Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Hiking revolver

I've never felt the need to carry a firearm or pepper spray when hiking along the AT in Pennsylvania. With that said, I am trying to understand the the train of thought with regard to whether people who are accustomed to using firearms not consider defending themselves with one unless they have received some expert level of training. I believe you and Brad may have experience in such matters that I do not, and so I would value your opinion.

Let's say that I have been in the woods along or near the AT many times since I was a kid carrying a firearm while hunting. Presumably, I would defend myself from a four-legged or two-legged critter with that firearm if the need arose, although honestly, I never really thought about such a far-fetched scenario.

What's the difference between a life-long hunter and shooter walking along/near the AT with a long gun during hunting season versus a life-long hunter and shooter hiking along the AT with a handgun, especially if the hunter/shooter has a fair amount of experience shooting the handgun? Does the difference come down to entirely one of a different mindset where in one instance the primary purpose for carrying a firearm is hunting while in the other instance the primary reason is self-defense? Can't there be some overlap where a person with years of experience handling weapons while hunting and shooting has at least the bare minimum experience needed to be able to defend himself with a firearm if necessary?

I ask this because I have seen threads in the handgun forum and elsewhere suggesting that your run-of-the-mill, life-long "gun guy" really shouldn't even consider self-defense with a firearm unless they have a high level of expensive civilian training or LEO/military training. But I am of the opinion that if I really needed a gun, nothing else would suffice, and I wonder whether being around guns since almost forever, coupled with a dose of common sense, would be "good enough".