Author Topic: Woods carry gun (Read 9909 times)

Davemuzz · « **Reply #30 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:23:02 AM »

Quote from: 35Rem on July 26, 2007, 03:25:15 AM

He means CHAMBERS....give him a break...

Thanks Rem....just one of those times when I know what I'm sayin...but the words just get stuck. Hey....they both started with a "C"...so somewhere in that grey matter it was close!

Dave

Davemuzz · « **Reply #31 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:26:45 AM »

Quote from: S.B. on July 26, 2007, 02:55:47 AM

So, you have a total of seven cylinders fitted to your gun? One in the gun and six more for spare carry?

SB,

Are you lookin for some "chops" to bust or what? Slow day? This the best you can do?

Dave

35Rem · « **Reply #32 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:40:36 AM »

No problem, I'm sure SB was just pullin your chain.

I've been reading a lot of posts lately about people seeing/hearing other's do/say incorrect things around or with firearms and doing nothing about it. Or worse, they laugh at them, or belittle them. That's no way to encourage people's interest in gun ownership and promoting safety with firearms.

Sorry to get off topic.

myronman3 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 26, 2007, 09:19:00 AM »

hey dave, you crying cause someone did to you what you did to me? if your going to be a stickler, dont be crying a river when you get a dose of your own medicine.

a redhawk is aweful heavy. a blackhawk with a short barrel fits in a back pocket nicely.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #34 on:** July 26, 2007, 10:36:44 AM »

MHO,

If your going to "carry it" more than your going to "shoot it" then you should consider the Smith 329PD revolver. It weighs only 26 oz. empty, and you probably won't even feel it on your hip. I know when I carry my Smith 386sc 357 it's not noticeable. Before I bot that gun, I carried my Smith 5" 44 mag 629. Buy the end of the hunt, I was always pulling up my pants!!!

I know the Alloy frame Smith's are more expensive than the stainless or blued models, but if you can swing the bucks, the lighter weight is really nice.

Dave

S.B. · « **Reply #35 on:** July 26, 2007, 11:46:30 AM »

I disagree with the advise to buy a alloyed .44 magnum pistol. The recoil can be horrendous, and accuracy can suffer because of the recoil.
Stay with a Mountain Gun or regular steel framed S&W or Ruger .44 magnum.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #36 on:** July 26, 2007, 12:01:55 PM »

Quote from: S.B. on July 26, 2007, 11:46:30 AM

I disagree with the advise to buy a alloyed .44 magnum pistol. The recoil can be horrendous, and accuracy can suffer because of the recoil.
Stay with a Mountain Gun or regular steel framed S&W or Ruger .44 magnum.

If your going to "carry it" more than your going to "shoot it" Those words are key. If you reload, you can load all the "plinker" loads you want to shoot out of the alloyed 44 magnum for practice. If you have a 400 pound bear chargin right at you, I can pretty much guarantee you that the gun can have Core-bon 240 grain hollow points in it and at that point, recoil isn't going to be felt at all.

However, carrying around that steel framed 44 magnum on your hip for a day is going to be felt.

The advice is just that. Advice. Something to consider. The buyer\user is the one who needs to consider all of the input and make the final choice. The alloy may be the best choice, but it may well be out of his price range. Or, he may just like Rugers no matter what.

Dave

Cheesehead · « **Reply #37 on:** July 26, 2007, 12:41:06 PM »

Another vote for the Ruger Black Hawk in 4 5/8 inch. I have had one for a few years and have taken deer with it. Nothing exotic or fancy or expensive, just reliable, accurate, compact, light weight, carryable...... Fits in my coat pocket. With maximum hand loads in 45 Long Colt, it is a powerhouse. With a standard blue finish and adjustable sights it is probably the least expensive pistol listed in this thread and the BEST "woods carry gun".

Cheese

S.B. · « **Reply #38 on:** July 28, 2007, 03:37:08 PM »

Can't disagree with you about the Black Hawk in .45 Colt, Cheesehead but, I'm a S&W fan and am going to hold out for a 25-5 four incher. Have been craving one for a while now but, alas no luck. And to set the record straight, I truely didn't understand the post about chambers or cylinders. One of the things that went right over my thick head.

shakey · « **Reply #39 on:** July 28, 2007, 05:55:22 PM »

If weight is not a consideration... the Redhawk you are thinking of would be an excellent choice.

For me though, weight matters and my vote is for the blued 4 5/8 Ruger BH in .45 Colt. Mine is one of the most accurate guns I own, packs easy, and will handle loads as heavy as I care to stand behind. Just plain love it. (By the way, the .45 ACP cylinder is also real handy)

But... I gotta admit... the S&W .45 Colt Mountain Gun has been kinda turning my head lately. It is only a couple ounces more and the double action & faster reload might be handy in some situations. You can't load it quite as warm but it would be plenty good for my needs.

Wouldn't quibble about the same guns in .44 Mag if you don't care to reload. Pretty similar performance with less hassle and just a little more weight.

S.B. · « **Reply #40 on:** July 28, 2007, 06:09:12 PM »

If nothing else was available, I would carry my 5&1/2" Redhawk.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #41 on:** July 29, 2007, 12:17:20 AM »

My all time favoirte bumbing gun is my 4 inch 629. Its usually loaded with 250s at 1200fps and is basicaly stock other then custom grips and a trinium insert front sight. Light compact very accurate and if that power level doesnt take care of anything i run into i shouldnt be there to start with.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #42 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:46:22 AM »

Quote from: S.B. on July 28, 2007, 03:37:08 PM

I truely didn't understand the post about chambers or cylinders. One of the things that went right over my thick head.

Peace.

If you think you were to thick to understand it, it's probably because I was to thick to figure out I wasn't 'splain-in it right.

Dave.

west · « **Reply #43 on:** August 01, 2007, 02:19:58 PM »

any 44mag or 50. short, lite and dirt proof, or you will hate it...especially if you're a rifle hunter.
I carry a 357 snub since every bear i've ever run into were bit on the small side and the "ner'do'well" type of folks.
If you're in Alaska, maybe the 600 nitroexpress would be better lol.

I've never had to shoot a bear angry at me, i've always been able to scare them away and once out ran one (it actually tripped and bowled itself over on fallen limbs/leaves then turned tail) that was in California Sierras near place called Hell Hole, I later found out thats the area the state/feds dump off "trouble" bears from Yosemite and stuff.

fatercat · « **Reply #44 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:33:43 PM »

this weight thing? if you get the proper holster, such as a shoulder, would in not negate the weight problem? if you are in danger then find a way to deal with the weight so you can live through it. just a thought.

jcn59 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:12:35 PM »

I hang the whole works on my shoulder either inside or outside my coat. I use a regular belt holster, a regular gun belt, and an "L" shaped stiff leather piece to put the holster at the right attitude. Works good for me.

Mikey · « **Reply #46 on:** August 03, 2007, 12:37:45 AM »

I'm not usually concerned with bear in my neck of the woods, unless someone tells me there is one I might encounter, so I do not usually carry anything heavier than a 45 automatic for just bummin' around or walking through the fields. I often pack a Tokarev for a fast, flat shooting shot at a running coyote if I see one - I doubt I will come close enough to do anything more than worry the critter.

If I need something mroe serious than a 45 or a Tok I willpack one of two S&Ws: the first is my N-frame 357 with a 3.5" bbl - makes for a nice easy to carry packing gun when worn tightly to the hip. The second, and an even nicer woods carry gun for me is my Mountain Gun in 44 mag - with the bigger chamber holes and larger bore the darn thing actually weighs less than the 357, unless I go stuffin' some 300 grainers in the chambers 'cause that adds almost more weight than the gun.

Now mind ya, this is just my two cylinders, er chambers, er cents worth............... Mikey.

IMshooter · « **Reply #47 on:** August 03, 2007, 04:50:59 AM »

I was stationed in New Mexico and spent a great deal of time in the desert and mountains. There were black bears, mountain lions and rattlesnakes. My carry gun was a Colt .45 auto which I usually carried in a flap holster to keep the dust out of it. I never really worried about the bears and cats. As for the snakes, common sense and avoidance goes a long ways.

The varmints I worried about were the two legged variety. Drug smugglers, people smugglers, poachers, thieves, the mentally ill, drunks, dopers.....Usually just the sight of a holstered handgun makes people very polite.

warrior1 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 13, 2007, 03:29:00 PM »

as far as a woods gun whatever you are comfortable with and whatever you have confidence in is the one for you.

Hook686 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 13, 2007, 11:04:03 PM »

When it comes to a 'woods carry' hangun, I prefer somthing a little lighter than my 6" 629. I either carry my 4" 686, or my 4" 329PD. Ususally the 329PD wins out due to its lighter weight.

IMshooter · « **Reply #50 on:** August 14, 2007, 05:51:46 AM »

My brother lives in northern Nevada and carries a S&W 10mm semi-auto. He used to carry a .44 magnum and later a .357 magnum. But that 10mm is more compact, lighter in weight, more comfortable to wear, and holds more rounds than a revolver. It is a sensible carry gun for rugged outdoor use.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #51 on:** August 14, 2007, 07:30:02 AM »

If your going to "carry it" more than your going to "shoot it"

I still go back to my 357 scandium\titanium carry piece. I load full boat 357 loads for this gun. Now, granted it's a 357 and not a 44 mag, but I carry it more than I shoot it. But when I do carry it, which is quite often because it's so comfortable, I don't really notice it....but I always know it's there in case I need it. It's not like carrying my 4" 629 PITA Smith. Don't get me wrong, I love to shoot my Smith 629....I just hate to carry it all day long.

Dave

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2007, 09:32:12 AM »

Well if you have to carry it ya might need a light gun , i used the Ruger for a while , got a few years on me and went to a Glock in 10mm. !
Light to carry , no rust , can get wet and work , on a power level with a 41 mag., holds 14 rounds , and cost effective !
oh yea , works well on 2 legged critters trying to hurt ya also ! and it is easy on follow up shots with ammo to spare , and if you are in the water it will shoot under water ! night sights or laser friendly ( never seen either on a redhawk )
to be honest i like both redhawk and blackhawk but don't care to carry one all day ! the Glock is a good tool for defense , nothing less ! a sholder rig , white light , spare mag , are we up to 44mag. weight yet ?

Cheesehead · « **Reply #53 on:** August 14, 2007, 11:33:40 AM »

There may be legal issues in Wisconsin if you carry a center fire hand gun with a barrel less than 5.5 inches during big game season. Just something to think about.

Cheese

Davemuzz · « **Reply #54 on:** August 14, 2007, 12:38:11 PM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on August 14, 2007, 11:33:40 AM

There may be legal issues in Wisconsin if you carry a center fire hand gun with a barrel less than 5.5 inches during big game season. Just something to think about.

Cheese

Cheese.....I thought the only thing the law was concerned about in Wisconsin was cows?

Dave

jk3006 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 14, 2007, 05:57:20 PM »

My woods gun. I really like it. 4 5/8 .45 Colt with several goodies. Shoots 325 wfn's at 1220 fps with ease. I hope this picture posts. If not, oh well.

Camel 23 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 14, 2007, 10:26:03 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on August 14, 2007, 09:32:12 AM

and if you are in the water it will shoot under water !

Don't try this at home folks.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #57 on:** August 15, 2007, 01:50:38 AM »

Why not ? have you seen the test reports ?
several articles have been written as to how the Glock works as a weapon to use for shark attack etc.
it may not be something that you practice but if a bear or such catches you while fishing or otherwise in the water , i for one would be more than willing to give it a try !
for general imfo. the article i recall stated that the Glock would function under water , not many actions would , also since the bbl was full of water it was not obstructed thus the bullet pushed the water out as it traveled down the bbl. also it was a short range affair 2-3 feet ( better than the bang stick which was a contact weapon ) also salt water had little effect on the gun , as stated in a Glock ad showing one that was lost by a diver and found over a year later with no ill effect . I doubt Glock would put out such an ad if it were that dangerous ! IMHO !
and no i have not shot one under water , then again , haven't had a bear or such catch me fishing either !

35Rem · « **Reply #58 on:** August 15, 2007, 03:26:59 AM »

Shooting under water is not as dangerous for the shooter as it is for the gun. Guns and Ammo TV did a torture test on a SA 1911 in a pool. The gun shot fine, and functioned several times, BUT it bulged the barrel. Water is an obstruction, the bullet pushing the water out increases pressures and can cause the steel to fail.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #59 on:** August 15, 2007, 03:53:25 AM »

air between the bullet and the water is the problem ,