or so and also provides an adequate backstop. The ground should also be slightly bumpy.

Put a soccer ball about 20-25 yards away with a block of wood keeping it from rolling toward you.

Shoot the block of wood out from the ball (or have a friend do it).

Let the ball get up to speed (20 mph, minimum, as Grizz can run 35 mph over broken ground, fallen trees, etc) and about 7 to 10 yards away (the distance a Grizzly bear's bluff charge usually stops, and where you can tell the difference - the "shoot, don't shoot" decision point)

How many times can you shoot the ball before it gets to you?

Extra points if you can nail the black spots only (roughly equivalent to an eye socket shot, if you can CALL the shot).

Lost Sheep
 
My best advice:

Leave the machismo and imagination aside.

Evaluate the threats (all of them) against which you wish to defend yourself. Calculate the probability of encountering that threat and the wort-case scenarios and the best-case scenarios of those encounters. Factor those against all the other threats you might find (thirst, earthquake, backwoods pot growers, etc) and decide rationally what you should carry against the more likely and more threatening (most to be feared).

Most often, it might be a satellite phone. In which case you have to factor in the dollar cost of an account.

You decide. It is your life, your backpack weight and your dollars.

Lost Sheep
 
Sorry I missed the point on the lower 48 bears. Chemical agents against four, and two legged, bears in all shapes, colors and sizes works for me.

Still havn't heard from the game wardens who have to deal with bears wounded by hunters with guns that ought to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top