Any experience on the 450 Bushmaster?

[frgood]

Hello everyone,

I was looking into changing my ar15 upper for a walk and stalk hog hunt. I was looking to something 30 caliber as I am lever gun happy. I read that a 450 bushmaster round has the oomph for a good heart/lung shot. And it might be fun to walk and stalk with an AR. Is this a good round for this purpose? Too much?

I don't want to go to an AR-10 (.308). If a can just up my AR15, that would be kinda cool.

What are the thoughts from this brain trust?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, around here, lots of people hunt hogs with 5.56. Several ammo manufacturers even market specific 5.56 ammo for that.

If you aren't comfortable with 5.56, there are dozens of larger calibers that will work in the AR15: .25-45, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .300 BLK, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf and I'm sure I've forgotten some.

.300 BLK is basically a low-powered .30-30 and might suit you if you like lever guns. It is very popular for hogs as well.

 

[Welding Rod]

I made the mistake of buying two 450s at the same time. Then I learned that the cartridge's body diameter and its taper made it a poor match for the magazines it is intended to be shot from. I have wrote about the details here previously if you want to look them up. You couldn't give me another 450 BM unless someone manufactured a purpose built proper magazine for the cartridge.

Short story, I switched to the 458 SOCOM and it appears to have been much, much more thought out dimensionally than the 450. However factory ammo is expensive and pressure tested load data almost non-existent.

 

[bhhacker]

458 socom is pretty plug and play and about the same diameter. It even uses the same magazines as 5.56. Not sure if 450 BM does that.


I bought a 458 upper from radical firearms for under 450 shipped to my door. Could not be happier with it!

 

[MCMXI]

I really like the .450 BM and have found mine to be accurate and super reliable and it sure is a thumper on both ends! The .450 BM has similar ballistics to modern .45-70 Govt loads. If you hand load there are numerous great bullet options for hunting including solid copper bullets from Barnes and similar. If you don't hand load you don't have many options, but the three factory loads that are available are good products. Here's mine.

 

[MCMXI]

Welding Rod, I've shot over 200 rounds through my .450 BM without a single feeding issue and that's using the 5-round and 9-round magazines from Bushmaster. The follower is different than the 5.56 version and mine works great. The only issue I've had that's magazine related is that one of the 9-round magazines doesn't lock the bolt back on empty. I haven't got around to troubleshooting it yet.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I've decided on a .450 BM over the .458 SOCOM and the .50 Beowulf for a couple reasons.

I can hunt with the .450 as it's considered a straight wall cartridge in my area. Ammo is less expensive than the .458 and the .50, and easier to reload.

There are ballistic differences, but nothing I considered to prove one superior to the other, so I went with the reasons that matter to me.

I haven't purchased the upper for it yet, but I'll be using my all steel welded lower, probably. Gonna be heavy, but I'm not stalking hogs, either.

 

[Hastings]

My brother has a 450 Bushmaster. It's one of the original Bushmasters, and the quality control was evidently much higher at that point. Some of the newer ones seem to suffer from poor fit and finish.

His 450 has been very reliable, and extremely fun to fire with a slide-fire stock from time to time. My nephew used it to take a decent deer last season.

That being said, I wouldn't choose a 450 for hunting unless I was hunting hogs or bear from a stand or blind. I don't like the AR for stalking or still-hunting and the 450 just doesn't offer me anything I can't get in a lighter, more convenient package.

I have a Rossi M92 stainless 20" 45colt. It holds 10 rounds that can be pumped out pretty fast if necessary (in, say, an extreme hog-hunting situation). It weighs 5.2 lbs empty, and is so small and well balanced that a sling seems useless because it's such a dream to carry with one hand wrapped around the receiver. With reloads I can push a 300gr bullet at 2100 fps with ease. I could probably do more, but this load is more than I typically need and it is validated by other reputable reloaders.

The 450 weighs in at 8.3 lbs empty, is longer than the M92, more bulky, and hard to carry one-handed. 9 round capacity doesn't match the M92's 10 rounds. I think the accuracy of both is about the same, but the 450 wins out as far as being optics-friendly. Still, a scope adds even more weight and with a reasonable range limit of 150 yards a scope seems fairly unnecessary. I'm sure you can reload the 450 to similar levels as the 45 colt, but it's so much bulkier, and heavier that for me it doesn't make any sense.

The only semi-auto rifles I use for hunting are a pair of Winchester 100 carbines, one in 243 and one in 308. They are fairly light, almost identical in size to a Ruger 10-22, and a real dream to use in the woods. Plus, either will work on deer or black bear out to 300 yards. I've been hunting woodchuck with a 3-9x40 scope on the 308. I've been tagging woodchucks on a hillside 383 yards from the bench. My Savage 99 in 308 works just as well at that range if you do the work, but that's a lever gun. I imagine the 243 would do even better on chucks, but I need to do some reloading for it before I can give it a try. I'm comfortable with taking shots at deer at that distance with any of the three as long as both I and the deer are stationary and I don't have to shoot off-hand. I would never try it with a 450, or the 45colt.

Don't let any of this dissuade you from getting the 450. It's just my personal perspective. If you love AR's, and want a big bad thumper, the 450 is a lot of fun. You should at least try one and decide for yourself. You may not use it for hunting, but it won't hurt to take it out and have some fun now and then.

 

[MCMXI]

There's only one valid argument favoring the .458 SOCOM over the .450 Bushmaster and that's the fact that the .458 SOCOM uses standard AR15 magazines. If that's important to you then you should base your decision on that. Any other perceived benefit is purely noise. I have and reload for a .45-70 Govt (Marlin 1895 SBL) so I'm very familiar with the availability and performance of .458 caliber bullets.

Then I learned that the cartridge's body diameter and its taper made it a poor match for the magazines it is intended to be shot from.

The .223 Remington has a taper on the body of the cartridge of 1° compared to the .450 BM which has a taper of .90° i.e. essentially the same. Comparing the feedlips of the BM .450 BM magazines that I have they look a little different than standard AR15 GI magazines. Perhaps BM made a change in recent years to improve feeding. Whatever they did works since my AR runs like a sewing machine dropping empty cases in a neat pile four feet or so from the ejection port. Like I said, I haven't had a single feeding issue with this rifle, and that's over 200 rounds . If a problem was present it would have shown up immediately among the five magazines that I have. Anyway, for those that aren't familiar with the .450 BM magazine and follower, here are a couple of photos.

 

[frgood]

Thank you all for the excellent advice.
Based on the comments so far, I have to seriously consider the 'why' in my choice.
Thinking out loud here ...

1. I want to go hog hunting.
2. I am looking for more stalking hunts.
3. This is in Florida region so most shoots will be within 100yds.
4. I have and enjoy my 30-30 Marlin ( I love it).
5. I'd like to try a modern (AR) platform just to change it up and I have an AR-15 already. I have read that I just need to change the upper to avoid having to buy a whole new gun. Although at current prices, I'm not seeing any cost benefit.
6. What I've read, and many comments support the 450BM seems like a nice cartridge that fits the bill. I still want to have my meat.
7. Weight may be a factor. But I thought the AR platform can be slung in front and may be easier than the constant slipping of my lever action shoulder mount.

All have you have given me pause to consider what will be my next expenditure. I do, eventually want to go deer hunting and onto larger game meat as well.

I'm actually pricing out Bison for next year But I think that is more 45-70 territory as I do so love those lever actions.

 

[Hastings]

For Bison a Marlin 1895 CB is the way to go, especially if you are a levergun fan. Great rifles. Another option would be a Rossi M92 in 454. Whatever you use, it sounds like it will be a fun hunt.

If you get the 450 and use it for hog hunting, I'd love to hear how it goes. I'm especially curious about ammo selection and what works the best.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but have any of you 450 owners tried a hardcast lead bullet with a gas-check? Something like the one in the photos below. These are 250 and 280 grain bullets. There are larger ones that I use in my leverguns and a Ruger Redhawk 4.2" that has been converted to 45colt, but these two are lighter and allow for higher velocity and would probably work better in a mag-fed firearm like the 450. These bullets work great on deer and bear when pushed out of a 45colt or 454 casull, but I've wondered whether the bullet shape would feed acceptably and if the lead would pose a problem for the gas port on an AR, even though they have a gas check. I love wide flat-nose gas-checked bullets with a meplat large enough to make you confused about which end goes into the case. I think that's another important purpose of the gas-check on the hammerhead-style bullets. I'd shoot soda cans if I could (I mean shoot them out of the gun, not shoot at them).




Here are the two Winchester 100's. 308 on top and 243 on bottom. I prefer this style autoloader to the more tactical AR platform, but the AR is more durable, for sure.


Great bear and hog pistol. Ruger 45colt Redhawk converted to 454. Works about as well as a 45-70 with bullets up to about 375gr, but the current sights don't work well with my aging eyes. I have to keep my shots to within 75-100 yards. Elmer Keith would be ashamed of me.

 

[MCMXI]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but have any of you 450 owners tried a hardcast lead bullet with a gas-check? Something like the one in the photo below. These are 250 and 280 grain bullets.

As you mention, those bullets might be hard to feed reliably. I like bullets such as the Remington 260gr ACCUTIP bonded (shown below) and the solid copper Barnes XPB .45 Cal bullets that are available in 200gr, 225gr, 250gr and 275gr variants. Here's the Remington 260gr ACCUTIP bonded shot into water jugs. It stays together and expands to around 1" in diameter. It's an accurate bullet too as proven by it's use in 20 gauge shotguns and the .450 BM.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/xpb/

 

[Hastings]

I haven't seen one of the Accutips before. Interesting design.

One thing I like about hard-cast bullets with a wide meplat is that they typically follow their original path when traveling thru an animal, and I do mean thru the animal. They sort of drill thru everything rather than bouncing around like round nose bullets, or stopping quickly like some expanding bullets do. They also seem to do less damage to the meat in most cases. Depends on the brinell hardness, oviously. Too hard and they shatter on bone, too soft and they deform and glance off stuff internally.

I usually attribute greater value to penetration than rapid energy transfer, except on varmint-class game where explosive fragmentation is better.

How do the Accutips perform in the penetration category. They look like they hold together really well, but are they stopping quickly due to the rapid expansion? Have you tried them on hogs or bear? Just wondering if they make it thru shoulder bones or gristle plate with ease. They look like they would work great on deer, but how about on tougher critters? My brother may like them as an option, depending on how the perform.

 

[Welding Rod]

The .223 Remington has a taper on the body of the cartridge of 1° compared to the .450 BM which has a taper of .90° i.e. essentially the same. Comparing the feedlips of the BM .450 BM magazines that I have they look a little different than standard AR15 GI magazines. Perhaps BM made a change in recent years to improve feeding.

I would be interested to know if BM is using a proprietary mag body now with different feed lips... from your picture is doesn't look like it though.

I found the OD of the BM cartridge was just slightly larger than the gap between the mag lips. When more than a couple rounds were loaded, the spring pressure would force the lips to spread, allowing the front of cartridge to assume a nose up attitude. How far up depended on how many rounds were in the mag... so essentially, the orientation of the top round in mag was different for every shot.

Looking at your pictures, if you were to lift with slight pressure on the nose of the cartridge straight up, the cartridge would slip right between the lips and orient upwards. With a fully loaded standard mag (without a BM round limiter installed) the rounds could do this by themselves, particularly if the mag was handled roughly.

The problem was aggravated by the poorly compatible taper angle of the cartridge. Regardless of follower (I used the BM supplied mag followers), due to the taper angle, when the rounds are stacked they wanted to naturally assume a nose up attitude, which caused slipping through the lips. The more ammo loaded in the mag, the more the spring force and the more the compounding taper angles aggravated the tendency for mag lip spreading and random nose up orientation of the top round in the mag.

I found these problems to exists both with my factory supplied BM mags and with GI mags with or without BM followers installed. Now this was a few years ago so they may have finally made a proper specialized magazine by now... I would certainly hope so.

The cartridge itself seemed great though. I was dumbfounded that any engineering department of a major gun manufacturer would put such a gun/mag/round combination of the market. ANY reasonable product testing or engineering should have uncovered those problems and I can not believe BM was simply unaware of the obvious design shortcomings... rather I think they tried to instead make do by supplying round limited mags (5 rounds IIRCC) - and if only those round limited mags were used, the guns did function reliably inspite of the fact I never felt I could count on them to do so.

I would have felt a lot better about the whole deal if BM had a warning in their specs that ONLY downloaded / limited capacity magazines should be considered suitable for use with the rifles. To this day there is no such notification on their website page for the rifle.