Of the options you mentioned, I like the 44 Magnum S&W 69. It fits all the requirements you have. Particularly desirable solution since it winnows down your stable by one unused firearm.

I have an S&W 2.75" M-69 and it's pretty entertaining to shoot full magnums...loud, too.

I load .44 special for carry but have a speed strip of magnum available in a hip pocket.

Of the guns you list I would take one of the 3” wheelguns. Either one would do as well as the next. If you venture into the deep bush, add some bear spray to the mix.

No need to buy a new gun or carry a more cumbersome, long gun.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
For hiking, simply need a .22 and fellow hiker.

lol.... I see what you did there....

Keep your .44 Special for life in MI but get a six shot .44 Magnum for the AK trip. Redhawk or 629. Dump the G19 and M65 if you need too in order to fund the six shot 44 Magnum. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks everyone for all the replies. Had a busy day yesterday, daughter was marching in the city’s Memorial Day parade and I had a brisket on the smoker, so I’m just getting back to the thread to see them all.
In answer to an inquiry earlier in the thread, we are flying, not driving; that is one of the reasons I am set on taking just one firearm: limited baggage weight/space. Could’ve drank with a handgun through Canada anyway.
I am leaning toward carrying the .44 Special with the Buffalo Bore outdoorsman loads at this point, but I think I might also grab some of the .40 cal hardcast stuff to try in my P229, and make a decision between the two after I shoot them both. I’m figuring a brain shot is only possibility for stopping a large animal with any of the choices I have, so maybe more rounds on board is the answer.
As for trading in the S&W 65 towards anything else; that is a non-starter: the pre-lock, pre-MIM S&W’s and German Sigs in my collection don’t get sold or traded, simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I'd carry the 229, with the .357 Sig barrel if I had it, and the .40 if I did not. A mag of hollow point for in town, and a mag of FMJ for the woods.

^^^^^^^
T H I S

Two posters now have suggested the P229 in .357 sig instead of .40. I'm a big fan of the .357 Sig for everyday carry, but I'm genuinely curious about why one would favor it for this application. I was thinking of using the .40 barrel because of the ability to use a 200gr. hard cast bullet @ 1000 fps. I found one heavy bullet load for the .357 sig, think it was an Underwood or a DoubleTap; it was a 180gr. at the same velocity of 1000fps. Wouldn't I be better off taking the larger diameter, heavier weight option? Or are we thinking stay with the more usual 125gr. load (FMJ), and rely on its velocity to achieve the penetration needed?

quote:

Originally posted by scoutrifleman:
In answer to an inquiry earlier in the thread, we are flying, not driving; that is one of the reasons I am set on taking just one firearm: limited baggage weight/space. Could’ve drank with a handgun through Canada anyway.

Just checking! Didn’t want to see you on an episode of ‘Border Security’.

Hope you have a great trip!

Of the choices you mentioned, I'd go with the .44 special and Buffalo Bore hard cast ammo. Shot placement will be more important than caliber in your case and a revolver is more reliable than a semi-auto in all conditions. If I knew I'd be in large bear country, I'd be packing my 45-70 Guide Gun, screw the relatives sensibilities. Just my .02.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by scoutrifleman:
Two posters now have suggested the P229 in .357 sig instead of .40. I'm a big fan of the .357 Sig for everyday carry, but I'm genuinely curious about why one would favor it for this application. I was thinking of using the .40 barrel because of the ability to use a 200gr. hard cast bullet @ 1000 fps. I found one heavy bullet load for the .357 sig, think it was an Underwood or a DoubleTap; it was a 180gr. at the same velocity of 1000fps. Wouldn't I be better off taking the larger diameter, heavier weight option? Or are we thinking stay with the more usual 125gr. load (FMJ), and rely on its velocity to achieve the penetration needed?

The .357 Sig has better penetration for layered clothing, glass, and larger animals than the .40 S&W. Recoil is far more manageable than with a .44 Magnum, and capacity is a must if you're in an area where you might have some distance to go to reach help or get cell coverage.

If using a pistol, you would most likely use many rounds of ammunition. 16 in the Glock, plus two spare mags would be much better than a harder to control six shooter.

I want a S&W 69 2.75", so I would use this as my excuse to buy one.

Play deader Tim...

This is my rig for the two upcoming trips to Alaska. I don't care about it being concealed when in Brown bear territory. I want it accessible. It is a S&W 629 3 inch barrel ported Trail Boss in 44 mag. Good luck with your decision.

A truly large Montana grizzly. Alaska bears can run large as well. I'd rely more on bearspray and awareness than any pistol.

Hey coloradohunter44; You have a beautiful dog in
your photo.....

I’ve almost entirely switched away from the 44mag and gone to the Glock 20. I have 3 glock 20s (2 gen4 and one gen3). I have made some modifications to one of the gen4 pistols (Kkm barrel, trijicon night sights but still need to figure out the recoil spring). I use the underwood 220g and carry it in a gunfighters inc kenai chest holster.

I love my 44mags but I’ve just found myself leaving it at home more and more and taking a g20.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutrifleman:
Two posters now have suggested the P229 in .357 sig instead of .40. I'm a big fan of the .357 Sig for everyday carry, but I'm genuinely curious about why one would favor it for this application. I was thinking of using the .40 barrel because of the ability to use a 200gr. hard cast bullet @ 1000 fps. I found one heavy bullet load for the .357 sig, think it was an Underwood or a DoubleTap; it was a 180gr. at the same velocity of 1000fps. Wouldn't I be better off taking the larger diameter, heavier weight option? Or are we thinking stay with the more usual 125gr. load (FMJ), and rely on its velocity to achieve the penetration needed?

Purely a suspicion about penetration. I think that it is likely that the smaller frontal area of a hard cast or fmj .357 SIG will likely penetrate better than the .40 with its larger frontal area. Since we are talking heavy animals and handguns, penetration is the primary metric to measure. In order to stop the threat, you have to get to the vitals. In a big animal, that either means through a heavy skull, or through a lot of muscle on the way to the heart/lungs.

Given all of that, I would rather have 13 rounds of heavy .357 SIG or .40 than 6 rounds of .44 mag.