>>268056>If I'm camping some place where I will need a gun, I'll bring a rifle.I find this attitude perplexing. Notwithstanding the practical advantages of a handgun, the fact that you can easily mount it on your body without it getting in the way of whatever outdoor activity you are doing (hiking, biking, climbing, etc.) offers a clear tactical advantage over a rifle.
If I'm hiking, I'm going to be holding my hiking poles. You may scoff at the use of poles (you seem like the type to), but they help me hike farther without getting as tired or as sore compared to without them. There is nowhere for a rifle on the front or side of my body - that is, there's no way to carry it without stowing it in my backpack or strapping it to my backpack in such a way that requires that I take my pack off before I can access it.
Supposing that a bear surprises me, and charges me at 30 mph, there would be a lot of time-consuming steps involved before I could shoulder the rifle. Compare that to a handgun, which can be mounted to the side of my backpack or directly to the front of my body so that I can reach it while hiking, have a little time to aim, and have some chance of getting a couple well-placed shots off before the bear is upon me.
Granted, I do recognize that rifles are more powerful than handguns, and I'm not going to say that I'm like OP who only carries faggot auto calibers like 9mm or .40 S&W, but .44 magnum, .454 Casull, .460 S&W magnum, and .500 S&W magnum are all great choices for wilderness defense with a lot of power. Hell, .500 S&W magnum actually has about the same muzzle energy as .308 Winchester, which is plenty to kill anything in North America.
