kit gun / backbacking pistol question

Status
Not open for further replies.
I probably was not clear enough in my original post. I need a very light gun with reasonable accuracy.

The additional info helps.

The 317 has it all over the NAA.

But I'd also consider the Walther P-22 and S&W Model 34 or 63. The S&W's were made with a 2" barrel, if you can find one.

Also, the Ruger 22/45's with a short skinny barrel married to the poly frame are fairly light and quite accurate.

.
 
I remember a story about a 3" mod 60. That extra inch makes a big difference although I still wouldn't be wasting ammo on a 25 yard rabbit with my 3" mod 36. 25-30 feet yes.

I agree the 3" version with adjustable sights would be a huge improvement over a 2" snub with fixed sights. A full wadcutter load would be just the ticket for that rabbit at 25 yds.

(I bet you COULD hit it with that load!)

.
 
I get very picky about what makes it into the pack. Ounces make pounds and over a decent distance they really take their toll.

I understand that, but when it comes to a gun that can fill your belly and keep you safe, compromise somewhere else!

.
 
If you can find a 360Sc it has scandium frame and titanium cylinder and weights in at 12 oz and is a 357 mag with 3" barrel J frame with adjustable rear sight and HiViz front sight and you can always load the 357 light or full house if not plinking. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
having done a fair amount of hiking, I understand your concern for weight. I have on occasion carried a 6906 because of its weight and often carry a Walther p-22 for the same reasons. I hike with a buddy and he typically carries a 3 inch Ruger SP101. We split the difference, I like the extra ammo and less weight, he likes the bigger round. In a revolver as mentioned the non steel .22 would be good. I think the Ruger bearcat would be a neat trailgun myself. My buckmark and Ruger Mk II are never my trailguns, at that weight I'll carry my 9mm or .357 thank you. If you are looking at maximum weight savings and only for plinking and food for the pot. The .17 HMR in a handgun would be interesting. Compare the weight of 100 rounds of it vs. 100 rounds of .22 lr. Happy trails and I agree with you on the weight issue!
 
How do these guns shoot?

If I'm gonna carry it, I'm gonna shoot it. And that means taking small game with it. A gun that won't shoot well enough to do that reliably is too heavy to carry, no matter how light it is.
 
Low budget; Police trade in .38 or .357.
Money is no object because I buy once; S&W 386 in .38/357 mag.

I own both options.
 
To the OP:

I have the S&W 317 (3" variety). If you're still thinking of picking one up, I would advise getting one with a standard ramp or Patridge front sight, rather than the Hi-Viz. The Hi-Viz looks cool, and sounds neat in theory, but I personally think it doesn't provide the additional accuracy you want in a piece like this.

The Hi-Viz might work better for a "combat pistol" in which the objective might be to hit COM quickly. Conversely, with the 317, I think you want to eke out as much placement as possible out of the .22LR. For that, the Hi-Viz just doesn't cut it for me...

FWIW, my S&W 63 4" with Patridge front sight is a veritable tack driver... :)
 
Have done considerable back packing, and spend a lot of time in the back country. If bear is an issue,...I carry my 4 5/8 Ruger SBH in 44 mag on occasion,...weighs a ton,..but the weight is a comforting one. More often than not I have carried a Single Six in .22 Mag,..4 5/8 barrel. Works for both dogs and the occasional dumb a$$,...I have recently acuired a Ruger "Baby Vaquero" in .32 H&R,...a lot lighter than the SBH...and a tad more effective than the 22 version,...it now serves that purpose,..it may be an option for you as well. A good old S&W 650 or 651 in .22 Mag could be a good bet as well. I like my Ruger's best though. Agree it's hard to wrong with a 38 or 357 revolver in J or K size frame though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top