I'm trying to find something that's lightweight and has good sights to carry with me on the farm. I thought I'd settled on a S&W Model 37 airweight revolver, but I can't hit schit with the fixed sights past just a few yards. Considering that the M37 is truly a close-quarters combat revolver, I can't really fault it.
I'm looking for something that I can dispatch wounded game, bag a rabbit, etc, and use for protection that doesn't weigh a damned ton! Bears are not a concern. I know I'd best be suited with at least a 4" barrel heavier revolver, but most of them push 25 oz. minimum. The only thing that has felt really good in my hands lately has been a Sig P232 in .380, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that it would be suitable as a woods/trail gun.
Any suggestions or opinions?

Good question. Look forward to the replies. I went through the same thought process last year and ended up with an HK usp compact. 9mm. The gun is very accurate AND reliable. I feel like it is as reliable as a revolver IMO. More rounds too! Very easy to break down and clean if it becomes wet or dirty. I don't really have a problem or fear of bears down here but worry more about the very slight chance of running into some wacko or wild dog/dogs. Especially if I have my 6 y/o son with me. Gun also doubles as a home defense weapon. Not a bad choice for my needs.

S&W makes titanium J-Frames in .38 Special featuring adjustable sights with three inch barrels. I have one that I bought just before they started putting the damned key holes in the frames.

Khar 380 or PM9 for southeastern hiking trails for me. I'd probably carry my S&W 360 with 180gr 357's in puma country.

Try hard as you can to lay hands on a Kel-Tec PMR-30 .22 WMR pistol. Good size, good sights, light weight and comes with 2-30 round magazines.

I carry in the woods what I carry on the street; which is a .45 ACP. Used to carry a 9mm Hi Power, and it served me well in the woods too. When using .380 or 9mm on bunnies, make sure you always use hollow points. I found out the hard way that fmj's don't anchor even a squirrel in 9mm. Switch to a JHP, and now you have to be careful not to spoil all the meat.

As Hawkeye stated the S&W Model 60-10 or 60-15 are just about perfect for what you are looking for... Under 25 oz., all stainless steel, .357 Magnum or .38 Special.



Gun in a K-frame Simply Rugged holster...





You are also correct...the .380 is no Trail Gun... If you want a small auto look at a 9mm. When using an auto for the woods I use a Colt Commander in .38 Super. Just finished this one..all stainless Combat Commander with BoMar sights and my gunsmith just put in 9mm and .38 Super BarSto match barrels... Was down the range today and the .38 Super barrel also runs 9x23 Winchester like it was made for it.




Bob

Best choice for a small game handgun is a .38 Special using target wadcutters. Cuts a nice clean .357 caliber hole all the way through, putting them right down.

I usually carry a 357 when (shotgun) hunting, and either a 357 or 9mm when hiking. If it's a very public trail, I often lean towards the 9mm as I think they conceal better and are a little comfier to carry.

Mountain lions are the biggest creature we have to deal with, though I think I'd rather run into a kitty than a pack of javelina when the dogs are along. Is a 357 better for pumers? Probably, but everything is a compromise.

I picked up a jackass rig on the cheap this year to shoulder carry the 9mm (I really really don't like a gun on my hip for any serious hiking) but don't know how often I'll get to use it because it's seldom cool enough here for a decent cover garment.

But to answer the question, I think you can make do with a 9mm nicely. Some people just shoot semis better than revolvers too, don't know if that applies in this case.

I sometime carry one of my 9mm or 45 acp's but a 22 most of the time

I'd say consider a Glock 19, or Glock 17. Carry it with a quality belt and holster and the weight will be a non-issue.

I carry a Glock 17 more than anything else when I'm outdoors. 147s at 1100 fps. I like the Wilderness Tactical Instructor belt, and of late have been using a Blackhawk Serpa holster. Word on the street is the Serpa is not the best holster for MMA fighting. I find it a very good holster for my uses.

I like the Blackhawk Serpa and have three or four of them. They work.

I love the Serpa in the paddle mode. So convenient to put on or take off. I have a Serpa for my G17/22, and another for the G21.

G17 in the Serpa, and Wilderness Tactical belt. It stays where you left it, and I forget it's even there.

329 PD

I have the Paddle for my 1911 , Glock 23 , and Springfield XD.

Certainly a lot of power in that, and super lightweight.

Yep, right answer.

That is my other kickin around gun. With Cast performance 255grWFN bullets at 950fps pushed by 9.0 grs of Unique it does not tear up a lot of meat on small game but will do anything I would ever attempt to get done with a handgun. No fear of pointing it at any threat from smake to man to black bear if the need arose. I put different sights on mine for precision shooting of grouse etc. Regular Patridge style front with a white outlined square notch rear. Makes a BIG difference in one's ability to take the head off of a grouse. Also did a trigger job and added lasergrip sights for "Inside the tent or home" varmint intervention.

PS: the PMR30's fit PERFECTLY in any holster designed for a 4 inch 1911 style pistol. Mine rides in a holster built for a 1911 made by Greg in Tennesee here at 24hrcf. My 329PD is nearly imperceptable whilst riding in its Mitch Rosen pancake holster.

As CCW weapons, I'm usually carrying both a Glock 19 9mm and a S&W 638 .38+P. Both have accounted for various critters in the woods. I have a couple of dedicated "woods" handguns, but they don't get carried much any more because it's simpler to just use what I brung wit' me.

Are these reliable weapons?

A Serpa is okay for a Glock or a Beretta 92 but avoid a Serpa 1911 holster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE

The Safariland ALS holster is vastly superior in every way to the Serpa. It is a LOT easier to draw from with the support hand. I've seen some scary looking stuff go on watching support hand draws from a Serpa.

I was supposed to shoot one a few weeks ago, but it broke and had to be sent back to the factory before I could try it out. As soon as it gets back and I've shot it, I'll be able to form an opinion on reliability....

(Oh, and nothing personal, but it would be nice if shooters everywhere could get into the habit of not using the word "weapon" unless referring to scud missiles, cannons, or tanks. The words "handgun", "pistol", "revolver", "rifle", "long arm", and "firearm", all work as well and are far less inflammatory and play less into the prejudices of anti-gunners then that very aggressive word so beloved of TV commentators, "weapon".)

9mm makes a fine trail gun, a 380 is a shortened version, I prefer the 9mm but thats me. I have carried a 9mm for many years and felt fine with it. Took it with me when deer hunting. Shot placement is key witha any firearm, the 9mm with the correct load will penetrate like crazy.

The word weapon can apply to those arms used in sport too, not just combat. It's a broader term than you seem to believe, and I don't give a rat's ass what the word neurotically evokes in the minds of liberals.

"Hoplophobia: A mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." - Colonel Jeff Cooper

When I used my 4 inch Python to defend my son and me against an attacking Pit Bull/Charpei cross, it was absolutely a WEAPON. The 45ACP that rids on my hip every day is not a hunting or target shooting arm, it is a weapon.

I like "weapon".

While bears....in very unusual and unique circumstances.....can be real threat, mostly a wodds walking handgun is NOT a defensive weapon. While cougars are often mentioned, I'd venture to say that ever person who was "truely" threatened by then each year could fit in a very small closet.

To me, a woods gun is basically a small game gun....with the ability (if needed) to take a passing hog. Any gun which can take a hog is perfectly acceptable against "human" threats as well.

For that use, the 9mm (and slightly less so, the .380) would be perfectly good. I often carry a SAA in .32-20 when I walk the woods. I'd "prefer" a .45 ACP or .45 Colt, but don't feel "unarmed" with the smaller gun. The current trend towards fearing "lions and tigers and bears" when outside the livingroom is way overplayed. Also, if you "really" fear human preditors when walking about.....you probably should reconsider where you are walking!

Well yeah,but "weapon" covers just about everything from an axe to a nuke. I like "GUN" MY way of getting even wid my old Drill Sergeant As for my gun?? If I am carrying a rifle, I just carry a .22 revolver,eithe a 4" Diamondback or my OLD Smith K-22. If I am packing a pistol alone, Either a Colt Trooper MkIII or a Smith mod 58. Sometimes my G20.

A gun is a cannon.

Well, mine is at least.....

Hey guys, thanks again for the discussion and suggestions thus far.
Someone PM'd me and recommended this in .327 Fed. Mag. - what do y'all think?
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/203/products_id/54616

Seems about right for your purposes, but I think you're better off with a .38 Special for two reasons, 1) superior ballistics (except, perhaps, for trajectory flatness at distance), and 2) universal availability of ammo in multiple loads.

Actually, you probably should give a rat's ass as to what you say and how it affects the public debate on the contentious issue of private ownership of firearms in the United States, unless you don't care if you loose that debate with it's all to obvious consequences.

"Weapon" is, indeed, a very broad word encompassing as it does every thing from a broken wine bottle to an atomic bomb. Unfortunately, it is almost exclusively used by the anti-gun lobby to indicate or imply that a civilian firearm is an offensive or destructive combat implement-- something best allowed to the military and police, but to be kept out of the hands of the citizenry at all costs. This is why the biased anti-gun community constantly uses the word "weapon" to instill hoplophobia into the general population--

Here are two sentences that both convey the same information:

1) A rifle is an excellent weapon for killing deer.
2) A rifle is an excellent firearm for harvesting deer.

One sentence equates weapons with killing, the other suggests firearms are an implement for gathering in a source of food. Which sentence is the most likely to be distasteful to the average person who has little or no interest in hunting or firearms?

All I'm saying is that the average shooter needs to choose his words with as much care as he'd use in choosing a handgun for home defense, being mindful of the unintended consequences of the use of either in today's society.

All that reminds me way too much of politically correct speech codes, from which I instinctively recoil.

I'm not going to modify or dummy down my vernacular to appease the anti's.

If you want to, that's your business.

Going back and re-reading your original post, I'd tend to agree with The Real Hawkeye; a 4-inch .38 would probably by your best choice. Personally I'd opt for a S&W Model 13 simply because it offers a choice of .38 or .357 ammo. If the fixed sights are a problem then I'd consider a S&W Mod 19; again a revolver that handles both .38s and .357s. If you don't mind the extra weight (N-Frame Smiths weigh over 2 lbs.) you might want to consider a 4-inch S&W model 22 in .45 ACP; I packed one of these as a trail gun for years.

Hawkeye, it's not about being politically correct. It's about being politically savvy.

Sorry, I don't agree. Seems like a form of political correctness to me.

Carefully choosing your words doesn't appease the "anti" crowd, but it does immediately take you out of the pool of stereotyped gun owners that the anti-gun crowd loves to portray as ignorant, gum chewing, mouth breathers. Far from appeasing them, carefully choosing your words slaps them across the face with the iron glove of reality.

Well, when I was editing G&A Magazine it was my business to present shooting as a wholesome, family oriented, all-American sport, and I went to great lengths to see to it that nothing appeared in the magazine that could be used by anyone to bring the vast panorama of shooting into disrepute. There was nothing in the magazine that appeased the anti-gun crowd; far from it. They hated us. They hated us not only because of our fiercely pro-Second Amendment stance, but because there was nothing in the magazine that could be quoted on radio, or shown on television, that played into their hands and advanced their anti-gun agenda.

All I'm saying is that we know the buzz words the gun haters constantly use to portray shooting and shooters as "dangerous" or "evil", and that shooters should think twice before using these words. Using words like "weapon" and "killing" when other words will more than suffice merely gives the gun haters more ammunition to shoot down our Second Amendment rights.

S&W Mod. 15.

If that's too heavy for you, you need to work out more.

- Tom

Can we drop the political banter from this thread and get back on topic, please?

You seem like a stand up guy, and I sure enjoyed Guns & Ammo from the late 1970s till just a few years ago (still occasionally pick one up), so it's good to have you on board here, but I just think you're on the wrong trail with this one point. But don't let me stop you from modifying your own speech.

I can take or leave "weapon" but I think that using "harvest" in the context of hunting sounds stupid. You harvest crops, you kill game.
"I was out walking with my wife last night when a robber pulled a gun on us, so I harvested him".

If I had to go the 380 route, I'd look for something like the Beretta 84FS. 3.8" bbl for a little more speed, longer sight radius and decent grip size for better shootability, decent sights, and 13+1 pokes.

MM, Those 84's have always been a good-looking gun to me.

Yep,

The 84 Beretta is on my "someday" list.

Would love to have one for a trail gun.

Presently packing a Kahr P9 most of the time for my trail gun,
along with a NavyArms 92 "trapper" in .45 Colt.

Virgil B.

I used a beretta 1931 in 32 acp for years as a woods gun. It didn't do anything my Woodsman wouldn't......

The one I have been shooting (it belongs to the shop) and the several we have sold have gotten rave reviews so far. The shop one is the one with the "new" barrel config, the others a mix of the "old" & "new" styles and zero complaints. I have plinked pop cans out to 75 yards with it and it is DEFINITELY a minute of can at those ranges.

Sure does put out a bunch of blast & flash though, if used in SD it will make em think you have something bigger! Then there is the "never ending" magazine capacity.

I imagine they're amazingly controllable, but what kind of stopping power on two legged varmints can you expect from a .22 Mag out of a handgun? If it holds thirty round, but you need three or four to stop a determined attacker, I'm not sure the math is that good compared to eight rounds of .45 ACP. Might have to get one, still the same though, just because they likely won't be legal to own for too much longer, for mere peasants, that is.

Mentioned having a man and his son shooting one next to me at the range a coupel weeks ago and that was what got my attention - the very loud bark and that big ol' fireball at the end of the barrel. Plus the fact that when the kid had it and put the selector switch to "Lots'a Fun" mode the thunder and lightning kept on going, and going, and going...

They have a full auto model. Is that what you're referring to?

PS I wonder if they'll ever come out with a carbine version using a sixty round magazine.

I would then have to have one of THOSE, too.

I am thinking that one could put so many 22 MAgnums onto a bad guy target so very quickly that the PMR 30 would actually be a really good defensive arm. Also, while not a 45, don't discount that a 22 Magnum HP is goig to make a pretty good hole and dump a lot of energy on target.

I wonder how deeply a .22 Magnum HP would penetrate a human torso. What about if it had to go through an arm first?

For the use you mention, I lean toward .22 LR. A S&W M63 is a dandy carry gun, sights adjustable, easy to carry. Mine has S&W target stocks and suit perfectly, as the factory grips are just too small for average to large hands. The K22 is next up, to my way of thinking - M18 w/ 4" bbl; M17 w/ 6".

If personal protection is a player, I'd start w/ the 9mm and go up, preferably a caliber than begins in "4".

I have a couple Star Super SM .380s, and my son loves the one with the black plastic grips. He loves how light and handy it is compared to his Kimber Classic II, but "looks the same but smaller." He's only 13, so he'll grow into the Kimber, which he won at a Friends of the NRA dinner...in my name of course, but he bought and held the tickets.

I've carried and used a Browning HP as a trail gun. Like Kevin mentioned, make sure you use hollow points.
From what I've seen, a .380 could be such a gun, but that depends on the gun.
The problem revolves around sights, trigger break and accuracy. There simply are very few 380/9mm guns that can match a good Smith revolver, like the 3 inch, M60's in that catagory.
BTW, the .22 RF Magnum does alot better on small stuff than you'd ever think.
But the real sleeper in the area of really light and deadly is the 5.7 FN. Next year, I'm planning on loading mine to 1800-1900 fps with some 40-45 gr. soft point ammo. E

O.K...9mm as a woods gun/firearm/weapon. From a purely technical standpoint, it possesses the ballistics and penetration to get the job done in most cases (depending on what your job is, of course).

I have used one and didn't feel unarmed. My personal experience leads me to the conclusion that it is a bit too light for my tastes. Either that or I was inaccurate enough with it that my shooting was the failure rather than the caliber (I freely admit this is the most probably reason why I am not 100% on the 9mm). Regardless of the reason, when I switched to any caliber .400 or larger, the failures stopped. Again, maybe it was just my shooting that improved.

Since confidence in your chosen equipment means a lot, I chose to go with a 10mm, .45, or a .44. This is primarily because these calibers give me the warm fuzzies that a 9mm does not. If I had nothing but a 9mm, I carry it and not worry too much.

There is one other thing. With a 9mm, I found myself engaged in a constant search for the 'perfect' projectile. Fast and light, slow and heavy, this load or that, etc. It seemed this was a common theme among 9mm carriers. With the other calibers, I feel no such need to play those types of games. To me, this is another indicator of my comfort in the larger calibers. YMMV.

I've just purchased my first centerfire pistol, I purchased a Ruger SR9, curious about anyone's thoughts. My initial, albeit inexperienced, thoughts are it is easy to carry with the 17 rd magazine (10 rd. to short for my hand)on the hip, reasonably accurate, 100 rounds later no hiccups, and reasonably priced.

I have a Interarms stainless Walther PPk that I bought back in the mid 80's and have killed several ground hogs, copperheads, skunks and some other assorted stuff.

I didn't buy it for a woods gun but carried it a lot off work or as a backup all the time so I just had it when the critters presented themselves. Almost always loaded with Fed HydraShoks