Camping gun

I suggest to people who carry firearms for defense not to carry non lethal "weapons" as well. It seems to me that it could cause more problems if you have to fire your weapon at someone. In my opinion it sets you up to fail in your argument of I had no other choice but to fire upon person X. Well you did have another option you could have stun gunned or pepper sprayed or whatever else. You may also look overly aggressive with a belt full of gadgets like you're batman. After the fact these perceptions matter. They could mean the difference between you going free or going to prison.

For Bears or other animals attacks or threats you shoot first and ask questions later. If an animal charges me I'm going to shoot it and I'm going to shoot it until it is dead it would be inhumane not to kill it after shooting it once. Animals that threaten people don't get second chances in my book. The next person may not have a weapon to defend themselves. So don't pass the problem along. Put the animal down as humanely as possible and be done with it. Again this is just my opinion and you need to decide what is best for you and your family. I'm just putting that out there as something to think about.
 
Alaska444 said:
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............both are great guns.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. Both are great guns. I have heard urban legends that the beefed up Super Redhawks came about in response to some problems that arose from barrel issues with early production Redhawks. But, I digress and apologize if I'm guilty of hijacking the thread.
 
kcub said:
So are you a Wildey and crazy guy?
Click to expand...

Haha! No, I'm a LARge caliber guy :p

mk23017.jpg
 
Dear Lost Sheep, I did live in Alaska for my first 10 years, but even in the "lower 48," we have several states that also have Grizzly including WA state in the cascades, Idaho, WY, and MT. In fact, most of the grizzly attacks in the last few years have been in the lower 48.

Up here in the northern Idaho panhandle, this is Grizzly country. Fortunately, their population density is low enough that it is likely I will never see one, but that is not a guarantee at all.

If you are going to carry a handgun, it must be something that is fit for the predators in your area. I consider the .44 magnum the minimum handgun to carry up here. Even so, all handguns are inadequate for grizzly bear when you get right down to it. My Marlin .444 is my real woods/camp gun and it does have the take down power to stop a grizzly dead in its tracks with the right shot placement.
 
Alaska444; why didn't anyone believe me when I said that .44 Mag isn't going to do it when Mr. Griz decides he wanta a piece of you?
 
Ruger Alaskan .454 Casull and Guide's Choice Holster

I want a good all-rounder for camping and hiking in out of the way places - in the lower 48.
Click to expand...

I have posted pics of this before. But, this setup has become my all-arounder rig. Load it with very soft shooting lite weight .45 Colt up to thundering 360 grain hard cast .454 Casull. It balances very well in my hand. At 43 onces and in this chest rig the gun is hardly noticed and can be worn during practically any outdoor activity without getting in the way.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
When I go camping, I stay with concealed carry.


...so I wear a trench coat, concealing a KSG, duct-taped to an AR-10, with an under slung M203.



Why, you ask?

Simple, you silly goose!

Mechanical accuracy!



Grenade launchers are more accurate than I am.
 
I'm far from thinkin you need a gun while walking around anywhere in the lower 48. Still, I'm not opposed to someone carrying in the woods and do it myself where legal when canoe camping. We call it the "Man's Teddy Bear". Know I don't need it it, just like it there, makes me happy.

Friends and I have bounced all over this subject. The merits of rimfires vs. centerfires, revolvers vs. semi, this cartridge vs. that, etc etc. Top that off with I'm a revolver guy thru and thru and generally despise Glocks. Being said a Glock or other polymer .45 is where we've settled. Easy to strip, easy to clean, reliable, enough poop for most everything, light, etc etc. Also a gun I wouldn't feel bad mistreating if I had too. After all, it's just a glock. While I'd like to say my .357M is top of the heap it's just not as easy to maintenance if it/I takes a bath or end up covered in mud or sand.

.357 sig? About the bottom of the heap IMO.

Now while my friends and I have settled on a Glock none of us own one. Spending money on what we think is the best teddy bear when we all have sufficient teddy bears would be a waste. I'll stick with my .22lr or my .32H&R or my .357M and sleep plenty well at night. In other words, you might just think about using what you already have. There is no magic gun.
 
Last edited:
My Alternative Camping Gun---Ruger Speed-Six .357 Magnum

Well, I do have an alternate camping gun that I have had much longer than my Super Redhawk Alaskan. It is my stainless Ruger Speed-Six .357 Magnum with the 2 3/4" barrel.
 
Last edited:
Just get yourself a nice easy shoot'n Governor. Loads depend on where you'll be. In Griz country, my first two rounds are 410 #4 birdshot, followed by some heavy std swc 255 gr hardcast running about 1000. In Blackbear country, I usually load some non lethal 410 rubber balls up front, followed by some Glaser Silver, and the rest hardcast.

You should really only consider the gun on an extremely windy day. Most of the time if you stay away from thick brush and have a clear line of sight on the trail, you'll be lucky to run into a Griz once in a lifetime. I carry a tiny air horn that I bought at Wally's for $8. If I have a blind spot ahead I give it a couple of toots.

Most deadly encounters happen by surprise at 15' or less. Having spray in hand while navigating a blind spot is a good rule. On an extremely windy day crouch to a low level and fire the gun at the nose. #4 shot in the face at the last possible moment will give you a higher percentage of surviving than a drill sized high powered cartridge.

Around camp, keep it holstered until you go to sleep. I keep it tethered to my wrist in the tent. I luv this little gun. I use to carry a 41 mag but the older I got the more I realized how hard it is to hit the brain of a fast moving enraged bear. I think the example on a previous post of hitting a bouncing soccer ball is how impossible it is to accomplish.:)
 
Last edited:
July 15, 2012, 08:05 PM #86
warningshot
Senior Member

Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 519
Alaska444; why didn't anyone believe me when I said that .44 Mag isn't going to do it when Mr. Griz decides he wanta a piece of you?
Click to expand...

Sorry,

Missed that comment earlier. I consider the .44 magnum a great option when you can't carry a rifle. There is some worry that carrying a rifle in the woods could earn you an evaluation for poaching depending on where you are.

My .444 is at the bottom end of the range considered adequate for bear protection. (3000 ft-pds of muzzle energy) My .44 magnum has the ability with the correct shot placement to end an attack, but it isn't a rifle for sure.
 
I'll also be taking an SP101. I have the new one with the 4" barrel. Depending on where and what I could keep it loaded with anything from 38 or 357 snakeshot, hollow points, on up to the 200 grain Corbon Hunter HC.
 
I'm very happy with my 8 shot .357mag S&W 327 Night Guard for general outdoor carry duties. It's light enough for comfortable carry, but heavy enough to be manageable with hotter loads (32oz loaded with 8 125gr magnums), easy to carry and doesn't get in the way thanks to the shorter barrel but still very accurate. It's really a great all-around carry gun, one of these days I need to get a tanker style chest rig for it. I think that would be about the perfect hiking/camping/working outdoors set up where big bears aren't a concern.
 
I considered the .454 Casull. I test shot a Ruger SRH and was going to buy it. However, after a couple of days of thinking of how it made my hand go numb for 5 minutes, I decided on .44 magnum instead. If I need more than a .44 magnum, I pull out my .444 Marlin rifle instead.
 
I would go with your first idea.

You can't beat the simplicity and stopping power of a good .357 mag revolver. If you go with stainless it will be reasonably weather proof and if you buy a S&W 686+ you have 7 shots to protect yourself with. Of course a good 'ol rugged 6 shot Ruger GP100 is never a bad choice. Depending on how heavy a gun you are willing to carry anything from a 3 to a 6 inch barrel would do the job. I have a 4" bbl 686+, right in the middle and just about right!
 
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...
Using regulations as an assessment of a cartridge, or caliber's, stopping power is foolish at best. Regs rarely make sense when you have any real understanding of what a cartridge can do.

Personally, I wouldn't have ONE camping gun unless I was only camping in areas that presented the same types of threat. Ideally, I wouldn't carry a 357 into brown bear country. But then again, I wouldn't carry a 454 into blackbear country. I think you have to assess the threat and determine how mobile you plan to be. Then pick a caliber and gun that is the best reasonble choice. A good general camp gun would be a 357 revolver with a 4" or shorter barrel: sp101, LCR, 686, 66...etc. It has the power you need for 99% of the situations that you'll encounter and it's small enough and light enough to be practical. The chances of you ever having a bear encounter are way less than the chances of having a problem with another person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top