All, Please recommend a chest holster that would be comfortable for use while backpacking. The backpack primarily used is a Gregory Baltoro 75. The gun primarily carried will be a S & W Mountain Gun .44 mag, 39 oz. 4" barrel. I may also carry a H & K P2000 9mm, so if the straps are universal for various holsters that would be great. This discussion is regarding chest holsters, not the weight of the gun or carrying guns in the back country.
Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3293
Loc: Portland, OR
It's true that gun forum members would have a lot of experience and a wide variety of opinions about holsters, including chest holsters. But when it comes to the very specific combination of a chest holster and a backpack, he's probably about as likely to get an informed opinion here as he would anywhere else.
We do have a few members here who might know enough to give a very detailed answer -- but not many.
Have you considered a thigh holster? That's what I use for my 1911. It attaches to your belt and then your thigh, dropping the gun below the waistline (so it doesn't conflict with the waist belt of your backpack).
Chest holsters seem like they wound be uncomfortable, as the straps usually go over one or both shoulders and then come around your side, thus would be sitting underneath your pack straps. That would probably bug me a lot on long hikes.
I don't own a revolver, so I'm not sure what the options are out there for them, but for automatics Blackhawk makes a good product, plus you could probably find a generic nylon thigh holster pretty easily.
Edit: Shot my buddy a text who hikes with a revolver and he said to research the "border patrol" style revolver holster... it sits on your belt but places the gun lower so it won't interfere with your waist belt.
#150152 - 05/10/1106:06 PMRe: Chest Holster
[Re: Mr. Fishunt]
Heather-ak
member
Registered: 07/11/10
Posts: 597
Loc: Fairbanks, AK
I usu. carry a .357 and my husband a 40 - chest holsters just don't seem to work for us. Though I usu. have my camera in that general area so that might be why for me. I've ended up hooking my holster to the hip belt.
If my husband takes the shotgun, he has it on a strap so that it hangs, but he can still get to it quickly (without unstrapping it.)
newbie to this site...so take that for what its worth. ha I too carry when I hike / pack...for my application I prefer to carry in a drop leg holster. It works for me. $.02
I often carry. While I have used several holsters I have, I am not satisfied with any. I am looking into the Safepacker. It looks like it will attach to the pack waist belt, carry in hand, or function as a chest holster. I have not purchased it yet, because it is not made it to the top of my budget list. You might look at it.
#150179 - 05/11/1104:28 PMRe: Chest Holster
[Re: Mr. Fishunt]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Consider that just by switching to a lighter weight pack, you could offset the weight of the weapon. Since this is a lightweight backpacking forum, we can't help but suggest that!
I suspect that you are going to have to try various combinations to determine what works best for you as an individual. I would think that the pack's shoulder straps and sternum strap would interfere with the chest holster.
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Thanks to all for the suggestions. As a new member, I've been impressed by the quality of people here. Oregon, by the way, this is the Backcountry Topics, not the Lightweight Zone.....
Trailrunner
member
Registered: 01/05/02
Posts: 1835
Loc: Los Angeles
OT here. I was going to post a response similar to yours Pika....until I went back to the TLB home page and found this:
"The Lightweight Backpacker Welcomes You !
If you engage in backpacking, at some point, you may consider packing a lighter load. That consideration was the main reason that Backpacking Lightweight was created in 1996, and it continues to be its primary focus. Since then, however, the Lightweight Backpacking & Hiking website has grown to include a vast repository of resources useful for year-round backcountry safety & enjoyment. While it is true that Backpacking Lightweight promotes ultralight backpacking & hiking, featuring lightweight backpacking equipment, it is a also a proven resource - for all backcountry travelers - for researching and purchasing quality outdoor gear!! We welcome you, and we hope you will enjoy traversing the Lightweight Backpacking & Hiking website."
That paragraph seems to indicate a change in direction to me. TLB seems to have lost its original focus over the 9 years since I joined. It has gone much more mainstream and indeed the content over recent years indicates that. Is this change good or bad? Let the reader decide.
Is a holster question from a guy who wants to carry 3+ pounds of guns and ammo appropriate for this site? That just doesn't seem clear to me any more. I think TLB (which stands for The LIGHWEIGHT Backpacker) is still primarily a lightweight site but it is no longer an exclusively lightweight site.
I for one lament the change in direction.
_________________________ If you only travel on sunny days you will never reach your destination.*
* May not apply at certain latitudes in Canada and elsewhere.
Pika and Oregon, Thanks for the heads up... I'm new to the forum and don't want to offend anyone... As a side bar, I will be carrying some gear for my 100 lb son and, after trying on multiple packs, the Gregory Baltoro 75, not the lightest of the bunch, was the most comfortable. I'm now thinking about a thigh holster....
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
I doubt that this change in focus is a bad thing. It is pretty clear that this gang is all about making the load as light as reasonably possible.
A lot of my backpacking has been for purposes other than pure recreation (SAR and archaeology). In both of those applications, you are burdened with "mission critical" gear which weighs just short of a ton, and you must carry it, so you focus on the basics to make your load as light as possible. That is where the expertise displayed here comes in very handy.
Backpacker weights fall along a continuum, from ridiculously light (and probably unsafe) to ridiculously heavy (and therefore just as unsafe, as well as unpleasant). We array ourselves along this continuum, generally getting as light a load as we feel is appropriate. Most of us eschew some lighter options for reasons that are good and sufficient for us, and we hike, usually very happily, with the result.
All, If it makes you all feel better, based on info here, I purchased an MSR Pocket Rocket, the old Coleman Peak 1 is now delegated to kayak trips...My toothbrush is now a childs size with a shortened handle...I carry out my used TP, etc.......etc....
In closing, the thing I like about this site, so far, is the helpful nature and the CLEAN environment. It's not a litterbox like so many others. Before you know it, I will be bankrupt, but at least my pack will weigh under 20 lbs! Ha!
Follow the swinging watch while you listen to the voice: "You can replace that with something half the weight...you can leave that at home...down is king...silnylon was originally angel wings...".
Next thing you know, you have to strap your pack double tight to keep it from floating off.
Cheers,
Originally Posted By Mr. Fishunt
All, If it makes you all feel better, based on info here, I purchased an MSR Pocket Rocket, the old Coleman Peak 1 is now delegated to kayak trips...My toothbrush is now a childs size with a shortened handle...I carry out my used TP, etc.......etc....
In closing, the thing I like about this site, so far, is the helpful nature and the CLEAN environment. It's not a litterbox like so many others. Before you know it, I will be bankrupt, but at least my pack will weigh under 20 lbs! Ha!
"Back in the day" I followed Charles' original site and the original Backpacker mag site. The two couldn't have been more different WRT gear and the general concept of going farther with less. Jardine dropped into the mix sometime back then as well, which was a good thing because most very light gear had to be self-made and he was an early proponant of doing just that.
At the time, the Dana Bridger was a lightweight pack, a Primus titanium stove was $250 and LED flashlights hadn't even been imagined.
I think lightweight is reasonably mainstream now (and the gear is easy to find and mostly cheap) while ultralite remains pretty fringy. PCT and AT thruhikes are commonplace so Skurka has to run laps around Alaska to get anybody's attention. Lightweight techniques and gear make that all possible.
I guess I don't have a point, other than I think understand how this site's unique status has diminished with time due to becoming mainstream. Charles was just right sooner than most folks.
Today, our attention might be best focused on protecting the backcountry we so enjoy from those who would spoil it or even take it away. I'll reserve my right to make fun of folks lugging five-pound sleeping bags in summer, though.
Cheers,
Originally Posted By Trailrunner
OT here. I was going to post a response similar to yours Pika....until I went back to the TLB home page and found this:
"The Lightweight Backpacker Welcomes You !
If you engage in backpacking, at some point, you may consider packing a lighter load. That consideration was the main reason that Backpacking Lightweight was created in 1996, and it continues to be its primary focus. Since then, however, the Lightweight Backpacking & Hiking website has grown to include a vast repository of resources useful for year-round backcountry safety & enjoyment. While it is true that Backpacking Lightweight promotes ultralight backpacking & hiking, featuring lightweight backpacking equipment, it is a also a proven resource - for all backcountry travelers - for researching and purchasing quality outdoor gear!! We welcome you, and we hope you will enjoy traversing the Lightweight Backpacking & Hiking website."
That paragraph seems to indicate a change in direction to me. TLB seems to have lost its original focus over the 9 years since I joined. It has gone much more mainstream and indeed the content over recent years indicates that. Is this change good or bad? Let the reader decide.
Is a holster question from a guy who wants to carry 3+ pounds of guns and ammo appropriate for this site? That just doesn't seem clear to me any more. I think TLB (which stands for The LIGHWEIGHT Backpacker) is still primarily a lightweight site but it is no longer an exclusively lightweight site.
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
I haven't seen the direction change since I stumbled on this site in late 2005 and was able to cut my pack weight by more than half. By early 2006 I was ready to go with 19-20 lbs. total pack weight (instead of 40) for a 2-3 day trip. Since then my base weight (pack weight without fuel, food, water) has dropped from 15 lbs. (the goal in the articles on the home page of this site) to 12 lbs. It won't go any farther because there are some creature comforts (such as a nice cushy warm sleeping pad and a 20* sleeping bag) that I refuse to give up.
It appears that this site has always been more about lightweight rather than ultralight backpacking. Folks who are really into the latter (especially those trying to get their base weight under what appears to be a magic number of 5 lbs.) tend to gravitate to the Backpacking Light site. There are a number of us here (including me) who are on that site too, but I far prefer life over here where I don't have people lecturing me that I should eschew toilet paper in favor pine cones and rocks, or that I should always keep hiking until bedtime instead of stopping in late afternoon. There is also a lot of flaming on that site which we try to avoid (and mostly succeed) here.
We have a number of hunters on this site who are also lightweight backpackers. Most of them have been here longer than I have!
Edited by OregonMouse (05/12/1106:07 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Pika and Oregon, Thanks for the heads up... I'm new to the forum and don't want to offend anyone... As a side bar, I will be carrying some gear for my 100 lb son and, after trying on multiple packs, the Gregory Baltoro 75, not the lightest of the bunch, was the most comfortable. I'm now thinking about a thigh holster....
Regards, Mr. Fishunt
I agree, the Baltoro is my "other" pack and I bought it because of its comfort, which for me is the reason why I try to go as light as possible. Lightweight backpacking I assume began out of the need to be comfortable while hiking, if 20 pounds is uncomfortable to someone, by all means go lighter, but if 28 pounds if comfortable for someone then heck do what you do The baltoro is almost 6 pounds BUT i think 3 of those pounds are padding lol ***I would rather have a 6 pound extremely comfy pack with 14 pounds of gear than a 2 pound pack thats iffy and 16 pounds of gear or even the original 14 pounds. I think i tried on close to 100 packs before buying my Baltoro I also sometimes carry others gear because I can do so while maintaining comfortably (is that a word?)
_________________________
“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”
I'm by no means a lightweight backpacker by the standards of many here (I average between 40-45 lbs) but I do think one thing most member have in common is an interest in a lighter pack, even if it's not an ultralight one. Personally I prefer to be overly prepared and comfortable at the cost of more weight... just my preference. This includes packing (when legal) my .45 handgun at an additional 3.83 lbs. However, after decided on what types of gear I want to take, I do strive to find lighter options. I think there are plenty of people on this site to offer advice for both schools of thought when it comes to backpacking.
Dryer Moderator
Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 3591
Loc: Texas
Quote:
That paragraph seems to indicate a change in direction to me. TLB seems to have lost its original focus over the 9 years since I joined. It has gone much more mainstream and indeed the content over recent years indicates that. Is this change good or bad? Let the reader decide.
When I joined this forum in 2002, we were still talking about cutting labels out of clothing and the handles off tooth brushes. Guns came up a couple times a year but lighter options were discussed. Let the reader decide? I decide to lighten my load. Remove all unnecessary screws and springs, and every other bullet from your clip. Drill lots of holes. Or carry a Ruger LCP or NA Black Widow in your pocket...unless bear is your worry.
lv2fsh
member
Registered: 04/27/08
Posts: 111
Loc: socal
My hiking pistol of choice lately is my SW 340pd. .357 mag 5 shot two inch. weight= 12 oz. Kicks like a mule but it's light. Carry it in a nylon holster or in s pocket.
My hiking pistol of choice lately is my SW 340pd. .357 mag 5 shot two inch. weight= 12 oz. Kicks like a mule but it's light. Carry it in a nylon holster or in s pocket.
What rounds do you load it with? I've heard that firing .357s out of that little baby are no fun at all...
lv2fsh
member
Registered: 04/27/08
Posts: 111
Loc: socal
For "fun" I shoot .38's. For back country use, maybe one .38 for a warning shot then 4 .357's with a speed loader of 5 .357. Because of the lightweight/high recoil, you need to use quality .357 ammo with a good crimp as the recoil can unseat the unfired rounds and lock the cylinder. For city carry, I usually carry three .38+P and two .357 JHP. And yes it can be brutal to shoot .357 but tolerable.
I also carry the s&w 340 pd. Its essentialy a snub nose revolver made of a lite weight material similar to titanium. I have thought about using 2-4 pound fishing line and the lanyard ring to wear the gun "like a neckless." When the gun is needed just grab and pull. The line is strong enough to carry the gun but weak enough to snap when yanked on. But...I think it would swing too much and bug me. Maybe two lines….
Another thought was a camera case. The kind you see the tourists with around their neck. It could be attached to the shoulder straps so no swinging. Itd be very inconspicious and not "scream" gun. It would also be right in front for quick access. But would be a few more ounces of weight.
Right now I just slip it into my right front pocket (in a pocket holster) and the 10 reloads in the front left. It works. But it’s no .44
In the past I just strapped a cheap nylon holster onto the pack belt. This was for a 4” revolver. Worked great! Cheap and lite !
Going back 20 years... I used to carry a Ruger GP100 in an uncle mike's Rig strapped to my backpack frame. It was not lightweight at all, and my ancient pack frame is a Coleman full sized polymner unit. I was able to mount the holster so that I could draw it pretty easily in a hurry. If I were to do the same today, I might use a blade tech somehow attached to a strap or pack frame with the holster. I'd be carrying either a 4" 686 or a 4" 610, depending on how much weight I felt like carrying. The 686 is a bit lighter, but the 610 offers a bit more power. It's been a long time since I went on an overnighter anywhere.. for any kind of distance..
I consider myself more knowledgeable firearm wise these days compared to my backpacking knowledge. I tend to favor revolvers but I favor them competitively also.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!
I'll leave how to pack heat to others, but that pack weight can be cut two-thirds.
lol 
Previous Topic
Index
