Thanks Denis Saved me some hassle looking that up. 12 oz! I'm getting one!

For everything you ever wanted to know about handguns email my brother: rogerhazlewood at yahoo dot com.

> Granted in the wilderness it wouldn't really matter as long
> as a good rule of thumb, it must be visible from 3 sides at
> all times in order to be considered not concealed.

I had not thought about that ... what a pain if you want to put on a top that is deliberately long and loose (poncho, cagoule, rain parka, etc).

BTW: is a gun in your pack considered "concealed"? Depending on the pack, it could still be fairly accessible.

(Just curious -- I have not carried a gun in the wilderness since Vietnam.)

-- MV

> What's a good UL pistol, btw?

The lightest semi-auto handgun is the Keltec P32 at 6.6oz, a little over 9oz with a full magazine. I wouldn't really call it a "good" pistol for someone who is not experienced in the inner workings of a semi-auto handgun. While the design is solid, the fit and finish leaves the end user a little bit of buffing and polishing to make it dependable.

For various reasons, I think that the Keltec P3AT would be a slightly better choice (about a half oz heavier), but still requires the same finishing to some internal parts.

They are both very small, plastic gripped (think Glock) DAO pistols, that may be carried without a holster (in the pocket with a clip like a pocket knife) or around the neck (with a lanyard). They print through your thin, hiking trouser material hardly at all, and are so light as to be unnoticed in a front pocket.

so a little over a pound loaded. 12.7oz for the gun, 2.8oz for the magazine. don't know what 9mm rounds weigh but, that's not to bad. roughly .6oz for a .40cal round since a 9mm is a smaller round say 4oz for 8 rounds. total ~ 19.5oz fully loaded.

how effective is the .32 rounds? never really heard of them till a few months ago, granted i haven't started at looking at packable small arms till recently.

"I had not thought about that ... what a pain if you want to put on a top that is deliberately long and loose (poncho, cagoule, rain parka, etc).

BTW: is a gun in your pack considered "concealed"? Depending on the pack, it could still be fairly accessible."

technically if it is loaded or not secured away from the ammo on your back it could be construed as concealed. Technically if it's covered partially or completely by clothing it's a concealed weapon. Which is another reason it's just better to get fingerprinted and a have a background check with the local authorites to carry concealed. Then you don't have to worry about little things like partially covered or any other worry besides the normal can't carry on school grounds, banks, federal buildings and so on.

You see, this is what BPL is all about. This thread is finally going somewhere. Instead of making ignorant broad generalizations about people's political ideologies, we're getting down to gear and ounces carried.

I'm not really into guns at all, although I enjoy shooting them and they don't make me uneasy in the least - even if it's on somebody's person. That said, if I ever ventured into an area where I felt as though I needed to carry one, and legally could, it's good to knew there are relatively light weight options.

Are there any other relatively light weight options? There must be... there are only about a bazillion guns on the market.

If it's in your pocket, I'm assuming it's a carried item and not part of pack weight, correct? :)

the ruger .38 special +p LCR is 13.5oz unloaded, 5 shot double action revolver.

> ~ 19.5oz fully loaded.

The PF-9 is said to weigh about 21oz loaded.
The P-11 is 23oz loaded.
Both are Keltec 9mm autos.

Edited by Thangfish on 03/17/2009 17:38:24 MDT.

> how effective is the .32 rounds?

About as effective as you're probably thinking, to pose the question. In addition, I would suggest staying away from hollow points with that round.

One more thought...

Rational or not, we carry much of what we do based on fear.

- I carry a 3oz headlamp because I fear not having enough light with a little <1 oz photon.
- I carry a bug enclosed shelter because I don't enjoy bugs, but also because my wife has an absolutely terrifying fear of spiders
- I carry a sleeping bag that goes colder than I ever camp because I fear being cold
- I wear Goretex GTX shoes because I fear/hate wet feet
- I use a filter because I fear Giardia & Crypto

Rational or not, some people carry guns because they fear nature or people that may wish to do them harm.

Many of our fears are not rational, and we all have varying degrees of them. The point being, if it is just as legal for me to carry a heavier headlamp or sleeping bag or wear GTX shoes or to use a filter to mitigate my fear as it is for somebody to carry a gun to mitigate their fear, then where is the issue? Who are we to judge how rational somebody else's fear is compared to our own?

I'll likely never carry a gun on the trail, and in fact I think it's silly and unnecessary - in the same way that some here may think that some of what I carry is silly and unnecessary. I don't get why this upsets people and gets names flying around. Fear is fear, legal is legal, the trail is there for us all to enjoy in our own way. We don't call people liberal hippies for carrying 1oz photon flashlights, do we?

Off my soapbox.

"we're getting down to gear and ounces carried."

It's not so different from discussing any other piece of gear. Why a person carries a piece of any gear is often debated here, and a gun is no different. Where I hike, I don't feel a "need" for a gun as part of my UL experience, so I save weight on that item. I simply do not need to know how much they weigh. However, I may feel a "need" to carry a sleeping bag or food or whatever, based on my personal preferences, climate and terrain (and arguably presence of pesky critters). I'm pretty sure I could survive a long time in the backcountry without a gun. I'd rather put the weight into extra insulation or food.

My point being that discussion of WHY carry a gun and in what circumstances (or not) is as legitimate as how much guns weigh.

I just got off the phone with a Los Angeles County Sheriff.
Interestingly, they don't know what the laws are concerning carrying a handgun in the woods. I was literrally told "I don't know because I don't have to worry about where I carry- I'm law enforcement."
I gave the example of carrying a loaded gun while backpacking (either open or in a pack) in the Angeles National Forest (which is partially in L.A. County)...I was told to contact the feds.

Funny, he did say that carrying an UNLOADED firearm in plain sight is legal anywhere in the state.

So I can walk/drive/bike around with my unloaded Glock on my hip- into stores, anywhere (excepting courts, etc.).

...But in CA a loaded magazine = a loaded gun. Meaning I can carry my unloaded Glock on my hip, but if I have bullets or a loaded magazine anywhere on my person or in my car, I'm busted.

I told him that kinda negates the purpose of carrying...

He said "Yep."

We have weird laws.

I'll try to post carry laws after I talk to the feds tomorrow.

There is an important distinction between the items you listed and guns. It is this distinction that matters. Your headlamp, water filter, and sleeping bag do not carry deadly force that can harm other people....(though it'd be funny to see you assault someone with these weapons).

That said, I'm not gun-phobic. I'm a city-dwelling liberal who believes in gun control, but also believes that guns can be managed responsibly and don't need to feared always.

I've been weirded out by people with guns in the backcountry but it was always the particular person with the gun, and not the gun itself. The system we have now is a pretty good compromise, I think. There are gun-free areas and areas where guns are allowed...people can plan accordingly. I do not believe it is necessary to open ALL the backcountry (national and state parks, in particular) up to guns....but likewise, we shouldn't completely restrict guns from the vast wilderness and national forest areas.

There is an important distinction between the items you listed and guns. It is this distinction that matters. Your headlamp, water filter, and sleeping bag do not carry deadly force that can harm other people....

I carry a razor sharp knife with a 3" blade. I should have put it in my list, but I mentioned it above. Most backpackers carry knives, razors, or whatever. I don't see the same excitement.

Edited by mn-backpacker on 03/17/2009 17:47:38 MDT.

> I was literrally told "I don't know because I don't have to worry about where I carry- I'm law enforcement."

In my opinion, that statement absolutely negates anything further the deputy had to say on the matter, I would suggest taking any information he related with a grain of salt until personally verified through reliable sources.

I agree.

If our police don't even know what's going on with carry laws...

I strongly suspect that the laws become so complicated/murky for the sole reason of being able to interpret them case by case.

"Most backpackers carry knives, razors, or whatever. I don't see the same excitement"

I think it's the intention of the "gear" that gets people excited. My knife is ony fit to cut salami with, and no one could ever be threatened or intimidated with it, much less accidentally "stabbed". A gun could really have no use other than causing harm or intimidation to some animal (or perhaps some recreational target practice??). I do not consider any sharp or projectile objects to be an essential part of my UL arsenal (even salami could be eaten without a knife).

I'd rather think more positively. Carrying a gun on outings, other than for sport purposes, seems to me to be fear-based. Taking proper care of one's self or enabling additional activities, does not.

Instead, think of what you *can* do with the things you carry. For example, the headlamp enables night time activities that you could not otherwise do. If they are important to you, carry the headlamp.

I would not call taking proper care of one's self "fear". For example, I would call taking care of one's feet, including wearing suitable shoes and socks, only proper care, not fear.

I would not call exercising prudence fear. For example, I would call looking both ways before crossing a busy street prudent, not fearful.

-- MV