gun for backpacking

[catfish10101]

Probably a better idea to wear bells and make noise while traveling to avoid startling a bear. If they know you are coming, most times, they will avoid you without you even knowing it.

[wildography]

I agree with the above; leave the guns at home; carry bear spray. Having lived in Yosemite National Park for 4.5 years, and dealing a lot with Black Bears, I can tell you that 95% of the Black Bears that you encounter will run away when you yell & threaten them. The bear spray is for the other 5%. I've been bluff-charged about 20 times by Black Bear... and the most effective "anti-bluff charge" technique that I've found is to act like a full-grown Grizzley that is going to rip the head off that Black Bear. (PS... never - ever - try that with a real Grizzely!)

You also get those really pesky Black Bears that run away... and come back in about an hour... makes for a poor night's sleep. Bear Spray will help change their minds.

[Rick]

Yeah, but those bells are so hard for the bear to swallow.

[kx250kev]

Not trying to pick nits here but, I had a few thoughts...

I'm not a big fan of the 40 S&W but, otherwise I don't see too much wrong with this logic. Personally, I prefer to have a manual safety on my auto pistols - just as an extra safety measure for the kids and I tend to prefer DA/SA mechanisms. The long, relatively heavy DA stroke for the first shot provides added safety and, if you have the time, the SA option allows for greater accuracy (all other things being equal).

What specific DAO auto are you planning on using?

I watched an interesting dash-cam video of a traffic stop turned gun fight not too long ago. Perp got off the first shot after which the cop unloaded his entire 15+1 from what looked to be a S&W 5906 (a very accurate duty weapon, BTW) as fast as he could pull the trigger and at a range of under 5 yards. Wanna guess how many of those rounds struck the perp? That's right; ZERO! Not one. Luckily he wasn't a good shot either and the cop survived unscathed as well.

Read much about such shootings and you will find that a large percentage of them involve a whole lot of missing. I can't help wonder if that's partially due to the mentality of "throw a lot of lead quickly" that wasn't available when you had only six shots and thus had to make them count.

Accurate shooting is EVERYTHING. No matter how many bullets you have and no matter how powerful they are, if you don't hit the charging beastie, they won't do you any good. You want a clean, solid hit on the brain or CNS. A single shot will do, if the bullet strikes where it's (supposed to be) aimed. If you are shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger, you aren't aiming.

If you prefer an auto over a revolver, that's fine. But whatever gun you choose, learn to control your adrenaline and shoot for accuracy first, speed second.

Of course, the danger here is that such lights put you in the position of violating one of the cardinal rules of safe gun handling: "never aim a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy."

So you're awakened in the middle of the night by some unknown sound, you are unaware of what you really heard, perhaps juiced on adrenaline a bit, and using your gun to illuminate the darkness for an unknown "threat." What happens if something/someone startles you?

You're much better off with a flashlight in your non-dominant hand scanning the area while your gun is held at "low-ready" in your dominant hand, ready to be brought into action should an actual, real threat present itself.

If you just simply insist upon having a weapon-mounted light, make sure you have another non-mounted flashlight as your primary illumination and search tool and activate/use the gun-light only after you have properly assessed the threat and have determined that shooting must now commence.

FMJ ammo is not generally a good choice for stopping raging beasties. It's cheap. It can punch paper targets with aplomb. It is however, not a good fight-stopper. Just ask soldiers who are required by binding international treaty to use only FMJ ammo in all their small arms.



Addendum: I just noticed how old this thread was. Sorry, wasn't trying to drudge up old material.

Oh, and as for bears, I'm in full agreement that bear spray is the best primary option and the one most likely to turn an enraged animal before any injuries, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. occur, but I still also carry a gun whenever I'm in the wilderness.

My gun is a Beretta Px4 Storm .40

Regarding the light, you make very good points. I will remove the light when using, but keep the light on the rail until then. ;-)

[kx250kev]

you have to weigh mobility vs firepower deppending on the situation seems like good advice.

I agree, mobility vs firepower. Better to have and not need than need and not have. Whether to carry and defend yourself and your loved ones....well...I'll quote Sergeant Al Powell from Die Hard...

"Now you're gonna stand there and tell me that he's gonna give a damn about what you do to him, *if* he makes it out of there alive? Why don't you wake up and smell what you shoveling?"

[rat31465]

In a photo provided by Ron G. Leming, Leming holds the arrow he shot to kill a grizzly bear that was attacking his son while the pair were elk hunting west of Cody, Wyo., on Sept. 12, 2008. Hunters have been killing bears in record numbers around Yellowstone National Park, threatening the species decades-long recovery just two years after it was removed from the endangered list.
(AP Photo/Ron Leming)


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

My experiences in the woods do not include being in Grizzly country but I have some personal experience with Black Bears, Mountain Lions and Wild Hogs here in S.W. Missouri and Northern Arkansas. I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilazation and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm. I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.

[kx250kev]

I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilization and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm. I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.

I agree with you completely. I wish more people could understand the basic concept/need for self defense and self reliance while in nature.

On a side note: I personally would not shoot at a bear unless I was definitely under attack. I understand that bear sometimes "bluff rush", then stop their charge, but occasionally they DO carry out a full attack, and in that situation, I want real options to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones. This is only accomplished with real firepower IMHO.

[Rick]

Just to follow up on your other post about 9mm. If that is what you plan to stop a charging bear with then I think you are woefully under armed. You are correct that shot placement is key but I don't think this is a real possibility with a charging bear and an adrenaline filled body. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding between the two posts. I also like 9mm. It's a good self defense round. I like .45 better but I would not want to use either one against a bear.

I'm certainly no expert, never pulled down on a bear. Never faced one in the wild. So I defer to the experts on here and would carry bear spray.

For any threats in the Midwest, where I am, 9mm is a great choice. Packs of dogs is about the most dangerous thing you are apt to run into with 4 legs. Hollow points in either caliber for me.

[rat31465]

No it was never my intent to infer that a 9mm was a good cartridge for Bears. I have never had any life threatening issues with Bears here where I am from, however I have had a couple of run ins with people on the trails and that is why I carry my Glock 17 everywhere I go.

If I were going to be in Bear country I would carry a suitable round for the job...and while I am proficient with a handgun, I am not sure that I would feel all that comfortable with any handgun even with a .44 mag on Black Bears. However, if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw as having 18 rounds of Federal hydrashocks would be at least better than spitwads.

I agree with you about the packs of dogs to....I have came across as many as 6 running together while out hiking at Hercules Glade in Mark Twain Forest. I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off. Interesting here to note that I was packing a Ruger Mk-II .22 LR Pistol that day and at the time was all I had.

[kx250kev]

if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw

LOL, 15+ rounds of 9mm beats a handful of rocks everytime..(but I'd prefer my .40 S&W)

[lucznik]

I have came across as many as 6 [dogs] running together... I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off...

Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

[rat31465]

Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

As I stated they just seemed a little to interested in me. None of them ever assumed an agressive posture nor made any move that would indicate they were ready to attack. I have no way of knowing if they were wild dogs or someones Coon Hounds...None wore collars and they didn't look mal-nourished so at the time I felt a couple of warning shots fired at the ground three feet behind one of them was my best course of action. If any one of them had acted aggressively I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot as I had already positioned myself under a tree which would have been easy to climb.
I knew that I could have easily picked them off one by one if necessary sitting on one of its branches. I shot this little pistol alot and hunted squirrels with it frequently so I wasn't worried about being able to hit a dog with a well placed shot. Plus I had two full magazines in my cargo pants pockets so had plenty of ammo on hand.

[Alpine_Sapper]

Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?

[Rick]

It really is awesome, isn't it? I mean, think of the power you have invested in yourself. For that one moment in time no one but you owns that level of power. Not Klkak, not War Eagle, not Trax, not me. Just you. In that one instant you can decide to kill or not to kill. It's up to you. Take yesterday for example. I killed probably six times. Every time the bag was full on the mower I just reached down and killed the engine. And, God help me, it felt good. A bit more than awesome that one time my finger touched the spark plug the but the rest of the time...just awesome!

[sgtdraino]

Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret,

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.

A gun is not kit for survival

I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689

Not even close.

"I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low.

The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"

Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons.

And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.

Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession,

I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.

petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults.

Then why bother arming park rangers?

The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever.

The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.

There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and
The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.

As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.

Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders.

I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.

Carry the bear spray as suggested

I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.

I hope by no means does anyone think I don't support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I do whole heartedly, but I don't think one is needed in a National Park for hiking,

With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.

I am an avid hunter with my Long Bow and Flintlock and carry off duty in case I run into some Johnny Butterbut I have locked up and he wants to start some bulljunk.

So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.

Assuming I am in bear country and I wish to carry both spray and my Sig 226 .357, does anyone have suggestions on holsters, either concealed or open?

I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.

And here's some fodder for the "should I carry a gun or not" argument. Bears are not the only safety concern. I have run into a pack of wild dogs on county park land here in Kansas City, and I have run into feral hogs on the Buffalo River in Arkansas. I also ran into a guy once (whose parents had to have been closely related) who was walking around a crowded campsite with a pit bull that was trying desperately to get free from his log chain leash.

Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

[crashdive123]

Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.

[sgtdraino]

Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.

I thought I remembered that, too bad I am so late to this thread. Perhaps someone who sees things similarly could speak on behalf of his position?

[kx250kev]

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.



I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689

Not even close.



The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"



And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.



I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.



Then why bother arming park rangers?



The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.



As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.



I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.



I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.



With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.



So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.



I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.



Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

sgtdraino, I'm with you. You hit the nail on the head with all of your points. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to ensure their own life, their own liberty and their own property. The police or rangers are usually left to clean up the mess. The founding fathers said it best..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

P.s. Beo, thanks for your service.

[lucznik]

Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?

The shooting of a pack of wild dogs is not exactly what I consider to be indiscriminate. In my neck of the woods there are very few people running around with packs of 'coon dogs - which apparently is a real possibility in rat's case and thus, for the explanation of this mitigating circumstance, I am thankful. Any pack of dogs around here is simply a menace - posing a very real danger not only to the game animals in the area, but also to any people, especially children.

Other animals that simply get shot on sight around here include:

• Coyotes
• Red Fox
• Any skunk observed during daylight hours. (Skunks out during the day are almost universally rabid).
• (Hopefully soon) Wolves

[lucznik]

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.



I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689

Not even close.



The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"



And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.



I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.



Then why bother arming park rangers?



The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.



As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.



I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.



I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.



With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.



So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.



I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.



Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

I must say, I am in complete agreement with your assessments here.

One of the things I have absolutely no confidence in at all is Law Enforcement's capacity to protect me from harm. That, by the way, is not intended as a slight against any cops. I have some very, very good friends who are police officers and I spend a lot of time working with my local Sheriff's Dept. as a contract Spanish translator.

I just recognize that, if I am going to be the target of criminal behavior, then by the time the police know about the crime, it will already be all over.

I also question Beo's statistical analysis. I too would like to read some of this research as it flies in the face of just about every other study related to concealed carry that have almost universally shown that, in every State that has enacted "Shall Issue" standards, crime rates have gone down.