Woods Gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wrestler034

No, it is not a "hot" 41 mag. In its hottest form the 10mm is similar to a mild 41 mag. I would much rather have 11 rounds of mild(If 700 lb/ft can be called that) that I can easily control in rapid fire. YMMV.

---

I wasn't knocking your choice. Like I said, the 10mm is one of my favorite rounds. Too bad the large Glocks just don't suit me with my smaller hands. When (or if) Springfield chambers their XD for it I will probably make that my "go to" gun.

There is just a common misconception that the 10mm is the balistic equal to anything you can get in a .41 mag. Just like to correct that misconception if I get the chance. [Awesom]

If you are going to have to shoot your food, I feel there is only one choice. My choice would be a breakdown .22LR rifle. Rabbit, squirrel, birds etc. are hard to hit with a handgun, especially when they are moving. You shoot a 10mm at a squirrel and miss, I doubt you get another shot. Pick a AR7, Marlin Papoose or breakdown 10/22. Don't starve yourself with a combat pistol...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

There is just a common misconception that the 10mm is the balistic equal to anything you can get in a .41 mag. Just like to correct that misconception if I get the chance. [Awesom]

---

I agree.
I'm a .41 guy with a 10 and 40. I hear that 10mm / .41 comparison a bunch and I always chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sawin

LOL come on guys, the OP is asking about hiking and back country camping, not preplanned long-term survival in the woods. This would imply that lightweight is a fundamental requirement. No one carries a shotgun or combo gun when they go hiking, (maybe ATV'ing) and folks certainly don't fill their day packs with sundry shotgun loads.

I stick by my earlier answer that a smaller load like 9mm is sufficient for this scenario without burdening oneself with a bunch of unnecessary weight. The last thing I'm taking when I go on a hike or couple day backpacking trudge is a shotgun. If we were in Alaska, this would be a different conversation. :)

---

man im from jersey id feel undergunned in the woods out here with just my ar im thinking .308 battle rifle at least[Beer]

http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog...h_hand-tfb.jpg

Rossi Ranch Hand .357/.38 Special. Stock photo of course- I don't have any pics of mine.
I love this gun. Sweet shooter...

Consider a 38 spl. In a survival mode its not to hot to shoot small game and with a decent cast SWC it will kill large game.
If your trying to live off the land etc. and legal issues are not important a 38 will work for most needs.
A alloy model 638 weighs less about a pound. a model 60 with a three/four inch barrel would be almost ideal.
Yes you can shoot .357 in the newer guns. If you think your going to swap out rounds while chasing rabbits I want to watch.

Deleted

I suggested a .357/.38 lever before. I'm getting ready to load some .357 see how it does in my lever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

Consider a 38 spl. In a survival mode its not to hot to shoot small game and with a decent cast SWC it will kill large game.
If your trying to live off the land etc. and legal issues are not important a 38 will work for most needs.
A alloy model 638 weighs less about a pound. a model 60 with a three/four inch barrel would be almost ideal.
Yes you can shoot .357 in the newer guns. If you think your going to swap out rounds while chasing rabbits I want to watch.

---

In my experience SWC (semi-wad cutters) are a low power round designed for target shooting. It will expand very little and typically has nominal velocity to begin with. There are higher velocity SWC available (around 1100FPS) however due to limited expansion they would not be my first choice for large game.

Federal 125gr JHP in S&W 686 4":
.38 = 923 FPS
.357 = 1436 FPS

A .357 (except the new aluminum frame .38s) weighs about the same as a comparable .38 and are roughly the same size. You should not shoot a .357 in a .38, even it it could stand the much higher pressures the .357 COAL is greater (1.550" vs 1.590)" and will usually prevent the cylinder from rotating in a properly functioning revolver. Example 125gr JHP sample load data - .38=15600 CUP vs .357=41200 CUP. Typically if a .38 revolver will chamber a .357 it is either substantially worn or has very loose tolerances, e.g.; cylinder gap. The disadvantages of a .357 over .38 are primarily recoil and muzzle flash. There may be a slight accuracy loss when using .38 in a .357 due to the slight gap between the bullet and the forcing cone as well as the lower velocity.

If you know what you put in it (and direction of rotation) doesn't take a lot of time to pull the hammer back partially and rotate the cylinder a couple rounds.

Or you could practice until you can do this (see :31 sec mark). [Coffee]

I vote 357 as well. I usually shoot 158 grain WFN bullets hand cast with love, in 38 special cases. I do load these to 38+P levels. Penetrates old rock hard 4x4's with ease. Won't do 8 inchs but close. Wide Flat Nose explodes milk jugs of water like no 38 should. I'm confident in the power.

Gun is a Smith&Wesson 2.5 inch 686+ 7 shot. This gun ammo combo makes head shots on rabbits possible out to 20 yards. Probably the most accurate pistol I've ever owned. Doesn't seem to mind the jump.

Everyone has their taste, and this works for me. I tried my 1911 with a rail one year and it let you know it was there. Felt like a boat anchor by the time we got back to camp. Was the last trip out of camp for that gun.