Why Revolvers for woods carry but Autos for defense carry?

[Crawford]

Actually, I think the Forest Service recommends Bear Spray (there are several manufacturers) as the best defense against grizzlies. I don't have the reference handy but if I remember correctly they said they had logged less injuries for hikers using the (extra strong) pepper spray that for those that tried to defend themselves with pistols.

I imagine your best defense would be to carry both a can of the Bear Spray for the bears along with your favorite pistol/revolver for defense against the snakes and other smaller critters. Besides, it is very easy for everyone in the hiking party to carry a can of the Bear Spray.... much easier than it is for everyone to be armed.

 

[David E]

I don't worry nearly as much about bears as I worry about two-legged predators. In the woods, there is no 9-11, no SWAT, no ammo resupply and in my woods, no phone service.

I recently found out that the black bear population is on the rise in the woods I frequent, so I gave the matter some more thought.

For ME, for general woods-walking, (as opposed to specific purpose, like hunting) I wanted high capacity, concealability, durability, reliability yet enough power for black bear. I settled on a Glock 20 backed with two spare mags. If small game is available and I wanted to harvest some, I'd take a .22 handgun as well.

 

[John Parker]

People are smaller than bears.

 

[medmo]

Why a revolver in the woods? Because I can carry a 44 mag in a relatively compact package. No semi-auto has that kind of wallop in such a compact package. I do carry other calibers in semi-autos for social situations with confidence. The previous post about revolvers jamming with a speck of powder is kind of funny.....

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't have the reference handy but if I remember correctly they said they had logged less injuries for hikers using the (extra strong) pepper spray that for those that tried to defend themselves with pistols.

I've seen the source and it's highly questionable. This is what the FS up here says:

Protection

Firearms should never be used as the alternative to common-sense approaches to bear encounters. If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle, they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/safety/bearfacts.htm

 

[medmo]

6 yards away from an angy bear and I'm betting my life on a spray can of hot peppers? I don't think so.

 

[Ed Ames]

Besides, it is very easy for everyone in the hiking party to carry a can of the Bear Spray.... much easier than it is for everyone to be armed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

First, bear spray is a weapon... a chemical incapacitant... so if everyone is carrying it, everyone is armed. You are saying everyone being armed is easier than everyone being armed. Second, bear spray is harder to buy, harder to train with, harder to use...harder in general. Maybe you meant "cheaper"?

 

[MCgunner]

1 POWER- magnum. enough said

2 ACCURACY-Your average auto just can't put 5 rounds into 4 inches at 100 yards.

3 VERSATILITY-In a survival or just a woods hunting scenario, a .357 magnum can go from big game and big critter defense to squirrel gun with a change of ammo and usually a sight elevation change. My favorite two .357s can put 6 rounds into an inch at 25 yards from a good rest. That's good enough for squirrel hunting.

I used to hunt west Texas, would carry my 4" .357 as a side arm loaded with wadcutters for rabbits, but dumped the .38s once when I decided to stalk a Javelina. I stalked within about 40 yards of a nice boar and placed a 165 grain SWC on his head.

I coulda shot that Javelina with my rifle, but I just decided I wanted to make it sport. I mean, it ain't like Javelina is great cuisine, ya know. I was actually after whitetail at the time. Javelina are blind as a bat and I had the wind in my face at the time.

 

[CWL]

the reason most give is a revolver has less moving parts and is less likely to fail.

I would argue that the people who say this don't have a clue about how many parts are in a revolver. Most modern revolvers have at least as many parts as in a steel pistol. Polymer guns have far far fewer parts.

 

[medmo]

Less moving parts in a polymer pistol than a modern revolver? Really? Are you counting the spring loaded safety thingy assembly that is on the trigger as one or a few parts? Check out some exploded diagrams on a revolver. Not a whole lot there. Pretty basic and straight forward.

 

[BlayGlock]

Why Not?

I would guess it is because you usually you get more powerful calibers in a fairly portable gun.

And no, revolvers do not have less moving parts.

 

[millertyme]

When we lived in Alaska 25 years ago or so, my dad used to carry a 10-1/2" SBH in a shoulder holster for bear protection while fly fishing on the rivers near our home. One of his buddies shot and killed a fairly large brown bear/grizzly and upon skinning it found five 44 caliber slugs embedded in the muscle tissue on the bear's chest. As per the forest service memo, a shotgun loaded with rifled slugs is what you should carry in the event you'll meet one of those monsters. For the little black bears we have down here in the lower 48, a .357 Mag or 44 Mag will do just fine, as would a 10mm or 38 super I suppose.

 

[jmr40]

I prefer a semi to a revolver in the woods for the same reason I prefer them not in the woods. Attacks by 4 legged predators are pretty far down on my list of worries. Even in the woods the 2 legged types are still more dangerous. A quality auto will be at least as durable and reliable in the dirt and mud as a revolver, probably more so.

 

[Azul]

Why must one carry a revolver or a semi-auto? Why can't one carry both?

 

[Arcticfox]

Attacks by 4 legged predators are pretty far down on my list of worries. Even in the woods the 2 legged types are still more dangerous.

While I can't argue that logic, if one carries a magnum, one is PREPARED for 2, and 4, legged creatures. You know the saying, "better to have it and not need it?" Could we say that goes for a powerful round as well?

 

[jmr40]

The auto I carry is a Glock 20 in 10mm. Just as good as any 357 mag with 3X the ammo in a lighter package. If I ever get into grizzly country I will re-evaluate my choices.

 

[Fishman777]

Bear spray...

The reason that Bear spray is so effective vs. grizzlies is that their sense of smell is around 2100x more sensitive than ours. Blood hounds have a sense of smell about 300x more than humans, and grizzlies have a sense of smell about 7x that of a blood hound.

The "pepper sprays" really pack a punch on us. Think of how it would effect you if your sense of smell was 2100x better than it is now...

The answer to your question is that a quality revolver will be more reliable and revolvers generally pack more power with the magnum cartridges.

 

[Country_boy_88]

i always contributed it to seeing the 10 inch barrels and having a pistol i could take a deer with at a reasonable distance.
I still carry my 9mm single stack CCW in the woods with me for finishing off deer as well as any predator i may encounter at close range.

 

[southpaw.nc]

I doubt I will have to worry about "the woods" anytime soon as my choice of habitat is more of the concrete jungle.

That being said, if I ever did adventure out to places where large bears exist and I was planning what to carry to protect myself, the last thing I would choose is a handgun to stop them. Im thinking 12 gauge shotgun w/ slugs or a mosin nagant carbine (gun is compact, given its caliber)

 

[Harve Curry]

I use a Colt SAA 44spl with my own handloads. Being a not to heavy medium frame it is handy, almost always with me, and rarely in the way. A bear and lion guide I know sticks to his 1911 45 and sometimes a Delta 10mm. I think a 230gr pill in the nose is just as effective if not more then pepper spray.

 

[Leanwolf]

MILLERTYME - " One of his buddies shot and killed a fairly large brown bear/grizzly and upon skinning it found five 44 caliber slugs embedded in the muscle tissue on the bear's chest. As per the forest service memo, a shotgun loaded with rifled slugs is what you should carry in the event you'll meet one of those monsters. "

I'd bet a lot of money those five .44 bullets were hollow point bullets. (.44 Mag.? .44 Spec.? .44-40 WCF ?) A good hard cast Keith style SWC or LBT in a .44 Mag. would have penetrated more than just "into chest muscles." Also, kinda makes me wonder about a scenario in which a person could shoot a Grizz in the chest five times... without being eaten or torn all to pieces. (??)

As for carrying a rifle or shotgun, there are many, many eveyday chores, etc., when out in the boonies, camp, etc., where it is very inconvenient to tote around a long rifle or shotgun. A handgun can be kept on one's person without getting in the way of whatever one is trying to do.

Advantages and disadvantages to both.

Just my take on it.

L.W.

 

[blindhari]

I have a ccw and carry a 9mm auto on my person at all times. When in the woods/offroad I wear a S&W .357 mag and if at all unsure pick up my 20 guage shorty out of the back seat. The S&W and the 20 guage are easier for me to handle and shoot better for me than the auto. The auto just hides better under street clothes.

blindhari

 

[KBintheSLC]

Nothing wrong with an auto for the woods. However, I doubt that a 45acp would be my first choice for use around here due to a lack of penetration. The 45 is a great man-stopper, but I wouldn't trust it to stop a charging moose with anything short of a head shot. I went with a 10mm Auto with 15+1 capacity as it gets superior penetration for effective body shots.

If I am in grizzly country, I'll take my 12ga.

 

[ArmedBear]

The 45 is a great man-stopper, but I wouldn't trust it to stop a charging moose with anything short of a head shot.

I wouldn't trust a 10mm to do that with anything short of a head shot, either. Or a .44 Magnum, or a .454 Casull...

Back to the original question: a hunting buddy carries a 10mm. He had to learn to shoot it right, by holding onto it like it was a rogue jackhammer, or it wouldn't feed consistently. I have no such issues with my 629, which shoots much heavier bullets that are superior for penetrating large attacking animals.

My rule for a defensive firearm of whatever sort: I have to be able to shoot it one-handed in a compromised position, or it's not worth squat. Muggers or moose, you won't have the luxury of getting into a Weaver stance before you fire. I don't have an alloy .357 snubbie, either.

I can shoot a .45 auto one-handed just fine without problems. Something hotter, I'd rather have a revolver that works fine in any position, with any grip, one-handed.

 

[NMGonzo]

I would use hot peppers in a heart beat!

Ceviche