So many posters have already articulated the reasons why the Glock is the better backcountry choice. They're light, undemanding, and dependable.
The problem I have, and the thing that keeps me from embracing the G20 I already own, is ammo. The deep-penetrating bullets we need to reach the vitals on large quadrapeds fall outside the G20's reliability envelope. GJM's experiences alone are enough to convince me of that statement.
So, while the Glock package makes total sense, their appeal slips because they can't seem to run the very rounds that make the pistol backwoods-appropriate in the first place.
On the other hand, I can find countless heavy-bullet options for the usual revolver candidates: 357, 44, 45LC, etc and I need not run hundreds of them through a rotation of magazines to ensure reliability.
Left with that, your notion of an 8-shot N-frame makes some sense. Personally, I like the thinner profile of a 6-shot GP100 and usually default to that for my time on the trails and trout streams of the northwest. Indeed, revolvers don't play well with mud and silt but I use both the Wilderness Tactical Safepacker and the HPG Kit Bag which offer near total protection against everything but water.