Best Woods Gun?

[StonewallRuger]

I'm looking for a small gun to carry in the woods for protection against two-and four-legged attackers. Where I hunt there are hogs and black bears (Northeast AR). I already have a 2.25" SP101, but I was thinking that something else could be better (and I just want an excuse to buy another gun ).

My potential choices include:

4 5/8" Super Blackhawk
4" .44 or .45 Redhawk
3" GP100 (Don't really know why)

Please give me your feedback and include other choices I could make.

Also, sell me on the .45LC vs. the .44 mag. I currently own one of each ("OM" Bisley Vaquero and SRH 9.5", respectively).

Thanks.

 

[bennettfam]

I always figured .357 was a good trail gun in the lower 48. But if you are seriously worried about a black bear attack I'd choose a .44 mag. Hits faster and harder than the .45. I like SA but can see a case made for DA in a rushing bear situation.

Funny thing is I usually carry a .38 J-Frame or .22 Bearcat, but more for plinking than for protection. Not many bears where I usually hike.

 

[olywa]

I generally carry a 3" SP101 in 357. The extra inch of barrel makes it noticeably less obnoxious and I shoot it a little more accurately than my 2" SP101.

I also carry a Springfield Mil-Spec 1911 in 45 ACP. Hardball penetrates well and the 1911 carries pretty easy. I had a 4 5/8" Super Blackhawk and I liked it pretty well, but I'm just not a single-action guy.

 

[sdoyl123]

The Super Blackhawk or the Redhawk in 44 is what I would go for. Lots of bullet options and great knockdown power.

 

[Snyd]

The fact is that the 45 Colt loaded with Ruger only loads can shoot a heavier bullet at same or higher velocity than the 44 mag at less pressure which means less recoil. I shoot a 355gr WFN at 1150 fps in my 4 inch Redhawk. Can't do that with a 44mag. It's my woods gun here in Alaska. .429 compared to .452, heavier bullets and larger case.

 

[eagle55]

The fact is that the 45 Colt loaded with Ruger only loads can shoot a heavier bullet at same or higher velocity than the 44 mag at less pressure which means less recoil. I shoot a 355gr WFN at 1150 fps in my 4 inch Redhawk. Can't do that with a 44mag. It's my woods gun here in Alaska. .429 compared to .452, heavier bullets and larger case.

I just knew someone would come riding in and defend the 45 Colt!

 

[MMichaelAK]

I just knew someone would come riding in and defend the 45 Colt!

*laughing*
It doesnt need defending.


I vary between my GP100 and one of my Blackhawks in .45 or my 5 1/2" Redhawk .45.

The GP gets 180 grain hardcast handloads, the .45Colts get 300 grain hardcast handloads.

 

[WESHOOT2]

4.2" 44 Redhawk. Or 5.5" 44 Redhawk.

 

[IrvJr]

I have a Stainless SUper Blackhawk in .44 mag with a 4 5/8" barrel that I like as a woods gun. It's a little heavy, but it's comfortable in a bandolier style holster.

I used to have a 4 5/8" Blackhawk in 45 Colt. I think that's an ideal woods gun because it has a lighter alloy frame. Also, you can handload some nice, lower pressure (but still potent) 45 Colt loads that are comfortable to shoot from the Blackhawk, but still peppy enough for protection against 2 and 4 legged creatures.

Like a knucklehead, I sold the 4 5/8" blackhawk and regret it.

 

[Revolver-Time]

If you reload go with the .45 COLT in the Blackhawk. If not grab the .44 Magnum.

 

[Sonnytoo]

I don't recommend a .357 for bear or hogs.
The RH or BH are great guns, and either caliber is fine. For the greater choice of "commercial" ammo, you need to go Maggie. That being said, I reload for both calibers and my stronger loads, i.e. heavier bullets, are all .45 Colt. It operates at 20% lower pressure than the .44 Mag.
And, sir, for bear or hogs, stick with good hardcast lead, not soft commercial HP's. LFN's or WFN's, 300grains and up. (My recommendation for increased penetration and to break bones).
Sonnytoo

 

[AzRebel]

I'm looking for a small gun...

My potential choices include:

4 5/8" Super Blackhawk
4" .44 or .45 Redhawk
3" GP100 (Don't really know why)

Small???



Daryl

 

[alukban]

It always seems to gravitate to .45 Colt vs .44 Mag, don't it

For me, you only consider those if you will likely have a bear problem. It' not just if there are bear in your area because most places will have black bear or something. You should factor in whether there is a history of violent bear encounters - not just sightings. By me here in CT, there are plenty of black bear now but they are either shy and scarce or more interested in garbage than attacking anybody - like most bears. If you really may have a bear encounter problem, I'd get something in .454.

For a woods gun though, I'd like it to be able to handle deer, coyotes, turkey, squirrel, procupines, grouse & rabbits with only 2 loads without damaging too much meat on the small stuff. I want it small enough to be easy to carry (< ~35'ish oz) not hit the ground when sitting but big and heavy enough that is easily pointable and actually shootable. As much as I love to reload, sometimes the perfect bullet weight just isn't quite there for the velocity I want to shoot AND get the right POI so I definitely would also want adjustable sights on the "best woods gun" because I'd like the option of adjusting them to just the right in-between for both deer-able and rabbit-able loads that I use pretty much the same sight picture. I would prioritize the sight picture for the rabbit load under 25 yards, BTW.

There is no right answer for me right now but I love the way my Buckmark shoots like a laser out to 30 yards - ringing little 2" steel plates even standing, off-hand. I love my big .45 Colt with birds head grip for the "maybe" scenarios. I also love my little J-frame .22's but find the frame size annoying for double action. The .45 Colt w/ fixed sights is no good for me for small game and the little rimfires can be pressed for biger stuff but they are not optimal.

I keep thinking that a .357 Mag is the way to go because you can use .38 Special wadcutters for rolling bunnies and some hot .357 Mags for deer and coyotes. I love the Blackhawk platform but I sorta feel cheated if I'm carrying a very heavy Blackhawk and it's only got .357 Mags in it. My thoughts then sort of drift towards the smaller Vaqueros but I would want adjustable sights on it and I'm not really a custom gun kind of guy. Then I start thinking of the Security Six and K-frame sized guns, maybe with a 5" pencil barrel and round butted... hmmmm.

 

[VAdoublegunner]

The Lipsey'a 44 Special flattop with a 4 5/8" barel is a nice lightweight woodswalking handgun if you are a handloader and can get the full potential you need. And there is plenty of potential in the 44 SP in that gun when handloaded properly!

Alternately, a 45 Colt Vaquero Birdshead Sheriff's Model. Plenty of power there too with Ruger loads, not that the classic old Colt is a slouch if you need it. It packs nicely too.

Waaayyy cool factor for both. Plus, great additions to any ruger collection.

If not carrying my 3" SP101, it's usually one of those.

 

[retiredsquid]

I have a 4 5/8" Super Blackhawk I converted to a Bisley and love it. BUT... for woods carry and the odd chance of meeting up with a critter needin' killed worse than me I generally carry a S&W Model 329PD. Reason being I spend a lot of time in the woods and will more likely carry the lighter gun than the heavier one all day long. Now, if I am specifically going after critters the criteria changes and I'll pack the heavier gun.

 

[CraigC]

The fact is that the 45 Colt loaded with Ruger only loads can shoot a heavier bullet at same or higher velocity than the 44 mag at less pressure which means less recoil. I shoot a 355gr WFN at 1150 fps in my 4 inch Redhawk. Can't do that with a 44mag. It's my woods gun here in Alaska. .429 compared to .452, heavier bullets and larger case.

Sorry sir, but that is incorrect. The .44Mag retains a velocity advantage, even with the super heavyweights. The .44 goes up to 355gr, which has a higher sectional density than the .45's 360's, equal to the mighty 430gr .475. I get over 1200fps with them out of a Ruger Bisley.

If anybody can truly see a difference in recoil between the two, I'll eat my hat. I've taken the Pepsi Challenge with a pair of almost matching guns and there is no difference.

The only difference between the two is 0.022".

 

[147 Grain]

For 357 or 44 Mag against "2 and 4 legged ATTACKERS", use a heavy duty hardcast bullet that cuts a wide / deep wound channel. I know this stuff can be expensive, but it's better than a FMJ which temporarily pushes flesh aside. A heavier for caliber jacketed or bonded bullet would be a good second choice after the hardcast.

 

[eagle55]

Sorry sir, but that is incorrect. The .44Mag retains a velocity advantage, even with the super heavyweights. The .44 goes up to 355gr, which has a higher sectional density than the .45's 360's, equal to the mighty 430gr .475. I get over 1200fps with them out of a Ruger Bisley.

If anybody can truly see a difference in recoil between the two, I'll eat my hat. I've taken the Pepsi Challenge with a pair of almost matching guns and there is no difference.

The only difference between the two is 0.022".

When you put it in terms of diameter that seems so insignificant, a puny 5% difference in diameter. However when you look in terms of area it is a bit more significant. Doing pie R sq where the radius of the 44 being .2145 and the 45 being .2255, times 3.14 you get .144472 for the 44 and .159669 for the 45 which gives an area ratio of .9048184, which makes the 45 Colt over 10% larger in area than the 44 Mag.

Now I would like to quote something from Linebaugh about the Taylor KO formula which I am sure you have read before, but I think it has some use to this argument.

"POWER

Many may think we are in a power race. This is not my intent. I simply like the big bore revolvers because they are a BIGGER HAMMER. They can deliver a bigger slug with less pressure than the next smaller round can. This means less breech pressure, less felt recoil, less wear and erosion on the sixgun itself, less noise and blast and more enjoyable shooting. After comparing our ballistics maybe you will figure so little is to be gained over the .44 magnum with a .45 Colt why should I bother to go to the bigger caliber. Hardly a day goes by here at the shop that we don't receive a call or letter from a handgun hunter who asks why does the old reliable .45 Colt hit a harder blow than lesser caliber sixguns, even with moderate velocity loads. The answer is caliber and bullet weight. These are the only CONSTANTS we have in external ballistics. Velocity is a constantly diminishing variable. Velocity and foot pounds of energy look good on paper. We feel a much more reliable formula that tells the true results on game is John Taylor's Knock Out Formula

Caliber x Bullet weight x velocity divided by 7000

.430 x 240 gr x 1400 fps = 20.6 KO
.452 x 260 gr x 1400 fps = 23.5 KO"

 

[CraigC]

I'm aware of all of Linebaugh's writings. I refer to and quote them often. Again, I'm not trying to poop on the .45, I love the cartridge and own four guns so-chambered. At the same time, I cannot abide pooping on the .44 with information that is untrue. We must also bear in mind that the "Dissolving the Myth" article was not written yesterday and things 'may' have changed.

.430 x 355gr x 1240fps = 27.04 TKO
.452 x 360gr x 1150fps = 26.73 TKO

Is that difference even relevant?

My point is that the oft-repeated "more performance at less pressure" is not only questionable but really, what difference does it make? It's stated as if there were a world of difference between the two cartridges but there is not. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. My issue is that these points are never discussed, it's simply stated wholesale that the .45 is better. Seemingly without any forethought.

Less pressure. Who cares? Will it make a measurable difference in the lifespan of a Ruger revolver? If it does, I have yet to see any hard data, or even anecdotal data. It makes no difference in perceived recoil or muzzle blast. So???????

"More performance". That's debatable. When the article was written, maybe so, but not today. Today we see a 100fps advantage for the .44Mag across the board. Define performance? Like Linebaugh, I put little importance on velocity so even that 100fps advantage the .44 has is not significant, where the rubber hits the road.

For the record, I'm not advocating one over the other. I just think that if you're gonna choose between the two, you should do it with your eyes open. So to me, the bottom line is that the two cartridges offer very, very similar performance in guns of similar strength. The difference lies in the guns. The .44Mag is far less likely to require gunsmithing to make it shoot right. While the .45 is plagued with chamber/chamber mouth/bore dimension issues that may or may affect how it shoots. IMHO, the .45 doesn't really start to come into its own until you get into custom five-shots and run it up to 50,000psi.

 

[maxpress]

If you reload go with the .45 COLT in the Blackhawk. If not grab the .44 Magnum.

Thats pretty much my opinion. Lots of off the shelf loads for a .44. reloads in Ruger only loads can be used in a Blackhawk and its lighter than a super blackhawk. Both 44&45 can shoot a 300gr at 1200fps.
The redhawk if you are reloading can be taken farther with 340gr @ 1400fps which is up in the 454cassull range. They do hurt on both ends of the gun though.
My only problem with the 45 is off the shelf ammo for it is way out of line in price. I just saw a 50rd box of winchester for $45 with a pretty picture on it. These were standard velocity 250gr lead.

 

[eagle55]

CraigC, I can't really disagree with you, at least not all that much anyway. There are relatively small differences, most likely linked to that 10% difference in area. When you stated the diameter difference as .022 I just wanted to illustrate how that seemingly small number of .022 diameter difference actually represents an area 10% larger. As for the Linebaugh quote I put that in more for the OP's benefit as he was asking to be "sold" on the 45LC or the 44 Mag and was just offering another opinion. Actually I do own both and my 44 Mag easily kicks butt over my BH 45 ballistically speaking, at least under 300gr. Of course my 44 Mag is a Marlin 1894!

 

[bronco45]

45 Colt, in a 4" Redhawk. Take advantage of the double action. If you run into a two legged varmint you might need a quick reload and that isn't going to happen with a Blackhawk or Bisley.

4" Redhawks in any caliber are an impressive weapons system. Get a holster that rides high and close with a good stiff belt and the Redhawk carrys with little effort.

 

[Snyd]

The fact is that the 45 Colt loaded with Ruger only loads can shoot a heavier bullet at same or higher velocity than the 44 mag at less pressure which means less recoil. I shoot a 355gr WFN at 1150 fps in my 4 inch Redhawk. Can't do that with a 44mag. It's my woods gun here in Alaska. .429 compared to .452, heavier bullets and larger case.

Sorry sir, but that is incorrect. The .44Mag retains a velocity advantage, even with the super heavyweights. The .44 goes up to 355gr, which has a higher sectional density than the .45's 360's, equal to the mighty 430gr .475. I get over 1200fps with them out of a Ruger Bisley.

If anybody can truly see a difference in recoil between the two, I'll eat my hat. I've taken the Pepsi Challenge with a pair of almost matching guns and there is no difference.

The only difference between the two is 0.022".

355gr 44mag 1200+fps!?!? Where is the published load and pressure data for that load from a 7.5 inch barrel??? Velocity = pressure. Someone here said "Who cares about pressure"? The cylinder cares, that's for sure. Wow, that big of a boolit in the smaller case of a 44 has got to be WAY over pressure. No thanks, have at it, I won't argue with you. I get 1200fps with my 355gr 45 Colt load in my SBH Bisley Hunter. Same load is 1150 in my 4" Redhawk and it's a published load. Any more velocity/pressure is not needed for a wheelgun, at least for handgun range for bear protection or handgun hunting. Larger caliber, heavier boolit same or less velocity would be better. Otherwise, may as well just shoot a rifle. My .02

 

[junebug 1]

I picked up a Blackhawk 4 5/8 th barrel .45 about a month ago for woods carry. With the crossdraw holster I made, it is comfortable for all day carry',while working or just knocking around. It rides high and out of the way and in a naturel position for your hand. I have lowered the hammer spur about 5/16th to 3/8th of an inch and installed pachmayr grips, hogue's dont let me get a positive grip quickly ,without shifting my hand around. So far it does about 2 inches at 25 yds with a 250 or 300 gr fp at 1050 fps. Its both comfortable and comforting , to carry,and if its not you tend to leave them in the truck. What ever you decide to carry practice with it just as you will carry it ,because when you really need it you dont have time ,or the brain power , to wonder where it is. An angus bull , and some broken ribs taught me that painful lesson .I had the nine, in my hand ,and still don't remember drawing it ,but it got him off me .

 

[COR]

Wow, 44's with 355's at 1200fps... :roll: Boy this heavy bullet crap does get old, nothing personal but a good 250 at 1100 is about what most can shoot well consistently and all that power jazz with formulas means squat if you miss...the bigger is better attitude is lotsa fun to talk

To the original point of the post...I was gonna suggest my new favorite...4 5/8" Bisley 44 Spl. but I only shoot a 200gr RNFP at about 900fps. Far too wimpy for you studs . :wink:

 

[Rclark]

If you reload ... .45 Colt...or dare I say it... the .44 Special. If not, .44Mag if looking for big bore... That's my opinion of course!

The .45 Colt Blackhawk is light and is an easy packer. Load light to heavy. I like 5 1/2" barrels, but 4 5/8 will work very well too. Woods guns don't need to be 'concealed'. Unless your hunting, I think the 255g SWC load will work quite well at ~1000fps at the range you will be shooting (close! then closer, but not to close) . No need for 300+ grains at 1200-1400 for SD.... IMHO.... Digging up the ground on the other side of the target doesn't add to the kill factor! Again hunting is 'different' as you might want to 'reach out' a bit farther for a 'clean' kill, so more velocity.... flatter shooting.... Maybe .... I personally always used a rifle for hunting big game. Revolver was backup.

FWIW, hiking in the back country I also carried my .22 Mark II in my pack (If I'd have owned a Single Six, I'd probably have packed that instead) for small game if I ever needed it (never did) . My packing gun 'then' was the .357 Blackhawk.... Biggest gun I owned at the time .

 

[KRD]

Here is the published load from the Hodgdon site. I couldn't believe it either until I looked it up.
355 GR. BTB LFN GC Hodgdon H110 .430" 1.710" 17.5 1168 29,300 CUP 18.8 1245 38,000 CUP

I have several .44 mags and .45 colts. I almost never shoot the .45s anymore, no real reason other than the .44 mag seems more consistent.

Also spend a lot of time in lion and bear country (100+days a year), my favorite woods gun is a S&W 317 in .22 LR. Only 11.9 ounces and so far I am still alive. (Wouldn't do that in Alaska, however...)

 

[bennettfam]

Also spend a lot of time in lion and bear country (100+days a year), my favorite woods gun is a S&W 317 in .22 LR. Only 11.9 ounces and so far I am still alive.

I'll bet the bears and lions are still alive too. :mrgreen:

 

[CraigC]

355gr 44mag 1200+fps!?!?

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

Wow, 44's with 355's at 1200fps... :roll: Boy this heavy bullet crap does get old, nothing personal but a good 250 at 1100 is about what most can shoot well consistently and all that power jazz with formulas means squat if you miss...the bigger is better attitude is lotsa fun to talk

To the original point of the post...I was gonna suggest my new favorite...4 5/8" Bisley 44 Spl. but I only shoot a 200gr RNFP at about 900fps. Far too wimpy for you studs . :wink:

I agree. My Dillon 650 is setup to load the .44Mag with a 240gr SWC over 10.0gr Unique for 1150fps. This is just about all I shoot in the .44Mag and is exactly what I would recommend for woods bummin'. Which is, unfortunately, not what I was responding to. The discussion turned to potential. Which in no way implies that anybody's shooting 355's all the time. At least on this end. Outside shooting them a little for testing, I have no practical use for them.

 

[c.r.]

i also have to ask.............What is the big deal about pressure? if the gun can handle it why should I care if it's 30K cup or 40k cup?

IMO, the reason the 44 mag operates at a higher pressure is because it can. I can gurantee, if the 45 colt could be pushed to those pressures, then folks would......................wait, it's already been done, and exceeded, in the 5-shot versions of the 45 Colt. It's the platform being used that is defining the maximum pressure.

While lower pressure is a bi-product of the 45Colt, it's definately not by design. i doubt folks decide "I'm going to build a 44 caliber cartridge (or 45) that operates at 40k cup". I reckon They build a cartridge and then identify the maximum operating pressure of the cartridge for a common platforum............and then load ammo accordingly (or provide the appropriate load data)

and let's face it, once we start pushing these heavy bullets at reasonable speeds, recoil went out the window way back there at 240 grains at 1200 fps. it's not like a person who can handle the 45 colt pushing a 300 something grain bullet at 1250 fps can't handle a 44 mag pushing a 300 something grain bullet at 1250 fps. both of them are going to get your attention and you'll either be able to handle both of them or neither of them.

by the way, i believe both cartridges are great. I don't think one has to be "better" than the other. BUT I do believe if you don't reload, then i the 44 is the way to go.

jmho,
c.r.