Author Topic: Backwoods rifle handgun caliber? (Read 1340 times)

Mman · « **on:** January 12, 2005, 04:55:32 PM »

If I wanted to carry a rifle and handgun that were chambered in the same caliber what would it be? I have thought about this from time to time and ave come up with .45lc. Seems that you could get some stew meat and defend yourself with this combo. Would be nice to keep in a cabin or truck for those occasions that arise.I guess .44 or .357 would be other choices. Anyone have other ideas?

Ditchdigger · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2005, 05:08:32 PM »

I'm using a 44 mag in mine,but I plan to rechamber it to a 445 super mag.soon. That way I can still shoot the 44 mags and 44 spl's. I'm getting 1634 fps.avg. with the 300gr XTP's,and with the 445 I hope for 1950 fps with a 300 gr.
Digger

Daveinthebush · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2005, 05:40:01 PM »

Ditchdigger I think has the bese suggestion.

You can shoot muzzleloading balls through 300+ grain bullets for everything from rabbits to brown bear. The .445 is a hoot to shoot in a Contender.

De41mag · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2005, 05:45:06 PM »

Well.... You could wait a little while and get the Handi in a 500 S&W and carry it with you with the 4 incher or the 8-3/8 handgun. Then you would loaded for just about anything. :grin: :wink:

Dennis

JPH45 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2005, 05:55:02 PM »

Depends on if you reload. For a reloader the 44 Mag combo will do everything the 45LC will do.

I personally don't put a lot of faith in a handgun for self defense. It is harder to hit with rapidly and requires a higher level of practice to maintain a useable proficiency with. I'd rather have a 44 Mag lever rifle as a defense gun that any revolver made. In the heat of the moment, I'm far more likely to hit something using 20" of barrel to look over than 4 or 6, and even with as powerful a hadgun as the 44 Mag is, in a rifle it gains even more velocity and energy.

It also depends on what you want to put down. Bears can be very, very tough. Dogs are far tougher than people give them credit for. A hog can kill you as well as can a deer.

But how often do we hear of animal attacks on humans. It does happen, but with far, far less frequency than we might suppose. Statisically, the greatest threat we face is from other humans, and the better human stoppers in a revolver begin with 357. I imagine a 357 in the brain pan of a bruin that is about to eat you would be just about as effective as a 44 or 45 slug, and just as likely to entice the brute to get to his meal faster if you simply splatter wounding hits upon his body as he charges. This doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot, it just means we should have a firm grasp on the full import of the idea of being charged by an angry bear, or a stupid human.

I have always found rather ridiculous the idea that body shots on a charging, angry bear, made with a handgun that is not capable of wrenching itself out of the shooters hand is going to stop in full force 700 pounds of tooth and claw that is highly motivated to have you for lunch.

It is at least physcologically comforting though to know that we are capable of giving him a strong dose of indigestion.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2005, 08:27:33 PM »

Personally...in todays world...for the vast majority of us...there really isn't a need to have the same in both a pistol and a rifle...a desire..yes...a need...not really...if I were to backpack into the most wildest area's in this country...knowing full well that I may encounter Large Carnivorous animals that wish to have me for a meal...or that could do me serious harm and death if I stumble upon them...then I would have a rifle fully capabable of dispatching any of them...and a pistol that I could bring to bear firing rapidly and undercontrol...I don't see the 500 S&W as the answer...either in a rifle or a pistol,I've seen and shot the pistols...no thanks...in the rifle...there are better choices for rouge bears...and as much as I love my 1895 GS...it wouldn't get the nod for duty either...it would have to be a very rugged rifle capable of great firepower and accuracy...probably with a very low power scope in some quick release rings with open sites for backup...a stainless steel version wearing one of the best synthetic stocks available...and be coated in either a od green or black oxide finish...and most likely in 375 H&H...the pistol would have to be something that can be shot at small game and as a last resort for protection...and would most likely be a 44 mag with both heavy and lite loads available..for the occasional snake or putting a rabbit or squirel in the pot for dinner...

Now just for fun...a 44 mag in a rifle and pistol would be fun...especially if you can get both to shoot the same ammo accuratly...and if you were just backpacking and camping were you won't become some critters meal... :wink:

Mac

MSP Ret · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2005, 04:51:39 AM »

I typed the post below but missed the intent of the initial post ( :? ). If I could only have one single chambering in a rifle/handgun combo to carry in the woods it might be the .357 Max. I could use .38 specials. .357 Mag, .360 DW and .357 Max's, plus there is all sorts of bullets and loads from snake shot to amour piercing and from 95 grain to 300 grain bullets available....<><.... :grin:

So, disregard the below post but here it is anyway...

A 12 gauge smoothbore pump with proper ammo and a good revolver or auto of your choice in .357. .44 Mag, 10MM or anything more powerful, nothing less. The .357 would be a great subsistence gun and protection weapon for all but large carnivores. The 12 gauge with proper ammo (Dixie Express hard cast slugs or Tri-Ball plus Brenneke slugs and 000 buck) will handle ALL the others. If you could have 3 then the .22 LR or .22 Mag would be the 3rd choice....<><.... :grin:

MSP Ret · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2005, 05:03:52 AM »

A 12 gauge smoothbore pump with proper ammo and a good revolver or auto of your choice in .357. .44 Mag, 10MM or anything more powerful, nothing less. The .357 would be a great subsistence gun and protection weapon for all but large carnivores. The 12 gauge with proper ammo (Dixie Express hard cast slugs or Tri-Ball plus Brenneke slugs and 000 buck) will handle ALL the others. If you could have 3 then the .22 LR or .22 Mag would be the 3rd choice....<><.... :grin:

(sorry about this double post of sorts guys, the site is acting screwing at times, no delete button (X) on this double post (of sorts) and delete buttons showing up on some of my single posts. Well the site is slowing down again here so I will take my leave. Hopefully it will speed up again later today....<><.... :? )

mrlizzzard · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2005, 08:25:02 AM »

Whoever said a pistol takes traing is tellin the truth.Given it all if I was back in Idaho walkin the loggin roads I'd take me a 20 ga. pump or auto for self defense and things like that.

raynor · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2005, 09:40:27 AM »

A Marlin lever gun in 480 Ruger and a SRH in 480 Ruger, that'd be my chioce if both were to be the same caliber.

Jack Ryan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:26:18 PM »

44 mag

Doubletap · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:55:14 PM »

Depends on what you mean by woodsloafing I guess. I live in big black bear country. Every year 600 pound animals are taken. Do I loaf around with a rifle AND a pistol? Hardly ever, and then usually the handgun is either a .22 or Government model Colt for taking small edibles. The 357 will easily kill the biggest deer in the country with hard cast 180's or 200's. It will easily kill bear in the plus 400 pound class. It does it every year. If you want to use hi-techy jacketed slugs it'll probably not work so well, penetration, not expansion is our friend. The big plus of the 357 is the weight of ammo when slogging along. You can plop a 50 round box into a small ruck and never notice it. 44 is appreciably heavier. I'm not certain I've seen more definite killing with the .44 over the 357 over the years. A bad hit with one is a bad hit with the other. A killing shot with one, does so with the other.
If the main object is to keep toothy things off you, I'd highly suggest a 12 bore and Brennekes. I've seen these work up close and personal. The whole critter will rock and shiver, even with a soft tissue (lung) hit. They become really spectacular with solid bone hits.
Not planning on moving to the Kenai, and only having to put up with the black bear, wolves, and mt. lion in this area, I find the .357 plenty. If you miss the central nervous system with one round or another, it's still not a stopping hit. The little Rossi lever guns are great for packing like this, light, handy to use, and 10 rounds easily carried. I find the NEF singles a bit overweight for pistol calibres stuff, but the Rossi single is much more portable in 357, especially if cut to 18", length of pull shortened to 12 1/2", and a barrel band swivel installed for the sling. Just my 2 cents on the topic.

handirifle · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2005, 07:18:58 PM »

In CA it's the two legged vermin we worry about. for that I have a 9mm, but for everything else it's either a 375 Win or 30-06.

Coastwatcher · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2005, 07:25:20 PM »

Working in the bush it was a 12 ga Rem 870 loaded with alternating 00 buck & solid slug .

Mac11700 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2005, 08:06:05 PM »

Quote from: handirifle

In CA it's the two legged vermin we worry about. for that I have a 9mm, but for everything else it's either a 375 Win or 30-06.

:eek:

Mac

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2005, 05:24:31 AM »

I never feel under gunned with my .357s, With one reamed out to the max I feel there isn.t anything here in Ky to worry about, I've been looking for a pistol to match it now. I also have a Marlin lever gun in .357 if I feel the need for more rounds. I pack a GP 100 or a security six all the time.