What does she say about carrying the .45 while on the trail? Would she be comfortable with the extra weight while walking? Bottom line is that this is something you are asking her to carry and she needs to want it and be comfortable.

I can understand wanting to carry the LCP, so my suggestion is for her to look at the compact 9mm's on the market. I really love carrying my LC9 and it's comfortable when I am active.

If all she wants to carry is the LCP, I would suggest using Buffalo Bore in it.

 

The biggest threat is likely from the 2-legged predators, and for them the .45 ACP is great medicine, no matter whether you load ball, lead SWCs or JHPs. For black bear, something more substantial is in order, but you have to weigh the odds and plan accordingly. Realistically, though, a .380 falls way short of my idea of a trail gun. I'd suggest a Commander-length 1911 in .45, maybe an alloy frame, and a good OWB holster such as from Milt Sparks or Simply Rugged.

 

The difference between the .380 and a plus P 9mm are great. They arent even in the same league.

Consider the fact that no police agency around here even allows a .380 caliber for a backup gun...due to repeated failures to stop.

Having shot lots of deer, there is no way that I would even consider a .380 as being adequate.

 

I guess it beats a stick. Sometimes that's all I can get my wife to carry. I did manage to get her to take the 9mm on the last trip though.

 

I have seldom heard anybody that needed a gun say I sure wish I would have had a smaller caliber,but I do know people that when they needed a gun in the wilderness sometimes wish they had a bigger caliber

 

I think you should be looking into the .45. .380 and 9mm are not "woods" guns. I doubt a deer or elk would attack her but cougar and bear yes, possibly stray dogs, coyotes etc. Good reason to purchase a new firearm

 

In my area coyotes and wild hogs are a growing problem along with an occasional black bear. No problems with the bears so far though. The hogs can tend to get agressive and charge in your direction so it's best to be prepared. I don't think I would like my odds armed with a .380 in this situation if I needed to defend myself, but it's better than throwing rocks I guess.

 

I wouldn't trust even a .45 to stop a bear. MAYBE an angry deer. I'd carry at bare minimum a 10mm or .357 magnum. Better yet, 12 gauge loaded with slugs, but that's probably a bit much for a leisurely stroll. I carry a .380 in my pocket when I'm forced to stay extremely concealed (work), but when I have a choice and can carry more freely, my G30 is always with me along with the .380. I wouldn't rely on a .380 in the woods. It may work on small varmints, even up to coyote, but it's better to have some thing bigger.

.380's work ok on people. Just "ok". It's a "better than nothing" option. But it shouldn't be a preferred option, ever.

 

Of course there's always "bear spray" which is probably more effective than a .380

 

Thanks, good idea, as she still will not carry more than the .380 ACP.

 

If she insists on a small caliber, I would make a suggestion. For the four legged predators, I would use the sound, muzzle blast and a shot near them in an attempt to scare them off rather than shooting at/hitting them and making them mad, shooting at them only as a last resort.

 

It is not ever wise to attempt to perforate and eliminate potentially dangerous animals with sub-effective handgun calibers.

 

I agree. I think it would be best if she genuinely understands the difference between 2 legged predators encountered on the street vs. 4 legged predators likely to be encountered in the woods.

You should have a frank discussion with her regarding why a heavier bullet with deeper penetration is imperative to have in the woods and not just an option you might consider for street defense. Carrying the extra weight is just something she should learn to tolerate as opposed to having someone else carry her body out of the woods.

When in remote locations and facing a variety of potential animal threats which vary in size, weight, thickness of skin, and aggressiveness, it's better to convince her of the seriousness of the potential for defense than to let her wander around in the woods with a pea shooter.

 

Looking for some thoughts on anything related. Is the difference between .380 acp and 9mm +P in the woods not much to consider ?

The difference is considerable.
The .380 gets a 90 grain bullet out at 800-900 fps depending on the gun.
The 9mm+p will get a 125 grain bullet at 1200 fps.

 

Applying Newton's second law: Force = mass X acceleration

.380 gets 72K force units, 9mm gets 150K force units. Yes, the difference is considerable.

 

JMO, but for a woods gun, my list is a short one... .357 magnum in 4" with the heaviest grain bullet I can get my hands on. That will take care of most any woods creature that I'll happen upon.

 

I would be ecstatic if my wife was willing to carry a gun at all! As someone mentioned, her most realistic threat is from a human, not an animal, and a .380 in the hands of someone confident enough to use it will do wonders at making a BG go away.

If a 9mm (what kind does she have?) is too heavy for her then it seems unlikely she will be able to carry a gun chambered in a caliber effective enough to be a good animal defense gun. What about a Glock 36? It's a slimline single stack .45acp. Looks pretty doable.

 

I would be ecstatic if my wife was willing to carry a gun at all!...If a 9mm (what kind does she have?) is too heavy for her then it seems unlikely she will be able to carry a gun chambered in a caliber effective enough to be a good animal defense gun...

I am happy she "wants" to carry something. It is an odd mix. She only wants to carry something OC when taking a hike, something that will not be bulky or heavy, but still easy to CC under an ubtucked shirt / coat, etc. It is a realy mix that I can understand, easy access but light.

To bulky includes her P99C, but the LCP is perfect (in her opinion).. She has mentioned slim carries (Walther PPS, Kahr, and the Taurus PT 709 Slim) in the past. They have 40 versions, might consider that, but not sure it is worth the difference.

 

I'm not Newton but, I do know (for a fact) that if she does end up taking a few "less than lethal" .380 shots at a bear or a bobcat & she "gets lucky" & the animal "takes off"....you are now left with a wounded animal roaming around that is potentially far more dangerous and irrational to the next human that it happens upon.

With regard to predatory humans - we shoot to stop the immediate deadly threat.
When threatened by a four legged animal we have an additional human moral responsibility not to just wound, cripple, or maim.

 

I'm not Newton, or a scientist of any sort. But I do know that biggger heavier bullets consistantly make a bigger splash when fired in mudholes than smaller ones.

I call this the hillbilly " bang/splash " observation theory.

 

I don't want to upset anyone but I've fished/backpacked to high lakes in the Rockies for over 50 years from New Mexico to British Columbia and never had a need for a gun. Most of this was by myself. Predators have only been a problem between trips. (two legged types)

Security for me in the mountains was getting back to the trailhead and knowing that 44 mag was in the truck. Of all things that can kill or injure you in the wilderness, large mammals are one of the lesser worries.

I hate contradicting the discussion above but thought I had a worthwhile contribution.

Thanks, CDP2

 

With all due respect.... Being lucky enough to not have required protection for whatever period of time, doesn't negate the prudent measure of being armed in the event the firearm was needed. IMO, it’s kinda on the reckless side to push the boundary of mans domain into the deep woods with no form of protection. The deep woods belong to everyone and everything. To think you are superior in that environment without any means of defense is a careless and egotistical mindset IMO. Kinda reminds me of the poor fellow that thought he could hang out with the Grizzlies and be just fine... If I recall, he found out that to just about any predator, man is just an invader and even a possible meal if need be.

 

i'm thinking that if her chosen woods carry is a 380
that part B of her plan is that she can run faster than you.

-----------------

for me to OC in the woods it would be a 4" 357 ( my S&W 66) or a full size 1911.
what is important--besides being able to hit well with what you carry, is that the holster
fits you proper and carries the weight all day with no discomfort.
and it has a over the hammer strap with snap retention.

i re-stitched a double mag leather carry so now it holds one magazine and my large size leatherman
darn but if I'm gonna have to shoot it, I'm gonna skin it to.

 

i'm thinking that if her chosen woods carry is a 380
that part B of her plan is that she can run faster than you...

lol...interesting

 

With all due respect, superior, egotistical, and careless are hardly indicators of a successful wilderness experience. Your brain is the best defense. Take your chances with a wounded griz.

I've only been on this forum for a week or two and I get name-calling from a VIP?

Good luck all, sincerely....

 

With all due respect, superior, egotistical, and careless are hardly indicators of a successful wilderness experience. Your brain is the best defense. Take your chances with a wounded griz.

I've only been on this forum for a week or two and I get name-calling from a VIP?

Wow! Wasn't trying to tick you off guy.... And for the record; I wouldn't wound a griz, I'd put it down if I need be and only if I felt my life was in danger.:wink:

I don't want to upset anyone but I've fished/backpacked to high lakes in the Rockies for over 50 years from New Mexico to British Columbia and never had a need for a gun. Most of this was by myself.

Relax man.... It wasn't meant as an insult.... You just come off as Bear Grills or what ever and all and I pointed out that just cause you made it through the 50 plus years of challenging the elements from New Mexico to British Columbia with just your brains and skill; all by yourself I'll add. I just pointed out that, IMO you got off very lucky to have done all that ALL BY YOURSELF without any mishaps, that's all. Everyone knows it's a very bad Idea to go off into the deep woods for any length of time alone, or they should at least. You made it sound like folks that choose to be prudent by arming themselves for the situation are somehow being overly cautious, or it's somehow overkill or what ever. I say again, not to be prepared for the deep woods and what lives within is IMO careless/reckless, but that's just an opinion and again I'm not trying to insult you, you simply feel that way because you don't think any of the adjectives I used to describe the post fit your situation.

Hang in there, we're all on the same side here... Just strikes me as funny how some folks come to a gun forum and then post about not needing or using one... Kinda odd don't ya think.

 

I think it's just kinda odd that people still post questions about:
a) How big a gun to carry in the woods? (4000 unarmed walking trail miles and still ticking...)
b) Is .380 a decent round for ___________? (The answer is still always "No".)
c) What's the best round for ___________? (Hint: The biggest you can carry)

 

You are not getting that it has more to do with should I care if the choice is between .380, a 9mm, or .45. I'm happy she carries, and believe it is better than nothing. I don't agree that a 380 is just good enough as a warning shot vs some 4 legged (as others have posted). If you are going to fire, make the shots good.

Not an odd post if you read to understand the question. Others might have some insights that will help me communicate my concern. What I value most about the forum.

 

Back when I did a lot of hiking/walking in county parks, I relied on my trusty dog (a lot grayer around the muzzle, but still willing and eager), and a Glock 21 and three mags stoked with 185grn Cor-Bon +P hollowpoints. Don't hike anymore, but if I did, my choice would be the same. For your wife, I agree with the Glock 36 idea. Small and light, but still quite potent. Just make sure to carry extra mags.

 

Yeah, I'm sure this poor lady thought it was safe as well....
Hiker Meredith Emerson / Gary Michael Hilton
I wonder how many miles she got under her belt before the monster happened upon her.

 

Humans are weak in general. There are many arguments about what is the right weapon of choice for defense and most of the time, we're talking about the 2-legged sort. IMO just about any firearm out there has the potential of stopping a human. Now that we're talking about wild animals, it's a whole different story.

Consider this: Most hunts are executed broadside, the most effective and humane way of harvesting an animal where the heart is the intended target. Even with a perfectly placed round, an animal may still go 100+ yards before it stops. (even with rifles) Defending against a predator coming at you head-on, it's simple. You want something with the most penetration that does the most damage that you can possibly carry. The odds of getting in that ideal one-shot kill is very slim and you're still likely to end up in physical contact with them anyway if it is aggitated enough. Unlike humans, wild amimals are incredibly resilient to pain and do not stop because of it. In fact, they are the opposite as they become more aggressive and dangerous. So when you're talking about defense in the woods, a 2-legged threat is easy to deal with compared to wild animals, even in the smaller calibers. But lions and especially bears, do yourself a favor and go big and hardest hitting as you possibly can if you suspect that you could run into one.

Defense in the woods for me = .357 mag. or .44 mag. I would rather curl up in a ball and play dead than to be the cause of it's irritation with a .380.

$.02

 

Humans may be at the top of the food chain, but it is because we have higher intelligence to be able to make and use things like firearms. Other animals depend on things like speed or brute strength to give them a survival advantage. We have neither (although a healthy human can often outrun many other animals from a pure endurance perspective - but then, how many of us are in perfect health? I know I can't run more than a 1/2 mile before I'm winded). When you're in the woods, you are in "their" territory. Remember you are just another critter out there. Make use of your natural advantages and stay safe.