.44 Mag Pistol/30-30 or .35 Rem Rifle

[John C-S]

To carry a handgun for wilderness or to carry a simple small carbine rifle for the same. Give me the light and responsive and accurate carbine ANYTIME over ANY HANDGUN for serious encounter (or thought encounter) anywhere anytime if a carry firearm is considered to deliver the carrier who happens to be at the end of the line of a bear attack. That is my thought. And if you are hunting with a HANDGUN you should feel superior to your ability to use a simple carbine in an old and proven design.

[Redhawk1]

To carry a handgun for wilderness or to carry a simple small carbine rifle for the same. Give me the light and responsive and accurate carbine ANYTIME over ANY HANDGUN for serious encounter (or thought encounter) anywhere anytime if a carry firearm is considered to deliver the carrier who happens to be at the end of the line of a bear attack. That is my thought. And if you are hunting with a HANDGUN you should feel superior to your ability to use a simple carbine in an old and proven design.

Sound just like your post in the 454 vs 500 Mag thread. I am just glad you don't make that choice for others.  :roll:

[C A Plater]

To carry a handgun for wilderness or to carry a simple small carbine rifle for the same. Give me the light and responsive and accurate carbine ANYTIME over ANY HANDGUN for serious encounter (or thought encounter) anywhere anytime if a carry firearm is considered to deliver the carrier who happens to be at the end of the line of a bear attack. That is my thought. And if you are hunting with a HANDGUN you should feel superior to your ability to use a simple carbine in an old and proven design.

Ah!  A troll.  Next time, please try to make it clear just what you are saying by avoiding the consumption of adult beverages before you post.  If you did not imbibe, please consider one of local adult education programs in your area.  

Now, if your point is that hunting with a handgun is more difficult than hunting with a rifle or carbine? True, it is.  It is also more difficult to hunt with a bow.  That is why many prefer the challenge that hunting with handguns (or bows) bring to the experiences.   There is a reference to a bear attack in your post but it is unclear what point you are trying to make.  If you could reflect upon you emanations and elucidate more clearly it would be most appreciated.

[Graybeard]

Be nice guys, that's the GBO way remember. I don't think he's a troll and likely wasn't drinking when he wrote it. Not every one is as articulate as some. He just isn't a handgunner and just doesn't understand what handguns can do in the hands of an experience handgun hunter.

While I won't argue that a rifle isn't a better tool for the job of stopping a charging bear I will say that regardless I'd want a handgun on my hip in case it actually made it to me. If the bear isn't stopped before it reaches you then the rifle becomes useless. I'd rather have a handgun on my hip to try to use while it's on me than my fists.

And a big bore revolver is a fine stopper in the hands of an experienced shooter.

[Mikey]

GrayBeard - thanks for the reminder about being nice to other posters, and you're absolutely right about the handgun.  I lost a rifle to an angry sow Brown bear once when I got too close to her cub and was dang glad for my pistol.  Don't leave home without one.............. Mikey.

[Redhawk1]

I would over look once, but 2 times he made the same comment in different topics. This is the Handgun hunting forum, and that is what we discus here. If I wanted to use a carbine or short rifle, I would go to those areas and discuss them there.  There are just to many people trying to tell other what they chose to use is either overkill or just not needed.

[John C-S]

Here. I think the best thing I can do is admit I am an adherent to the original most powerful handgun. I am 47 and the .44 Magnum convinced me a handgun had the potential of a strong rifle in power and accuracy out to 100 yds (a bit beyond as well for bigger kill zones). The hanguns that chamber bigger stuff feel heavy and much less responsive. Some are single shots, others are 5 shooters with a lot of extra weight--to the point that a carbine feels more responsive and more accurate. Hear me out on this and realize that the original "most powerful handgun in the world" at my time and to this day is worthy of handgun respect in hunting or security on the hip while hunting. I have mentioned, elsewhere, that to carry a sidearm soley for the use of exigency means a sidearm easily strapped alongside the hip. I do feel comfortable with the 9mm in hardball and 16 shots. For me that is the CZ 75 from 1981. One of the originals made behind the Iron Curtain. Today a 16 shot 9mm can be had by many resources. Hunting requires power, defense requires carry-ability with a gun easily toted anytime anywhere with sufficient power and firepower. That is my feeling here.

[Redhawk1]

John C-S, I also have a 44Mag, a S&W model 629. I shoot it extremely well, but I choose to use a larger gun for certain hunting. I am going on a bear hunt in Maine and my 500 Mag will be my primary and secondary. Also I hunt in Alaska and my 4 inch 500 Mag sure makes me feel better in my tent in Grizzly country. We all make choices and what fits our own personal needs and what makes use feel comfortable. We just need to respect others choices.

[John C-S]

I just feel a handgun should be an open sighted six shooter. I guess I am a Neanderthal. You are on a frontier I never had in my day. But do you think I am wrong to hold these beliefs? I suspect not. And there are excellent and more powerful designs. I do respect your position. Maybe these higher power offerrings are worthy of today's endeavor. I admit this. But I am still sold at the .44 Mag. I will be patient and I will try to understand why more power is better.