Lightweight .357 for Backpacking?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DougB

New member
A friend of mine is looking for a lightweight handgun for backpacking and general outdoor use. He likes the .357 because he can load it heavy (for bear defense) or light for plinking. (I know a short barreled .357 is pretty light for bear, but its probably the best he can do within his weight and size limitations).

Anyway, the ideal gun for him would be one of the new ultralight titanium/aluminum revolvers with a 3-4" barrel and adjustable sights. With any steel parts of stainless. Basically a lightweight "kit gun" in .357. Is there any such thing? The S&W catalog only shows shorter barrels and/or fixed sights unless you move up to a heavier gun.

Any suggestions? Thanks.
 
Try the Taurus Tracker series, 4" titanium.
It just received great reviews,in I believe,Shooting Times.
 
Great reviews? They wrote a freakin' Love Letter to it. ~19 oz., and totally titanium, so you can really load those bone-crushing 180 grainers! They're factory ported and have a nifty set of soft stock grips that are supposed to nicely attenuate recoil. Also to be had at the same weight in the same revolver: .45 Colt, .41 mag, and .44 mag.
 
I'm glad that the gun manufacturers are into building something for everybody but I have always wondered how a pound could make that difference. I would rather have the extra weight for less recoil in case that bear needed a second shot.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I wouldn't mind carrying it, but I don't think I'd enjoy shooting it much. What's that saying, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" or "TANSTAAFL".

------------------
TJS
 
Ruger sp101 with 3 inch barrel. Stainless steel built like a brick Sh*t house and around 25 ounces.
 
Tell him to get something that he will be able to shoot! A medieum frame S&W (K or L), a Ruger GP-100, or better yet, an old Roger Security Six, Speed Six, or Service Six.
 
I concur w/ Gymco...the Ruger SP101 is a nice little package. I carry one myself. The slightly larger GP100 series could also be a candidate for backpacking carry.
 
what?? No replys about the Colt Manum Carry??

It hold 6 shots.. is no bigger that a Detective special and is oh so shiny stainless that you can throw it in the creek. (not that i recommed the practice). The ruger sp 101 is nice but the grips are too small for my hands. And besides with a short barrel you arn't burning all your powder anyway... practice at ten yards if you can hit a playing card with two shots in six at double action you are probably able to hit a bear in the noggin before he eats you.

By the way.. pepper spray is a lot more effective in stopping a bear attack (and you don't have to be as accurate) , and wearing a little "bear bell" on your pack will assure you never see one. Store your food properly and you will never have a problem.

I'm FAR more afraid of wandering into some yahoo's Pot Plantaion in the national forest than I am of running into a bear. (and I've done both)

Hope you find the info useful.

Oh and BY THE WAY congrees was hankering with a law to BAN ALL FIREARMS in National Parks so CHECK THE LAW before You Pack Heat. You'd hate to get popped on federal firearms charge because you are nervous about hungry bears. ;)

Stay Safe and Practice Practice Practice,

Dr.Rob
 
I've spent a lot of time and money on this topic. I've never had a close encounter with a bear or other "clawin' critter," but I don't discount the possibility or ridicule it. In reality it probably won't happen, but neither is a car accident all that common, but we still have seat belts and insurance. Things do happen and most often they are unexpected.

To begin with, if you or your friend seriously considers a bear attack likely in the woods, then consider this. The gun needs to be carried in the hand at all times. There are precious few people who have the presence of mind/dexterity/devotion to practice to draw a handgun and fire it with effect at at fast moving bear. (And they are faster than you would believe if you haven't observed one running--I have a video tape my brother-in-law made in Yellowstone of a griz running down an elk at close range and very quickly killing it). That's my first definite opinion.

My second is this: I would carry a .357 mag. if that's all that was available, but it definitely wouldn't be my first choice for any bear, black, griz, or big brown. I know it will do the job, but there are better "employees" in this case. I tend to think of the .44 mag as minimum, but have and will carry a .45 Colt sixgun with slightly "bumped up" handloads for this purpose. The .45 AR (Auto Rim) and beefed up .45 ACP loads can be carried in the sixguns by Smith made for them and can be loaded to exceed the .45 Colt cartridge with the 250 gr. range of bullet weight. A .45 Super load may work well, but I have no experience with them in any gun.

My third definite opinion is this: I know that backpackers are consumed with trying to pare down weight. That is dangerous reasoning in this case. It is imperative that you obtain a gun you can shoot well with a fairly heavy load. The object is to save life and limb from an animal which, if the adrenaline is up, can absorb a lot of punishment. The right gun for the job (read one that hits hard and is accurate for you) isn't too heavy, no matter its weight. A 2 1/2 to 3 lb. gun is in the ballpark.

Just my opinionated 2 cents.



[This message has been edited by Rod WMG (edited September 08, 1999).]
 
S&W Model 19 is about the best I've seen in .357. I backpack too and this was my choice for a long time.

If you can get past the .357 requirment, there's nothing better than the S&W Mountian Guns in either .44 mag or .45 Colt. A bit bigger than the K-frame, but accually about the same weight. Plus, these rounds pack a bunch more power. I have one in .45 Colt that is now my trail companion.

I too have heard good things about the Tarus Tracker, but have yet to see one for sale.
 
How about a Glock 32 in 357 SIG? :)

Small, lightweight, holds more rounds.

Compared to a 3 or 4 inch Magnum, you are getting about the same performance.

Speer 125 GD from my G32 is 1390 fps, Federal 125 from GP100 is 1375 fps.

Hornady 147 XTP from G32 is 1190 fps, Winchester 145 Silvertip from GP100 is 1200 fps.

What about a Glock 23 in 40? The 165 GS does 1100 fps from a G23, the Winchester 180 about 1100 from GP100.

All any of these is gonna do is piss off a bear, so it really doesn't matter much. :)



------------------
>>>>---->
 
It sems to be popular these days to shove a magnum cartriage in the smallest possible package. I've handled some of these "j frame" type magnums...and they are absolutely the most difficult guns to fire well beyond the first shot.

If the weapon you desire is a .357 magnum, and this is a weapon that is going to be used in the field you are going to require something more than a delicate "j frame" or K frame" for that matter. The "L frame should be considered the minimum in the smith lineup.

If you are really interested in a magnum that will handle more than you can dish out...Grab a hold of the GP-100. The grip on this gun is the best i've ever handled out of the box, and it is probably the most duriable .357 ever built. The double wall design is the secret. the cost is also less than 400 in most areas.

You will always hear the same montra from the same people, "Buy a smith", or "buy a Colt." This is complete and utter arrogance. Ruger is building the best .357's on the market and they are less expensive than the competion...not a bad deal.


------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
Peter Gunn,

I'm not trying to be argumentative about what you said, but sweeping generalizations are very subjective about what is the "best" brand. What are your criteria? I own several brands of handguns and none is the "best" in every respect. Some are cheaper in price and, therefore, the best bargain. Some are stronger than others and, therefore, the best in that regard. Some are superior in accuracy; some have better trigger action...you get the idea.

I prefer some brands over others, but some of that is from the "heart," not cold, hard facts. What is best for me is another man's "cluncker."
 
I have a S&W Model 60 (J frame).357 w/ 3" full lug barrel & adjustable sights. I had it Mag-na-ported, & can shoot it well (3" @ 25yds) or fast (not both.) It would be fine for backpacking, (which I do a lot of) so long as the bears are black & not brown (unless you can discharge the .357 from within the brownie's mouth.) I have a Smith .44 mag Mountain Gun which I carry in the land of brown bears. I still feel quite undergunned, but a .338 is too much to hike with. I've also heard that some brownies are developing a taste for Tobasco!
 
You are right in correcting my statement about any gun bing the "best". A better word choice would have been "better".

In respect to the argument i was offering, Smith and colt vs. Ruger, I was responding to the kneejerk responces from people who have obviously very little experience with a wide range of firearms. there seems to be this arrogance that exsists among armchair commandos the Smith and Wesson and Colt manufacture better firearms than anybody else. This a total falsehood, which you just proved.

In the market for a field revolver in .357 magnum, you have three basic choices. Smith and Wesson, Colt, and Ruger. You can include charter arms, wesson arms, or even Korth for that matter. But the big three are going to people's first choice, and rightly so. All these manufacturers have a reputation for making quality arms.

Lets look at each of the makers and their products.

Smith&Wesson:
Probably has the game won in name recognition and in the fact that they offer several different models in .357, but are they all applicable to the field. SOme would say yes, and i would disagree.

Probably the most logical choice for a field gun would be one that can handle field loads, 140gr. or better. i would never load a S&W M60, or even a model 19/66 for that matter with that load. It is just too hard on the guns. Also these guns were designed for street carry not field carry. J and K frames just do not have the raw strength to handle heavy loads and they are a bear to shoot. This leaves the L frame, unless you can find a used N frame in 4 inch trim.

Smith designed the L frame to handle consistent magnum shooting. the K's were falling apart. This renders the L frame the better choice in Smith.

But, is there something better...???

Colt:
Colt offers at least 3 different revolvers in .357 trim. The Python, magnum carry, and the king cobra. To start with the colts have a horrible reputation in the durability dept. Accuracy they are decent enough and their triggers are ok (exceptional in a python). The same argument apples to the magnum carry that applies to the J frames. And the prices are sky high, and for what.

Ruger:
The old service/security six models brought Ruger in the forefront for being good quality no frills revolvers. Very tough an dependable. Smith and Colt couldn't touch Ruger in that Dept. The triggers weren't always the best but it could be mastered (something most shooters are incapable of doing judging by the whining I hear about mastering DA/SA semi autos), or cleaned up by a competant smith. When Ruger released the GP-100, people were a little skeptical. People who used the older rugers were slow to give them up. But over time the Ruger has rightly come into its own. It is widly excepted that the GP-100 series is the most dependable, durable, toughest bloody design in .357 available. is the trigger smooth as a Smith of colt? No but it is nothing a good shooter cannot master or a smith cannot clean up. With fixed sights, is it the most accurate? No, but we ain't talking about target shooting, were talking about a field gun. this gun also has the capability in handling a consistent diet of .357 mags.

And it does it all for less than 400 dollars.
Is it the best .357? That depends on the application. Is it the best choice for field work. i think so, you tell me...if you can???

PS ruger also has probably the best customer service in the industry.



------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
Hi, Peter,

Interesting "signature"--I hadn't noticed it before.

This was a very comprehensive and well thought out post. I agree with a lot of it and disagree with some.

One of my shooting pards has a 6" GP100 .357 that was his first serious sixgun. He bought it on my advice. It is easily described as extremely accurate and I've tried to buy it off him several times. It seems he wants to sell, but doesn't think my price is high enough (it is average retail for such a model). What a great gun, but a very heavy trigger, crisp, but heavy.

I personally think the K frame "fragility" is vastly overblown. I haven't conducted any shoot to destruction tests on any gun of any make, but I know of these guns handling many hundreds of magnum rounds very well. The one and only .357 I own (I prefer big bores) is an N frame Smith, a very good gun. I personally think Smiths have the best out of box trigger actions available on an affordable gun.

Of the three Rugers I currently own, 2 are SA .44 Mags and one is the Mark I .22 target model. All good guns, though the Super Blackhawk had to go to the factory immediately for high pressures with factory loads. They reamed the chambers, but left them very rough, not bothering to polish afterwards. Hmmm. Other factory work on this gun and one of the others has been prompt and satisfactory. Smith's service has been equally as good or better on my several revolvers of that manufacture.

The only Colt I have owned is a SA .22 manufactured in the late 60's which I bought new after it languished in lawaway for several years. It is a piece of junk. It has soured me on Colts permanently, maybe unfairly.

The point of all this is this: It's remarkably similar to the Ford, Chevy, Dodge thing. All have their proponents and all eventually go to the garage for mechanical work. Just yesterday I talked to a mechanic who worked on my old pickup (Chevy). He hates Fords and doesn't even like to work on them. He tolerates Chrysler products. His boss says, "Mopar is junk!" There you go.

Best wishes, PeterGunn.
 
Okay, back to the original debate, if you gentlemen will allow me... :)

I used to carry one of two .357 Magnums while hiking when I DIDN'T expect to see large carnivorous mamals: A magna-ported Rossi 6-shot M887 and a 4-inch S&W M66. Like you, I carried revolvers for reliability and 357 Mag for lightweight firepower.

Then one day, for giggles, I thought I would compare my compact and subcompact Glock 357 SIG model 33 and 32 to the full house 357 ballistics out of my faithful trail guns. Not only did the Glocks completely outperfom the 357's in energy AND MOMENTUM, but they were lighter, carried more rounds, were about the same size, and a LOT less painful to discharge.

The sad truth is my 9-mm Glock 26 with factory loads nearly matched my Rossi with wicked handloaded 357 Magnums -- except I could get 1 inch hammers with the G26 at 10 feet and the 357 Mag took me a two or three seconds to shake of the muzzle blast and wrist-wrench before the second shot!

My point: I sold BOTH 357 Magnums and now I only carry .357 SIG on light trails hikes and 300-grainer 44 Mags in a 4-in Smith when I'm on serious outings.

Just my experiences.
Regards, as always.
JR1
 
JR1,

Please don't interpret this as a flame, but I'd be interested in how you determined that some guns "outperformed" others. Were your testS subjective or in a labortatory under controlled conditions? Were bullet weights the same, etc.?

As an example of what I'm getting at, many years ago, I shot some of the same ammo from two of my Smith .44 mags into a hard, dried juniper stump in NM. The 3" barreled gun's performance showed up pitifully against the 6 incher's--the bullets fired from the 6" gun penetrated twice as far as did those of the 3".

Over the years, when I'd tell people I'd lost all confidence in the 3 inch gun for bears, they would express doubt about the results. Finally, I determined to run new "tests" on Texas cedar, New Mexico being relatively inaccessible at the time. I was in for a surprise.

The guns used were the same two original Smiths, as well as a 4" Smith, a 7 1/2" Super Blackhawk, a 6 1/2" Smith, and an 8" Colt Anaconda. None performed well on penetration and the 3 incher about duplicated the results of the 6 incher it couldn't touch before. There was no appreciable difference in that particular medimum for any of the various barrel lengths. It was a shocker for me.

Candidly, the only real "laboratory" on this issue isn't available to very many of us. I think if we shot, say, about 30 bears with each gun/ammo combos, we'd have a pretty good idea of what that particular combination would do in that arena. Then we'd have to take into account the state of excitement (or lack thereof) of the animals and the exact placements of the shots taken. We'd have to consider if the bear were being hunted or the shooter was the "huntee."

I know of one man-eating black bear which was killed by one of a trailing team of wardens with a standard 158 gr. .38 Spl. load, but that doesn't make me want to rely on that combination. I also heard of a moose being killed by a woman with a snub .22 revolver when she shot to try to scare it from her garden.

The point of all this rambling is that we'll probably each carry what we FEEL will do the job, not what we know will work. Let's hope that none of us ever has to find out! :)

[This message has been edited by Rod WMG (edited September 10, 1999).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top