Woods Gun

It's a term you hear thrown around a lot, but I'm curious - what constitutes a "woods gun" for you? I tend to think of any firearms choice as being 'mission-driven' - what are the specific parameters you prepare for that then dictate your particular choice?

I'm not talking here about a gun to go have fun and shoot in the woods, but the gun you choose when you are going on a day hike, backpacking trip, camping, etc. for the possibility of defense.

Not looking to have a caliber debate (or any debate at all, really...), but I think discussing the real-world merits of various calibers based on ballistics studies you can cite (rather than merely long-held opinions about the "right" caliber), and how that caliber addresses your needs, is totally appropriate.

How much is carry weight a factor for you?

Do you consider capacity?

Weatherproofness?

I think this could be interesting....

 

I try to keep it simple, lightweight, concealable, and powerful enough to stop a threat of either two or four legged animals.

My woods gun is a S&W 329NG in .44 mag, six-shot revolver with a speed strip of extra ammo; it's a sidearm I carry when I'm deer/hog hunting, a back-up to my rifle.

When it's not hunting season and I'm just out woods-walking I have my CCW, S&W 340 in .357 mag, five-shot revolver with a speed-strip of extra ammo.

 

I don't have to worry about threats much larger or harder to influence to go the other way than 2 legged predators here in GA, so my Boresight G34 w/RMR that is my EDC continues as my EDC for hiking/camping/adventuring.

 

I either carry my 357 wheel gun or my 9mm, a lot depends on if I’m worried about 2 or 4 legged beasts.

 

This will be a bit of a long post, but I want to explain how my thinking on this topic has evolved over time. I'll also preface it by saying that I'm not by any means saying what I think anyone else should or shouldn't do - we all make our own choices. I'm just explaining mine.

Out my back door is the highest concentration of large 4-legged predators found anywhere in the lower 48 of the U.S. We have a healthy population of grizzly, black bear, lots of lions and wolves. A few years ago, a grizz came down out of the hills and killed a couple pigs on a farm just down the road from us. Basically every time I head into the backcountry, I'm in grizz country around here. I also spent many seasons living and working in Alaska.

I used to do a lot of solo bowhunting, which involves doing just about everything the opposite of how every bear expert recommends conducting yourself in serious bear country (being as quiet as possible, hunting the wind, etc.). We have at least one grizz attack a year in my area, and 9 times out of 10 it seems to be a hunter in the Fall. At one point I decided I should carry a .44 mag, just in case (I always carried bear spray as well). And I'll be honest - that 5.5" barrelled .44 was a pain in the ass to lug around. Try hiking 10 miles or more, day after day, with a 4lb gun on your hip (in addition to a loaded pack, etc), and you can probably relate to what I'm saying. In addition, training to be fast and accurate with a gun like that in a high stress situation on a fast moving target takes a lot of regular practice, and I tend to think a lot of people kid themselves about this reality. Personally, I would never feel good about carrying a gun like that in bear country if I wasn't very confident I could use it effectively - the chances of making the situation way worse, rather than resolving it, are too high.

And like I said, I've always carried bear spray in the backcountry as well. And I've done a lot of homework on bear spray effectiveness, by necessity, given where I live. Nothing works 100% of the time on bears (firearms being a prime example), but bear spray has been proven to work very reliably, with statistically less resulting harm to those on both sides of the encounter. I think there is also a tactical advantage in that rather than needing to be extremely accurate in just about the hardest circumstances imaginable (an 800lb angry thing at close range charging you at 35mph) with bear spray you create a cloud that quickly covers a broader area than a bullet will.

I'll stop there, because my intention with this post isn't to convince anyone about the usefulness of bear spray, it's just to give more background on my thinking and resulting choices for a firearm in the backcountry. I no longer carry a firearm in the mountains around here with the deciding factor being a caliber that (may, if I'm lucky) put down a grizz. I practice good situational awareness, make plenty of noise in limited visibility situations to head off surprise encounters, and I keep my bear spray in a place on my body where I can draw it in seconds. And so far, knock on wood, that has meant the only grizz I've ever seen around here have been a long ways away.

However, there are plenty of reasons why I still carry a firearm in the backountry, and other things to be concerned with. For a recent backpacking trip where I was paying attention to weight, I loaded up my .357 revolver and my .40 S&W semi-auto, both with the stoutest loads I would choose to shoot out of them respectively, and put them both on the scale the night before leaving. They weighed almost exactly the same. So I had a choice to make - do I want to carry 6 rounds of 158gr .357 or 13 rounds of 180gr .40? I ended up choosing the latter, for two primary reasons - I'm more accurate with the .40 semi (esp. on fast follow-up shots) and I've got more than twice as many rounds on tap before a reload if I miss. I do not think the two rounds are equal ballistically. But I've done enough homework to determine that they also aren't as far apart as some may think, assuming you make an informed ammo choice.

All of which is to say that I think I used to approach my "woods gun" choice from the frame of mind that it needed to be a singular tool to decisively resolve whatever might happen out there. For one, I think I was kidding myself on the "decisively" part, even with a powerful, large bore option. But more importantly, I think I've evolved over time into considering my choice in a "woods gun" as part of a larger toolkit and skill set with an emphasis on avoiding conflicts in the first place, much like my approach in the frontcountry. And with this thinking I've been re-evaluating the viability of a more moderate, but also more accurate (for me) caliber, with an emphasis on higher capacity.

These thoughts are by no means fixed in stone. I don't think there is a "right" choice. And who knows, maybe in a few years I'll come full circle and return to carrying a .44. But I think discussing the thinking behind our choices can be productive and educational.

 

I'll preface this by saying that I've NEVER been in a set of woods where a "woods gun" was required, except for hunting white tail.

I grew up on the center of the East Coast where the largest thing you have to worry about in the woods is a Bobcat or a stray dog. I now live in Texas (again) and there aren't much woods here at all, in fact it's mostly brush. With that said, the danger level has gun up a little because now there are Wild Hogs to contend with. Still, I assume not a massive concern as long as I'm not actively hunting them.

Now that you know my background in forest dangers lol, I can explain my thought process on a defensive woods gun. I don't like handguns. They're a lot like a knife; extremely useful if you're close enough to use it, but could also end up causing more harm than good if you don't know how to use it. I'm a rifle guy and always have been. I like big bores because they get the job done, but they also have that little drawback of having less capacity. .45-70 is an amazing round, but you're in trouble if you need that 8th shot right damn now. Not to mention, there's the action thing. Yes, I've seen guys work a lever action faster than most people can say "changing mags!", but my guess is it ain't none of us.

It may sound silly, but I love an AR for just about everything. An AR with something like a 1-6 or 1-8 can take human sized targets from anywhere in between 0ft and 500yds. With 77gr Boar Busters you can bet you're pushing a lot of energy into your target and your entire package can weigh as much as a bag of sugar if you'd like. I know 5.56 isn't the most ideal round for a large predator, but the ability to carry 30 of them in your rifle is huge. Fast moving targets tend to be hard to hit, so increasing your odds is never a bad thing.

Once you get into SBR's or AR pistols, your carry weight and total length can be reduced significantly. A 10" AR will still carry projectiles out further than any revolver or big-bore semi-loader.

With that said, if I HAD to pick a handgun, it would be a 10mm Glock.

 

Here in the East “woods carry” for me evokes day hiking or hunting in the National Forest, State Park, Wildlife Management Area or the terrain behind my house. I worry about two legged predators, dogs, coyotes, black bear, and those cougar that people catch on game cams but DNR says don’t exist. Maybe the “Mothman” if I’m near Pt. Pleasant.

As those excursions are usually less than ten miles and I carry a gun all the time anyway, I don’t have any problem toting my 1911 in 10mm or my S&W Mountain Gun in .44. If I had a decent .357, .41 or .45 Colt revolver then that would work too. Really I want accuracy more than power.

My main fear is ending up at the Pearly Gates explaining how after decades as an LEO, hundreds of hours of firearms training, and owning a safe full of guns I managed to meet my end armed with nothing more than my Izzy II.

 

In the areas I spend time outdoors my threats include meth-cookers, coyotes, feral dogs, wild hogs and black bear. I tend to go back and forth between my G20 10mm and a 16” 5.56 AR. As I get more rounds through it my 10” 300blk pistol will probably join the woods gun rotation with the previous two.

 

45 Shield in a chest rig and a 3" LCRX 22LR in a pocket somewhere. I like the 45 for insurance but for usefulness the little 22 revolver takes the cake (and the occasional grouse or cottontail as well). Truth be told, my 70lb Pitt mix gives me more peace of mind than either.

 

My main "combat handgun" is a .45ACP, but I don't think it would be a very good bear gun. It's a slow moving, large mass. It works well against soft objects, but something that's tough and thick (like bear hide) would probably keep .45ACP from penetrating very far.

 

I carry a Remington 870 youth 20 gauge. Long guns are a hassle to carry but I tend to perform better with them.

 

Interesting thread,to tired to get into details now. I'll comment later

 

I generally only day hike, nothing overnight. I just carry whatever I normally EDC which for years has almost exclusively been a G43 carried IWB. For comfort I normally carry it OWB when I'm hiking but this can be tricky to get to easily when carrying a pack but I have just dealt with it. There are some good pack holsters out there but I want to be discreet so I just deal with the issues.

 

I usually carry either my HK USP45 or my Glock 40MOS 10mm.

 

Continuing with this thread, my thoughts above were squarely within the realm of a defensive woods gun. And in the scenarios I think of in this context, it's going to be close range. I generally have little need to shoot at something even 50 yards away in a defensive scenario, versus simply backing out of the situation and hopefully defusing it. The vast majority of bear encounters, for example, happen very fast and at very close range, usually with seconds to act. It's a rare bear that comes charging at you from a long ways away across open country giving you lots of time to shoulder a long gun and take aim on a fast moving target.

But no argument from me that a long gun is always going to be more effective in terms of shear firepower and longer range accuracy. However going on day hikes where I live and toting a long gun around would both be a pain in the butt and probably freak a lot of other trail users out on our more well-used trails. I like having something reasonably powerful but small and usually concealable (which is part of the reason I love my HPG Kit Bag so much).

Though certainly if we are going to look at a well-rounded definition of a "wood guns" it should probably include something that is both capable of defense and viable for taking game. This makes finding something to fit the bill a lot harder, and again, is going to depend a lot on where you live.

My go-to hunting rife is a 30-06. Although I've been pondering a compact scout-type rig in .308 (or 6.5 Creedmore?) as an more of an "all-around" woods long gun.

 

I tend to pack my little SP101 when I'm on a short outing. I keep it loaded with either 125 or 158 grain .357 rounds with an extra speed loader or two. I'm starting to think a lever action carbine chambered in the same caliber might be a good option too. Pack it around on a sling to keep your hands free. For those that shoot a .44 Mag, this might also be a good option.