Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Best defense handgun for the woods?

Well, after what happened in Wisconsin there's going to be a bunch of threads like this on various boards, plus magazine articles.

Bad thing can happen in the woods too, maybe psychos like the Wisconsin guy, pot growers out West, or meth cookers almost anywhere.

Obviously the best thing is to avoid the situation, the second best thing would be a squad of combat-equipped Marines. Failing that, in a situation with rifle-armed opponent(s) in the woods the best tool would be your own rifle.

But if it came down to a handgun, I submit that the ability to lay down a volume of fire would be a prime consideration. On the other hand, since virtually none of us will ever encounter a situation like that in a lifetime in the woods, portability is an important consideration too.

Concealabilty would be desirable (where legal) to preserve an element of surprise but I figure most folks hunting get ups would make concealing a sidearm pretty easy.

Those familiar with my posts might recall that I have a Smith .357 j-frame Mod 60 that I favor for woods carry. But I'm starting to think that a Glock 19 in 9mm, with two high cap mags might be a better choice.

The Glock because they come naturally to hand for me and the 19 is a prime compromise between shootabilityand portability and with high-cap mags has one of the best firepower to weight ratios out there.

9mm for weight saving and for capacity, I figure within reason, the option of laying down a volume of fire trumps all else.

Stepping up in size and weight from the Glock, perhaps a Beretta 92; a couple of more rounds, even easier to shoot well than the 19, and proven in use.

Birdwatcher

I see your point about being able to lay some fire down but remember that idiot was armed with an SKS which also can lay down fire, a whole lot louder than 9mm. When I'm just bumbling around in the woods I like my .357 simply because it's big enough to take on anythng I'm going to encounter.

I guess now I'll be keeping a wary eye on my fellow hunters.

Shreck... my own closest brush with combat has been the movie "Blackhawk Down" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> but in that movie (which I assume was fairly true to actual events) what struck me was the speed at which guy's under fire emptied their handguns (two instances IIRC one a 1911, the other a Beretta).

If TSHTF as I described, my own objective would be to get the heck out (if still alive), while leaving enough whistling lead along my backtrail so as to discourage pursuit. Even the bad guys in Clint Eastwood movies can count to six, but nobody can tell how many rounds are left in a high cap.

Another factor would be the type of ammo, specific to 9mm I have found that lighter hollowpoints out of a carbine did not group well past 50 yards, while both ball and 147 grain subsonics delived sub 6" groups at 100. I distantly recall too that an Air Force MP took once out a miscreant at 100 yards or so, presumably with 9mm ball.

The whole scenario seems far-fetched to be sure, but I think I would opt for 147 grain HP's in that Glock, failing that 124 or 115 grain FMJ.

On four legged threats at point blank SHTF range, I dunno that any .357 round would decisively trump a 9mm, especially with the critters we mostly have in the Lower 48.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

"Covering fire" is a military tactic to allow other troops to manuever. In a one-on-one scenaria, it's just shooting to miss. A guy doens't want to resort to spray and pray if the other guy is shooting to kill.

IMO, the same mentality applies to a gunfight in the woods as anyplace else - fire for effect.

JOG.. I seem to recall a LEO posting on one of these websites that when surprised in an armed altercation the current thinking was to fire WHILE retreating to cover, the ultimate goal being to stay alive.

Even the Brits, the defensive revolver experts of their day, ditched their Enfield and Webley revolvers for the Browning Hi Power.

Birdwatcher

JOG - ""Covering fire" is a military tactic to allow other troops to manuever. In a one-on-one scenaria, it's just shooting to miss. A guy doens't want to resort to spray and pray if the other guy is shooting to kill.

IMO, the same mentality applies to a gunfight in the woods as anyplace else - fire for effect."
___________________________________________________

I agree with JOG. If someone is shooting at you, make your first shot as accurately as possible. "Spray & Pray," and "Hose the Foes," ain't gonna get it when the bad guy is capping rounds at you with a rifle.

Plus, while running and blasting, you're throwing hot lead all over Hell and half of Georgia without any knowledge of wherre theose rounds are ending up. (Innocent bystander's brisket, perhaps??)

And every round you sling down range addressed "To Whomever Might Be Concerned," is one LESS round you have that might just be the round that stops the fight.

Cover is great, if you can get to it quickly, but don't forget that the bad guy might be pretty good with a rifle on moving targets while you're trying to run to cover.

IIRC, it was the famous U.S. Border Patrol Agent and accuracy proponent, Bill Jordan, who coined the phrase, "You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight."

If possible, put that front sight on center-of-mass as quickly as possible and end the fight!

JMHO. L.W.

I have to agree with these posts. A handgun is a defensive weapon; therefore it's better to haul freight if possible. I shoot IPSC and IDPA and often use Glock handguns for these matches. I mainly shoot a Glock 17 in IDPA. It may only be a 9mm, but it is easier for me to put numerous hits quicker in the A-zone with this gun. I would feel very comfortable carrying a Glock 17 or 19 with two hi-cap mags loaded with Cor-Bon 115gr +P rounds or Winchester 127gr +P+ rounds. I am an advocate of hitting what you aim at on the first shot, but it is amazing how fast one can shoot 30 rounds of ammo in a stressfull situation. I have shot 12 rounds at multiple targets in under 5 seconds in a match with a mag change. The targets varied from 5 yards to 25 yards.

The best advice that I can give you is to pick a quality handgun and PRACTICE, PRACTICE, AND PRACTICE. 9mm is cheap compared to other handgun calibers. If you come under fire, a few extra rounds may help you get out of harms way if you can't find cover.

BS you rambos, I am a retired combat vetran, and me or any one with any sense would never try to out gun a rifle with a 9mm hand gun, In ww1 they replaced the 38 special with the 45 because of failure to kill with the 38, the 9mm is no more than a glorified 38, that some a__hole politition convienced the military to switch, ok enough of that, the best bet if you can after the first shot is fired is either run like hell for cover. if no cover is near hit the dirt, and roll or crawl to a low spot in the ground or any low cover, DO NOT RUN THROUGH ANY OPEN AREA .if you can't get away take careful aim and kill theSOB with your rifle,<< Hubert

The 9mm may not have been worth a darn as a fmj load, but today high performance loads deliver (Corbon and Winchester 127 +p+). As I said, "a handgun is a defensive gun." i.e. to get out of harms way to something bigger.

Hubert hit it far as I am concerned. Yes I carry a handgun in the woods, a 5" S&W round butted 29, but that is for when I can't grab the rifle, and that is going to relieve myself or cooking. The best bet in a case like WI is to seek COVER, then return accurate controlled fire. The difference between COVER and CONCEALMENT just incase you don't know (I can't imagine that really) is the COVER will help protect you as CONCEALMENT only hides you.

So speaks Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch:

"You can't miss me fast enough to hurt me."

Only hits count.

At the Linebaugh Seminar last year, the 40 S&W 180 FMJTC penetrated further than any other non-round nosed handgun round.

I bet they hurt like hell, as well.

Birdwatcher,

If it's time to run for cover, then that's what I'll do - I won't waste any time firing backwards as I go and risk foreheading an oak tree. There's lots of stuff to trip and fall on in the woods.

There's nothing Rambo about my approach - "Chicken Little" would be more accurate. I'd run and if I wasn't being chased I'd keep running. If the bad guy was gaining on me I'd find the best cover I could and fire with as much accuracy as I could muster.

None of this is an argument against the Glock or any other choice, as long as the prime directive is a handgun the shooter can hit with - not magazine capacity. In the woods, I'd tend to go with a revolver with its generally better sights and trigger since the shots could be somewhat longer.

Say, finally a good use for my Para-Ordnance 14-45! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well here's another post from Rambo with binos <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and I concede this whole thread might be hot air at its finest.

I edited this one down fron its original length (written very late after we got in from Austin, me zonked with caffeine from the drive).

JOG... I was using figures of speech (prob'ly there should be a smiley face symbol for that), nobody looks backwards and shoots while running.

Given enough distance (like 50+ yards), even aimed pistol fire becomes a sort of "spray and pray", especially under stress, hence my own emphasis on mag capacity.

Even in combat, does one never return fire while heading for cover? Seems to me it would a) put the gun in your hand and b) might distract their aim, especially if they weren't expecting you to be armed.

Sigh! Probably you'd be dead anyway...

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

I don't disagree with your thoughts, I'm just specifically thinking of an encounter in the woods. Other self-defense or combat scenarios definitely opens up the discussion.

I suppose the folks posting on this thread will have a differing mental approach simply due to the terrain they hunt in. If I get a 50-yard lead in Minnesota I'm mostly gone - the woods will provide me a lot of cover for an escape. If I could dive into a nearby cornfield all the better. A "patch" of woods where the Wisconsin shooting took place is a few thousand acres.

My escape plan would go out the window if the encounter happened on a western prairie.

Mainly, just have a gun, any gun, that you are proficient with. Surviving a gunfight is 90% tactics IMHO.

Be aware, consider anyone a possible threat, until proven otherwise. Action always beats reaction, especially if you are in condition white. Know where your nearest cover is.

From what I understand, the victims in WI only had one rifle between all of them...

Don't know about the rest of you, but I can get a rifle in action faster than I can a handgun, and I'm a lot more accurate.
If I can get off one aimed round the fight is over.
If not a pistol wouldn't have helped anyway <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Tracks,

Clich� but true - the first rule for being involved in a gunfight is to actually have a gun. As Montana Marine points out the victims in WI had one rifle between them. The rest of the firearms had been left behind, which is something we all do around camp or vehicles. Had a few of the victims been carrying Glocks or revolvers the outcome might not have been so terrible.

So, I think Birdwatcher's original question is a great one - what's the best defensive handgun for the woods? The idea being that the handgun will be there when the rifle is leaning up against the hunting shack or back home in the safe.

My inner Rambo hopes that if I�m with a group of family and friends that might be murdered before my eyes, as was the scenario in Wisconsin, I�m going to stand my ground and fight to protect them. In this case the initial distances are short enough where the plus and minuses of various handgun designs doesn�t matter so much � pick what you can hit with.

If the distances open up, I�d prefer an accurate handgun with precise sights and a single-action trigger. I�d hope to seek cover at some distance and shoot whatever piece of the bad guy happens to poke out from behind a tree or whatever. If the bad guy tries to come find me and I�m in a defensive position the odds start to swing my way little. This scenario says �revolver� to me.

Since I don�t feel all that disadvantaged by a revolver up close and feel a big advantage with a revolver at distance, a revolver it would be.

I have mixed feelings about a defense handgun while hunting. I don�t really want the extra weight while I am hunting and I all ready have my rifle and rarely hunt alone. I do however carry most of the time when I am not hunting. If I am up scouting or hiking or snowshoeing then yes I do carry as well. tom

JOG, Good points, except that in such a situation I would prefer the type of handgun I'm most unlikely to carry.
Since I'm much more likely to run across an angry moose than a crazy hunter, I try to carry something with some power when I'm fishing Beaver ponds or just walking around close to camp.
I think maybe a high cap 9mm would be best in case of a situation like the one that happened recently, but what the victims really needed was to be armed with anything. If they all had been armed they might have come out of it alive