Another "What Gun" thread - Hiking Edition

so my 9 is wimpy, huh... and .45 rules... BWTM....

Mini 30 FTW

In reply to Joshua:

Hey now, I may be dutch, but I compensate for my wee Willy Wonka with loud cars, not big calibers.

Once again, I'm not after a pissing match. 9mm is chosen by military and police personnel as a sidearm the world over for close range offensive work, and ability for capacity in a light package. They also have backup weapons and more guys than you and I. It still isn't and won't ever be for me as far as home and wilderness defense is concerned.

SEALs are exquisitely trained, hand picked assassins when asked to be, no? I'm sure the 9mm pistol is a sidearm, not their primary offensive weapon. If that's all they had to go into battle with, they wouldn't go. And MP5s are capable of full auto fire(the Wall of lead theory) and ~20% higher velocity than the average plastic carry pistol, yes? A deer gun will always put a bigger hole in anything fleshy than a target .22, don't confuse what we're speaking of here. For the rest of us who aren't are military trained and don't have Class III licenses, I'll take something with a bit more oomph.

Gander sometime when you're bored at the ballistics behind 9mm, you'll find it's quite similar to .38 Special. Nothing to set the world on fire, but effective. Unlike .38, the nine, being of smaller diameter and less mass, is going to be more likely to pass through someone unless interrupted by dense organ or bone, rather than expending it's energy upon the target. Much like a stab wound from a 900fps pencil would leave.

Shot for shot vs something larger, 9mm is less likely to get someone off their feet or induce hydrostatic shock, and shouldn't even be considered for use in the woods when you aren't at the top of the food chain. In keeping with this thread, where one is looking for a solid all-arounder, 9mm is not it. If one simply must have capacity and light weight in a similarly sized semiauto pistol, .40S&W is a much better choice.

Fasted58: I love those.

I agree bear spray is likely the best bet against the animals. I would guess that the two legged critters are more dangerous to a female hiking alone; which means concealed, not pack, carry. This also lets her off the hook somewhat in terms of caliber, since she probably limp-wristed your glock. So 9mm is probably the top of what she would actually enjoy shooting. I say take her back to the range and teach her to hold your Glock correctly. Barring that I recommend the subcompact Glock in 9mm, then you both can share large backup mags. J

Since your GF is looking for a hobby and the cost of ammo is always a factor, what about getting started reloading?

I started reloading with my Dad about as soon as I started shooting. I'm not fully convinced it's cheaper than dirt-cheap 3rd-rate Chinese surplus ammo, but at least we know who to blame if something goes boom (or doesn't).

After some experimentation, my Dad found the right load to get the bullet down range and eject the casing, and not much more. Light load = able to shoot more per day. Also marginally cheaper.

It's a great way to spend more money (to save money) on a hobby and may make the choice in caliber a smaller deal...

Salanis wrote: There is also the question about what is legal to carry with you, particularly out here in Cali.

Before getting your heart set on a firearm, do the research on what is legal to carry in CA. Under almost no circumstances can you carry a handgun at all in CA. Your rights are severely limited when it comes to handguns. Basically, unless you are a licensed PI, active duty law enforcement, or active duty armed guard, you may not carry a handgun at all... concealed or exposed. Transporting a handgun in your vehicle even has to conform with the 3-step rule, e.g. disassembled, unloaded, out of reach.

As an avid hunter I was also disappointed with when you could carry a rifle or shotgun. You can carry one on private property, but anything you shoot must be licensed and in-season. I know you're more worried about survival for your gal, and given the choice between death and fines, I'll take the fines. Brown bears and big cats are protected in CA big time.

Truthfully, its one of the reasons I left CA. The hoops I had to jump through to shoot a blacktail were ridiculous. I'm now moving back to PA where I can carry a rifle or shotgun anywhere, and the only place I can't carry a concealed handgun is a police station.

The 9mm vs. .45 argument always annoys me. VBPD uses the Glock 17, and it's hard to argue with 17rds of 9mm. The instructors at the range have decades of experience and most of them just laughed when we asked, "Why don't we use a .45", during the academy. I think a lot of the people who go out and buy a gun for home defense just buy a .45 because it's cooler sounding or makes them feel macho, but in reality they probably couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. We watched a video in the academy where a State Trooper loaded a fat guy up with .45 rounds and the guy walked away, but he killed the trooper with a single action .22 derringer. It's all about shot placement.

Also, the haters can hate on Glocks simply b/c they don't like them, but don't say they're junk cuz it's simply untrue.

Finally, you need to choose whatever gun you feel comfortable with and are comfortable shooting. If you have no problem pulling the trigger on a 9mm, .357, .38, or whatever, then that is a better gun for you then a .45 or 44 mag. that scares the crap out of you. Get one that is comfortable, usable, not friggin' expensive, and practice, practice, practice, because shooting is a perishable skill. Take a course, have a pro teach you how to shoot quickly and accurately, otherwise a gun is more of a danger than a help.

And after all that, my vote is this!

Oh, and I almost forgot! 9mm has a higher velocity than a .45...just saying.

In reply to fasted58:

I was going to say some sort of rifle, too. If I had to take one rifle with me into the woods, it would be an M-14.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to fasted58: I was going to say some sort of rifle, too. If I had to take one rifle with me into the woods, it would be an M-14.

Huh. I would say 30-30 lever action Winchester in a backpack sling unless those woods were being over-run by Vietcong.

I'm confused as to where this became a defense against a ".45acp is the supreme ruler of the universe and Glocks suck"-fest that never happened. It certainly isn't.

My vote for the zombie terrorist bear onslaught is a holstered .500 Alaskan and a bolt action .30-06. Maybe a .50BMG too, in case they're 800yds off and armored.

I've fired both. I'm in the military. We don't get choices about what weapons we carry. Most of that has to do with what the government can get supplied by the cheapest bidder, then they come up with studies to make it the best. I'd rather pump 13 .45 rounds into something than a bunch of 9mm rounds. At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

I personally dislike the M9, btw. It is better to carry one of those around than being stuck with an M249 or even an M4. Most of the time they're just something you have to keep the sand off/out of. For actual combat? I'll take a rifle every time. Of course, I would really prefer to let the gunner take out a the threat. Ma deuce proves that bigger is better ;)

Also, we're trained to use "controlled pairs" until the target is down and stays down. Double-tapping is a thing of the past, and you definitely aren't supposed to shoot people when they're down. Is this what really happens? Who knows. You've seen what happens to some people that get caught doing otherwise.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I'm much more comfortable shooting an M1A or M-14. I'm even more comfortable shooting an AR type rifle, but the whole "man carrying assault rifle in the woods" thing can get you there.

The rifle I currently own is a Mini-14, but that is mostly because my wife can shoot it easily, too.

Got together with my grandfather today. He's actually looking for someone to hold on to his collection of guns for him since the senior center he's now at made him sign saying he would have absolutely no guns there.

Looks like we're just going to take the collection, go shooting, and see what she likes. I think there are some good modern pistols in there, although many of them are interesting antique guns. Probably would not be too effective using something like this for home defense, although .45-70 would have some stopping power:

rotard wrote: At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

Please explain?

Joshua wrote:

rotard wrote: At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

Please explain?

I can, it's dumb.

Everyone knows you still need the gun. What else is the opponent supposed to keep his eyes on while you stab the E36 M3 out of him?

As for the rest of this thread, the answer was already given on page one: Taurus Judge. Most hikers aren't going to carry a rifle into the woods with them, and the judge has the added benefit of firing .410 and .45, coming with a smaller barrel, and being superbly suited to short distance shooting of both animals and the meth addled rapists that apparently roam y'alls trails.

Did you know doubling clicking in the box is the same as hitting post? Cause I didn't

Joshua wrote:

rotard wrote: At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

Please explain?

A person is able to cover that distance with a knife and land a fatal wound faster than one can aim and fire a firearm of any type.

MG_Bryan wrote:

Joshua wrote:

rotard wrote: At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

Please explain?

A person is able to cover that distance with a knife and land a fatal wound faster than one can aim and fire a firearm of any type.

That is NOT the point of the Tueller Drill. The point of that is reaction time, and if you have a knife you still have to take time to draw it, and then you're left with a knife and not a gun... Massad Ayoob breaks it down into further detail that yes, within that "danger zone" a knife can get to you, but unless you're dealing with a professional, you'll be alright after a bunch of stitches.

MG_Bryan wrote: A person is able to cover that distance with a knife and land a fatal wound faster than one can aim and fire a firearm of any type.

Self defense 101: Get the berkeleyer with the knife first.

Osterkraut wrote: That is NOT the point of the Tueller Drill. Massad Ayoob breaks it down into further detail that yes, within that "danger zone" a knife can get to you, but unless you're dealing with a professional, you'll be alright after a bunch of stitches.

Really? I'd imagine someone like me, completely untrained in the "Art of Knifefighting" could do some serious damage. Pointy end goes into the torso, as many times as you can to hit as much as possible. Thought that was obvious.

Grizz wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote: A person is able to cover that distance with a knife and land a fatal wound faster than one can aim and fire a firearm of any type.

Self defense 101: Get the berkeleyer with the knife first.

Osterkraut wrote: That is NOT the point of the Tueller Drill. Massad Ayoob breaks it down into further detail that yes, within that "danger zone" a knife can get to you, but unless you're dealing with a professional, you'll be alright after a bunch of stitches.

Really? I'd imagine someone like me, completely untrained in the "Art of Knifefighting" could do some serious damage. Pointy end goes into the torso, as many times as you can to hit as much as possible. Thought that was obvious.

I'm going unprotected arteries, chests are pretty sturdy things. So, if I'm approaching from the front and the neck is impractal, the groin will do just fine.

Osterkraut, If I'm wrong I'm fine with that, but correcting the error would be helpful...

Torso, to me at least = squishy bit under the chest.

There are a few revolvers that shoot rounds large enough to take down big game, but I dont think your girl friend would want to carry something like that around. Maybe a revolver in 357? Revolvers have some good things about them. They do not have very many moving parts which is good in situations involving large amounts of dirt. They are also very easy to operate and are good for home defense because they do not have a whole lot of confusing buttons for safeties and so on. Maybe a Ruger LCR in 357?

She says she's not worried about game or wild animals. More concerned about unsavory people.

Ultimately, the priority is that she just wants to own a gun. She'd just like whatever she gets to be something that can also serve a practical function (defense) if she feels the need.

Oh, and she already has a dog for lookout (I usually tell people to get that first if they're really concerned about home defense). It's small, but I'm pretty sure it's part Lhasa Apso, so she's really good about announcing new people coming in.

As for concealed carry here in Cali, I think it's mostly a county thing. I think they are tough to get in Sacramento county, but are pretty easy if you live in El Dorado county right next to it. She has not expressed any interest in concealed carry anyway.

MG_Bryan wrote:

Grizz wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote: A person is able to cover that distance with a knife and land a fatal wound faster than one can aim and fire a firearm of any type.

Self defense 101: Get the berkeleyer with the knife first.

Osterkraut wrote: That is NOT the point of the Tueller Drill. Massad Ayoob breaks it down into further detail that yes, within that "danger zone" a knife can get to you, but unless you're dealing with a professional, you'll be alright after a bunch of stitches.

Really? I'd imagine someone like me, completely untrained in the "Art of Knifefighting" could do some serious damage. Pointy end goes into the torso, as many times as you can to hit as much as possible. Thought that was obvious.

I'm going unprotected arteries, chests are pretty sturdy things. So, if I'm approaching from the front and the neck is impractal, the groin will do just fine. Osterkraut, If I'm wrong I'm fine with that, but correcting the error would be helpful...

Here at work I'm without most of my source material, but the logic goes something like this: evolutionarily, the human body is designed to be really, really good at dealing with knife style (especially slashing) damage. With exceptions of certain major arteries (femoral, jugular) and a few rare one-hit kills (kidneys, well-guarded heart), it's hard for a non-expert to really do massive, quickly fatal damage with a knife. George Harrison, for example, got stabbed half a dozen times and made it through ok. With quick medical attention, the fatality rate for knife attacks is pretty low. As for groin shots, personal observation says that if you give a buddy a second's notice you're going to punch him, odds of hitting his dick are real low. Humans are pretty good at protecting their soft bits.

As for knife FIGHTING, let's revisit an earlier quote in this thread:

rotard wrote: At close range, it will be difficult for a professional to take down an attacker with any pistol. Within 21ft or so, you're better off with a knife.

You have 1.5 seconds to draw something...do you a)draw a weapon that if you're HIGHLY skilled, you have a slight chance of getting to the heart or brainstem and killing the guy in under 10 seconds, a slightly greater chance of killing the guy in under 5 minutes, or an even greater chance of killing the guy on your joint ride to the hospital (in effect giving him plenty of time to stab YOU), or b) a gun, with it's wonderful hydrostatic shock.

Only on the freakin' internet could you have guys saying that 9mm isn't good enough to kill, but a knife is...

Osterkraut wrote: Only on the freakin' internet could you have guys saying that 9mm isn't good enough to kill, but a knife is...

Only on the internet would the answer to "What pistol to carry while hiking" be shoulder fired rocket launcher or AR variant rifle. Why not throw in two handed broadsword? At least if you carry a reasonable knife you might actually use it for something.

The opportunity to use any of the above for successfully defending an attack by a human while hiking is likely about equivalent to "run away screaming bloody murder", which should probably be option #1 for a woman alone in the woods. Followed promptly shoulder fired rocket propelled grenade fire, ofcourse.

Sounds like the answer to my original question is: "Don't bother with a gun for hiking." The most significant effect one would probably have would be to make a loud noise to scare predators away.

We're not too concerned about home defense. We're only moderately more concerned about that than being able to handle the zombie apocalypse. In our area, we've only heard of one break-in, but that was done by the lady's nephew or one of his friends (or something like that) who was irritated with her about something. It was petty theft, not breaking into an occupied apartment. We're not too worried about the doped-up meth addict immune to pain scenario.

In the unlikely event that we find ourselves using a gun for defense, everything I've seen has led me to believe that the specific gun is a lot less significant than just having a gun. People tend to run away when you start shooting a gun at them. They don't usually stop to check if it's .45 or only a 9mm. If someone breaks in to the apartment, I don't think they'll be too interest in going over or around the king-sized bed to get at a person pointing a gun at them.

Ultimately, she just wants a gun. She's pretty sure she wants a pistol. She'll most likely go with whatever gun she enjoys shooting the most.