SA revolver for camping/woods gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think either a Ruger Blackhawk or a Vaquero, in some sort of .40+ caliber (.41 Mag, .44 Special, .44 Mag, or .45 Long Colt), would make for a great choice for a camping/backwoods gun.
 
I'm in agreement with you about the .45colt only if you reload .The factory loads have been reduced so much{liability issues w/old guns}. But loaded to their potential I call them a .454 casull short.
 
It's curious to me that no one is mentioning hand size.
I have short fingers, and the Ruger Blackhawks are a bit too big for me.
As are S&W N-Frames.

A Ruger New Model Vaquero, Colt SAA or Uberti all have smaller grips.

So the choice of gun really comes down to, what fits your hand, and what do you shoot well.

I know there are some that will flame or insult the Uberti. But I have 2 of them and they're just as accurate as the NM Blackhawk that I sold.
 
MCgunner I checked out the. buffalobore.com site That's the .45colt I'm refering to when I say .454 casull short . I'm sure glad I reload though because I could buy another real nice S&W mod 25 for what 8 or 9 boxes of these cost!!
 
but in an appropriate caliber a SA will do, did finw for many decades in our past
Click to expand...

Except where it didn't.

I can pretty much guarantee that there is a non-zero number of people who died in decades past while holding a SA revolver, that would have survived had they been holding a DA.

That's not to say that a SA is useless - a DA is just more versatile. When at the range, I don't care much about versatility. I have 2 single actions I shoot there because they're fun. If my life is on the line, "style" or "it was good enough for grand-pappy so it's good enough for me" aren't really concerns of mine. I just want something to make the situation safe again as quickly as possible.
 
I like my .357 blackhawk for a woods handgun enough to buy a marlin carbine to go with it! I always have one or the other and they work great for everything from rabbits to hogs....I don't have any bears here so I don't know about that. I think if I had a charging bear i'd be comfortable in a shermin tank, but i'm a chicken:) I am considering seriously checking into .44 mag and learning to reload.

As far as it being a single action, it just feels right in the woods.
 
The Blackhawk in any good caliber is pretty much the perfect woods gun.

6-Ruger.jpg

Real fond of my 45 Colt one, but unless your going to get into reloading, the 45 Colt can get expensive.
 
I can pretty much guarantee that there is a non-zero number of people who died in decades past while holding a SA revolver, that would have survived had they been holding a DA.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory. Doesn't seem to be based in reality but interesting nontheless.
 
CraigC said:
Interesting theory. Doesn't seem to be based in reality but interesting nontheless.
Click to expand...

You think it unreasonable that in all the years they were used not one single person died cocking a gun between shots? Simply put, almost everyone has a higher rate of fire with a da over sa, and in certain situations rate of fire can save your life.
 
Manipulating a single a single action revo does take more practice, but if you ever observe good cowboy shooters, you will see that they aren't far behind the double action shooters, and when going for one shot per target, they are pretty much equal.
 
Accuracy saves lives, rate of fire doesn't.
Click to expand...

Both are helpful. That's about like saying that careful driving saves lives, so there's no point in ever wearing your seatbelt. While careful driving certainly will be of help, promoting one particular attribute as supreme over all others is never a good idea.

I'll stand by my statement - it's probably not a huge number, but SOME number of people likely have died in the past holding a SA when a DA would have saved their lives. Just as some people died holding a muzzleloader when a cartridge gun would have saved their lives, and some others have died holding a bow when a gun would have saved their lives.

None of those items are useless - in their time they all saved many, many lives, but the reality is that for some percentage a more versatile weapon will work where the other will not. The odds might not be great, but carrying a gun for protection is all about protecting yourself against small odds.
 
Hi,
I don't do any hunting anymore or go out in the woods. But when I did my choice is my Ruger New Model Blackhawk 4 5/8 barrel in 357/9mm. It is my all purpose revolver. In the area I live in, Bears are not a problem. The 357 magnum is plenty good enough up to a fair size white tail dear. To me the Ruger Blackhawk is the best woods revolver. If I was a reloader I would get the 45 long colt. It is a great caliber and the Blackhawk is the perfect fit.

Howard
 
Quote:
Accuracy saves lives, rate of fire doesn't.
Click to expand...

Both are helpful. That's about like saying that careful driving saves lives, so there's no point in ever wearing your seatbelt. While careful driving certainly will be of help, promoting one particular attribute as supreme over all others is never a good idea.
Click to expand...
That's really now a good anology. As Bill Tilghman used to say, "Speed's fine, accuracy's fatal."

Or as Wyatt Earp said, "Get your gun out as quick as you can and take your own sweet time about aiming."
 
Following the oft-repeated dictum of "you fight as you train", it seems to me that the idea of relying on firepower is not bad when you are fighting as a team, i.e. have other people fighting alongside you and have the potential for being re-supplied. An individual caught in a life-or-death situation is likely to be alone and only has the weapon and ammunition carried on his person. While it is true that having more ammunition and the capability of a faster reload is desirable, it seems also true that countless days of range-time spent in rapid-firing a high-capacity handgun might be less valuable than countless days spent firing more slowly and making sure each round hits where you want it to hit. Suppressive fire is for someone who has someone else around, not for someone who when he runs out of ammo is out of ammo, period.

In the event of a TEOTWAWKI scenario, is the person who has always trained to lay down a barrage of fire better suited than the person who chooses his shots? How much ammo does he have? How much can he carry? Where can he re-supply?

The range I belong to is a baffled, outdoor range. I cannot tell you how many people hit the posts supporting the baffles a bit further downrange from their targets because of practicing "spray and pray" tactics with their high-capacity pistols. It has become a problem because of the damage to support posts. Yes they are getting "on paper" but their angles are "off" and they are hitting posts further downrange because they are practicing emptying their magazines seemingly as quickly as they can.

Ammo is expensive. It will get more so. Someday it might be precious. And, we do fight as we train.
 
Suppressive fire is for someone who has someone else around, not for someone who when he runs out of ammo is out of ammo, period.
Click to expand...
Supressive fire is killing fire -- if it doesn't kill, it doesn't supress.

Now, it used to be said that troops didn't see the target in combat. That's wrong -- they didn't recognize it. The "target" is where we think the enemy is, and suppressive fire is directed into that place in sufficient volume to cover the area and kill the troops there.
 
That's really now a good anology. As Bill Tilghman used to say, "Speed's fine, accuracy's fatal."
Click to expand...

It's a perfect analogy. One attribute is very important, but once it fails, there are other features at work.

You can drive as carefully and observantly as possible, and the person doing that will probably be much safer that someone who straps on a seatbelt and drives like a bat out of California. HOWEVER, there is still some chance that you may make a mistake one day and get into an accident, OR you may become involved in an accident through no fault of your own. At that time, you really want that seatbelt on too. The best end result doesn't come from someone who practices one school of thought or another, but rather, someone who embraces BOTH.

By the same token, someone who aims carefully will almost always fare better than someone who practices spray and pray, but realistically, there's ALWAYS a chance that you may still miss. There's also a chance that there may be more than one assailant. In those cases, you're going to need additional shots. Though you still need to aim carefully, speed is still important, and outside of the CASS circuit your actual everyday person will not be able to fire a single action NEARLY as fast as they can fire double - if they do, they're likely not aiming very well as they're likely neglecting the aim step while they're recocking. The reality is that we're not all Wyatt Earp (not to mention that fact that being a practical sort of fellow, I'd wager that if he were around today, even he would be carrying something else while patrolling the streets in today's world).

Otherwise you might as well just load a single round in your gun. Afterall, you only need one, and you can always put another round in if need be right?

Nothing against single action guns. I own two of them and enjoy shooting them. Just my personal opinion though, 99% of the time anyone actually carrying one for defense is more concerned about style and nostalgia than their actual safety. Exceptions made for instances where you - for legal or financial reasons - find yourself owning one and have no real recourse to obtain something else. Carry guns should be pragmatic, not a representation of one's personality.

NOTE: This has drifted a bit from the original topic. When I'm referring to a carry gun I'm moreso talking about general, everyday carry (which includes street carry, not woods). In the woods your threats are less likely to be multiple in number, and less likely to be shooting back at you, so I don't see as much of a problem with the originally stated camping/woods gun. Just the idea that for carry in general a SA is just as good as a DA.
 
Last edited:
mgmorden said:
Both are helpful. That's about like saying that careful driving saves lives, so there's no point in ever wearing your seatbelt. While careful driving certainly will be of help, promoting one particular attribute as supreme over all others is never a good idea.
Click to expand...

To be helpful, either or both must be effective. Accuracy is, rate of fire is not unless it's accurate. One factor stands entirely on it's own, while the second is conditional on the first.

Do you have any evidence of people dying holding a SA, when a DA would have saved them?
 
We are talking about woods guns, not self defense and should keep that in mind.

That said, you don't have to be End of Trail champion to be highly proficient with a single action. IMHO, the difference in rate of fire is insignificant and mostly perceived. Maybe YOU are more comfortable with a double action and maybe YOU are faster with one but don't assume it's all about equipment. It is not. I love revolvers, they are my passion and my primary interest. I love S&W double actions but it is a point of fact that I own three times as many single actions and spend waaaay more time shooting them than DA's. When I shoot them, I am not just farting around. I am working towards higher proficiency, training. All those things one would need in a gunfight, I am working on improving them. Thus, I am far more proficient with SA's than DA's. So for a shooter like me, there would be no advantage to a double action for the first five shots. Zero.

It's about the indian, not the arrow.
 
There's nothing wrong with a nice SA revolver for carrying through the woods, except you might get tired packing around the weight (my 4-5/8" Blackhawk in .357 Magnum weighs 40 oz empty). My usual choice for woods carry is my S&W M396 Mountain Lite. It weighs 18 oz empty, shoots single action or double action, and I often forget it's there when carrying it. And I feel comfortable that my .44 Special handloads would be effective against man or beast (at least here in Colorado). Also a five-round speedloader easily slips into your pocket as well.

396mtnlite.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Unkei
  • Locked
SA Revolvers for CCW
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
197
Views
10K
Sam Cade
S
G
  • Locked
Anyone CCW an SA Revolver?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
CraigC
CraigC
G
  • Locked
Revolver CCW: wood/rubber grips
Replies
14
Views
2K
The_Shootist
The_Shootist
D
  • Locked
DA/SA revolvers...
Replies
11
Views
731
Stainz
S
T
  • Locked
My article on revolver speedloaders for CCW
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Trebor
T
Back
Top