testtest

Revolver or Semi Auto. handgun for your woods gun?

I switch hit:
.357 in warmer months with round #6 as snake shot that I’ll spin cylinder to if I encounter a snake

.45 acp in cooler months for larger beasts
 
I've run the gauntlet of wilderness handguns, suffering serious financial wounds. I've sold a 6" Model 29. It was huge, far too heavy, inconvenient to carry, slow to battery, and don't let anyone tell you that they can rapid fire a .44 Mag with accuracy. Due to excessive recoil, I called it a one-and-done handgun. I would have been lucky to get off one aimed round at a charging bear.

A 4" .357 Mag loaded with 180 grain hard cast rounds is a darn good choice.

The insurmountable problem with revolvers is reloading them.

After using more than a few handguns, I've come to the conclusion that the Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP is the best for me wilderness handgun. I'd much rather fire 9 fast and accurate 230 grain Fed HST LE +P rounds at a charging mean critter that pray that I could get off one aimed .44 Mag round. The unequaled benefit of semis is they can be reloaded within seconds and without having to lose vision of a dangerous beast.

The 10MM would be an excellent choice.

The .45 ACP at standard pressure is a powerful round.

Months ago, in a wilderness handgun conversation with a friend, the .45 Super was introduced into the mix. Working off Buffalo Bore's ballistics tables alone, a 255 grain hard cast .45 Super round appeared to be an extremely powerful cartridge. The conversation progressed to theory. Would the 10MM survive if 1911-A1 manufacturers marketed iterations of 1911-A1s factory chambered for the .45 Super? Theory always invites conjecture. Then there's the reality rub: would the .45 Super demonstrate a marked increase of efficacy in actual use against mean critters that aim to dine on fishermen? Lacking proof, it's dandified theory.

There is no doubt in my mind that my Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP is more reliable than any revolver. But that's merely my opinion born of experience.
 
SATRP said:
I've run the gauntlet of wilderness handguns, suffering serious financial wounds. I've sold a 6" Model 29. It was huge, far too heavy, inconvenient to carry, slow to battery, and don't let anyone tell you that they can rapid fire a .44 Mag with accuracy. Due to excessive recoil, I called it a one-and-done handgun. I would have been lucky to get off one aimed round at a charging bear.

A 4" .357 Mag loaded with 180 grain hard cast rounds is a darn good choice.

The insurmountable problem with revolvers is reloading them.

After using more than a few handguns, I've come to the conclusion that the Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP is the best for me wilderness handgun. I'd much rather fire 9 fast and accurate 230 grain Fed HST LE +P rounds at a charging mean critter that pray that I could get off one aimed .44 Mag round. The unequaled benefit of semis is they can be reloaded within seconds and without having to lose vision of a dangerous beast.

The 10MM would be an excellent choice.

The .45 ACP at standard pressure is a powerful round.

Months ago, in a wilderness handgun conversation with a friend, the .45 Super was introduced into the mix. Working off Buffalo Bore's ballistics tables alone, a 255 grain hard cast .45 Super round appeared to be an extremely powerful cartridge. The conversation progressed to theory. Would the 10MM survive if 1911-A1 manufacturers marketed iterations of 1911-A1s factory chambered for the .45 Super? Theory always invites conjecture. Then there's the reality rub: would the .45 Super demonstrate a marked increase of efficacy in actual use against mean critters that aim to dine on fishermen? Lacking proof, it's dandified theory.

There is no doubt in my mind that my Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP is more reliable than any revolver. But that's merely my opinion born of experience.
Click to expand...

In my day, and before RA played merry hell with my wrists, I could fire full-power .44 mag loads with splits in the .33 range.

Just because you can’t do something doesn’t mean others are as limited.
 
I guess it would depend on location or intent purposes. In my neck of the woods a .357 wheel gun would be perfect, for a side gun and even certain hunting situations. I have carried a .357 but I now carry a 10mm. It carries well and I appreciate the extra capacity.

If one were going to Alaska or “bear or cat” country I’d rather have the 10mm with the hard cast. I know and I have read all the articles and talked with guys that have hunted up in that part of the country, and some will argue the 44Mag, which I carry at times is the best one to carry. Ammo now makes the .357 more versatile but I would still carry my 10mm or .44Mag in the woods and the .357 for the street or down south in the woods.
 
My 7-Shot .357 Ruger GP100 is my woods choice. My CCW for the city is a semi-auto, but I prefer the simplicity and ease of operation of a revolver for possible hostile encounters with 4-legged creatures. I like not having to worry about a possible limp-wrist if taken by surprise on uneven terrain, and would prefer correcting a failure to fire with another pull of the trigger, rather than a tap-rack, while trying to deter a furry or scaly predator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top