SOCOM BearBuster?

[16n69]

As I understand it the .458 Socom duplicated the middle range velocity loads
of the .45/70 with the exact same bullet. This is a bit stouter than the standard factory loads but not up to the high pressure "Ruger only" loadings. It should do fine on hogs and black bear but maybe a bit light for a grizzly. Then again 10 quick medium power shots may stop a charge better than 3 to 5 slow full power shots. Everything in ballistics is a trade off.

And that, my good sir...is exactly what I was thinking when I started this thread...and really wanted to hear from guys who have .458 SOCOM AR's and preferably have hunted/defended with them.

"Then again 10 quick medium power shots may stop a charge better than 3 to 5 slow full power shots. Everything in ballistics is a trade off."

That is what I was thinking...you see, CraigC & some others...did not like the SG & slugs, even Brenneke...( I still do not agree, there...)...however, everyone seemed to agree or not deny, that a good cast blunt nose heavy bullet with some oomph behind it has the SD, size, construction, & penetration (at decent velocities ) to always be effective for dangerous game.
OK...so I thought, why not go with that consensus...with the more sure thing and just use(become proficient with ) a cartridge & rifle in semi-auto, which for me, I am sold on (whether SG or rifle ).
Once again, as you say, "...10 quick medium power shots may stop a charge better than 3 to 5 slow full power shots[/I]..."
The number of "shots" is arbitrary, and I am sure you meant the concept of delivering more well placed rounds quickly with the AR15 than with a Marlin.

Again, I would like to hear from the .458 SOCOM AR15/M4 hunters out there, as I am talking about large animals not anti-personel...I KNOW it would be great for that.

If the round ballistically, was in the 45-70 range (as it is)...and the bullets available per SBR and others (as well as handloading) are the same as for .458 Win. , then why not, I thought?

 

[Flintknapper]

Again, I would like to hear from the .458 SOCOM AR15/M4 hunters out there, as I am talking about large animals not anti-personel...I KNOW it would be great for that.

If the round ballistically, was in the 45-70 range (as it is)...and the bullets available per SBR and others (as well as handloading) are the same as for .458 Win. , then why not, I thought?

I can tell you just about anything you want to know about the ballistics of the SOCOM and can put you in touch with others of similar (or more) experience.

As you already know there is a plethora of bullet choices available if you handload. Even if you don't ...you already know what is available from SBR.

SBR tends to load on the cautious side (be forewarned), Corbon loads will chrono very near what their published stats claim.

The SOCOM basically has ballistics similar to mid-range 45/70 loads but does NOT compare to upper end 45/70 loads.

There is nothing to gain in the SOCOM by using a barrel length greater than 16", so do your research based on that.

I can easily run a 405 gr. jacketed bullet out of mine at 1670 fps. with no pressure signs. Many 300 grain bullets can go over 1900 fps (the Barnes TTSX being an exception). The Barnes bullet must be treated differently because of its length (see my thread about that on the SOCOM forum).

Still, it can be shot at velocities in excess of 1700 fps and I can tell you (from real life experience...it penetrates just fine). But you will never convince some folks that anything less than a 416 rigby with solids would be "appropriate" for bear defense. All other's are "varmint" rounds.

If have your heart set the SOCOM...contact me or visit the forum.

And as I've said, MINE has been 100% reliable...BUT I don't carry it around in Alaska or other really harsh environments. So just keep in mind...you'll want to keep it clean.

Flint.

 

[bad_aim_billy]

No offense to the OP, but maybe spending time in bear country isn't the best idea, as obviously he's terrified of them, or he'd just buy a can of spray and be done with it. Multiple-page threads on bear-defense calibers is laughable at best...

 

[CraigC]

What have I written (specifically) that is in conflict with what we "know" about stopping "critters"?

Because you're suggesting lightweight and/or rapidly expanding projectiles suitable for deer and hogs for a situation that calls for heavyweight, non-expanding bullets. The 405gr Remington is way outdated and anything prone to jacket/core separation should be immediately excluded. The USFS testing, which is very outdated, limited and misleading had everything to do with bears. Do a search, it's found easily.

And BTW.... your statement in a different thread (The only problem with the .458SOCOM is that you have to use jacketed bullets) is of course wrong.

How do you keep the bullet lube out of the gas system then?

 

[16n69]

No offense to the OP, but maybe spending time in bear country isn't the best idea, as obviously he's terrified of them, or he'd just buy a can of spray and be done with it. Multiple-page threads on bear-defense calibers is laughable at best...

...and such is the internet...with those that like to insult others & presume to KNOW what we are thinking when we post???
I am NOT "terrified" of bears or anything else...just want to be prepared for what EXISTs where I will be spending a lot of time...I know the odds are slim...but it happens, and just ask kodiakbeer and others...they probably thought it would never happen to them?
But it did.

 

[16n69]

Because you're suggesting lightweight and/or rapidly expanding projectiles suitable for deer and hogs for a situation that calls for heavyweight, non-expanding bullets. The 405gr Remington is way outdated and anything prone to jacket/core separation should be immediately excluded. The USFS testing, which is very outdated, limited and misleading had everything to do with bears. Do a search, it's found easily.



How do you keep the bullet lube out of the gas system then?

Can you explain what you are talking about with the bullet lube & gas chamber?
So contrary to sites that show hardcast lead bullets they cannot be used in the guns?

 

[CraigC]

Can you explain what you are talking about with the bullet lube & gas chamber?
So contrary to sites that show hardcast lead bullets they cannot be used in the guns?

Cast bullets have to be lubed, no way around it. It is typically a wax, vegetable or animal based lube, depending on application. Most cast bullets have one or more lube grooves to hold copious amounts of lube. As you can see from this pic I posted in the other thread, the bullet on the left has two lube grooves, the bullet in the middle has four. The blue stuff is lube. It has always been my understanding that you cannot use cast bullets in gas operated automatics because the blue and lead is prone to clog up the gas system. If this is untrue, I would love to be proven wrong. It would move a .50Beowulf upper much higher on my wish list.

 

[Flintknapper]

CraigC wrote:

Because you're suggesting lightweight and/or rapidly expanding projectiles suitable for deer and hogs for a situation that calls for heavyweight, non-expanding bullets.

You call 300 and 405 grains "lightweight"? Would you then also argue that the 250 grain bullets commonly used with the .338 Win Mag (one of the most popular and proven cartridges for BEAR) is also a lightweight?

I would hardly characterize the Barnes TTSX as rapidly expanding (in the same context as a varmint bullet, you made the connection to) or the 405 Remy for that matter. Controlled expansion is proper for use on bear provided you also get adequate penetration. Else, you would see ONLY solids sold and used...right?

The 405gr Remington is way outdated and anything prone to jacket/core separation should be immediately excluded. The USFS testing, which is very outdated, limited and misleading had everything to do with bears. Do a search, it's found easily.

In other words...you don't have it?

How do you keep the bullet lube out of the gas system then?

You don't. You also don't keep minute bits of vaporized lead (or lubricant) or powder...out of it either. I don't know of anyone shooting lead bullets out of their SOCOM that has had to change out a gas tube yet. It would take many hundreds of rounds (if not thousands) to begin to have an affect on the gas operation. That is not supposition, that is hard fact...supported by a number of folks using cast bullets.

Further, your statement about "jacketed" bullets doesn't include solid brass bullets, solid copper bullets, coated jacketed bullets where the jacket really never touches the lands. All of these shoot just fine out of the SOCOM.

Read up a little about who is shooting WHAT out of the SOCOM so you will be better versed when you choose to talk so expertly about it.

 

[Flintknapper]

CraigC wrote:

The blue stuff is lube.

Yup, it comes in various colors, consistencies and materials.

You can even shoot "paper patched" bullets instead of lubed bullets...but not many folks are doing it.

It has always been my understanding that you cannot use cast bullets in gas operated automatics because the blue and lead is prone to clog up the gas system.

And some folks (at one time) argued the world was flat. You can shoot lead bullets (lubed) through a direct impingement gas operated weapon just fine. Of course..there are limitations (I.E. you can't push the bullet beyond its design limit).

As for "clogging the gas port or gas tube", you'll get tired of shooting long before this happens. Think about it Craig, only a small amount of lead or lube could even be deposited near/in the gas port. If you use a "gas check" as pictured in your post it is even less a concern.

The flame temperature of most modern small arms propellants runs from roughly 2,000 to 5,000 ° F...with the median being about 3K. Coupled with the fact that pressure at the gas port (though dramatically reduced from peak) is still several thousand pounds and you just don't have to worry about any "clogs". If you think a small amount of wax like substance and pieces of lead (too thin to even be measured) will clog the gas system under the heat and pressure generated, then I have some old items in my garage I want to sell you.

If anything is going to "clog" it will be at the carrier or bolt...and if you haven't cleaned your rifle by the time that happens...well shame on you.

If this is untrue, I would love to be proven wrong. It would move a .50Beowulf upper much higher on my wish list.

Go get that Beo....and don't be afraid to shoot (sufficiently hard) cast bullets through it. Let us know when your gas port or tube "clogs" up and I will personally send you a new one.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

If you want to buy another gun then by all means go out and buy another gun. However if you own any one of those three guns already, then I don't think you need to purchase the other two for bear defense. Any of the three would likely get the job done just fine. But many of us like to find reasons that we can justify either to ourselves or our significant others to purchase different guns.

 

[35 Whelen]

I don't understand why the OP-er would come here to ask, well, TELL, people what is a good bear defense gun when he ans 99% of the people here (self included) have never even SEEN a bear in the wild much less KILLED one.

16n69 if you seriously want an opinion on a bear defense rifle, then ask someone who has lots of firsthand experience. I'd suggest you e-mail Phil Shoemaker. Here's a link to his website: Grizzly Skins of Alaska. I'd hazard a guess that he's killed or been in on the killing of more big bears than anyone in North America.

Now, if I may make a few observations:

In you first post, you mention putting "alot of high sectional density lead" on a brown bear. conhntr was spot-on when he said that a .45 caliber 300 gr. bullet is in no way a high sectional density bullet as it has a sectional density of .204...rather low comparitively speaking, about the same as a 135 gr. .30 caliber bullet.

Next, your obsession with lots putting lots of lead in the air says any, or all of the following:
Either you have no confidence in your own ability with a firearm (large capacity magazines are usually an indication of ones plan to miss alot)
or you have no confidence in the capability of the cartridge. Just a little food for thought...

I happen to own an AR and an 1895. They're both reliable but they've both jammed on me to. In fact yesterday while practicing offhand on my range here at the house, my AR jammed a half dozen times; the bolt wouldn't fully close even with the forward assist. turns out the culprit was a combination of the crappy foreign brass I had reloaded and the fact that I hadn't oiled the bolt. Not THAT big of a deal HERE, but in the time it took me to do the two-finger wrestle with the cocking handle and clear the chamber, I would not only have been eaten, but digested as well. The lever action on the other hand is quite easy to clear; just rack the lever harder.
That's probably one reason Alaskan bush people aren't cavorting through the alders with M4's, but rather various lever actions.

All that being said, I'd suggest you stick with your M4. If you do ever wind up in Alaska and we never hear back from you, we'll all assume it didn't work.

35W

 

[Girodin]

Rain, more rain, heavy rain, mist, sleet, then constant battering and tangles with vegetation with every step you take. Maybe it's tough enough to take it, but I'd prefer iron sights.

Again they can be submerged to 80 ft in water. Rain, mist, and sleet aren't going to make an aimpoint blink.

then constant battering and tangles with vegetation with every step you take.

Not going to phase an aimpoint. Soldiers use these things in combat. Did you watch that video?

Whether one is the profile you prefer on a rifle is a whole different question from whether it will withstand the use. Aimpoints are seriously tough. You aren't going to break it unless you try.

 

[Flintknapper]

35 wrote:

In you first post, you mention putting "alot of high sectional density lead" on a brown bear. conhntr was spot-on when he said that a .45 caliber 300 gr. bullet is in no way a high sectional density bullet as it has a sectional density of .204...rather low comparitively speaking, about the same as a 135 gr. .30 caliber bullet.

Yes, but let's put it in perspective. Sectional Density figures are only of value when "all other factors are equal", lets not forget that.

For instance, a 90 grain bullet in .243 has a SD of .218 (.14 greater than a 300 gr. 458 bullet)!

Need I ask which one you would be more comfortable with when defending against a bear attack!

Obviously, bullet shape and construction come into play (I know you know that, but many folks don't and will buy into incomplete figures like Sectional Density).

Here are some SD's for a number common bullets (compare figures and you might be surprised).

If you want to see some truly dismal SD's look at most shotgun slugs, but we know they work well at close range.


243" (6mm) 90 grain, SD .218
.243" (6mm) 100 grain, SD .242
.257" (.25) 100 grain, SD .216
.257" (.25) 115 grain, SD .249
.264" (6.5mm) 120 grain, SD .247
.277" (.270) 130 grain, SD .242
.284" (7mm) 140 grain, SD .248
.308" (.30) 150 grain, SD .226
.308" (.30) 165 grain, SD .248
.321" (8mm) 170 grain, SD .236
.338" (.338) 200 grain, SD .250
.358" (.35) 200 grain, SD .223

.264" (6.5mm) 140 grain, SD .287
.277" (.270) 150 grain, SD .279
.284" (7mm) 160 grain, SD .283
.308" (.30) 180 grain, SD .271
.321" (8mm) 200 grain, SD .274
.338" (.338) 225 grain, SD .281
.358" (.35) 250 grain, SD .279
.375" (.375) 270 grain, SD .274
.458" (.45) 400 grain, SD .272

.264" (6.5mm) 160 grain, SD .328
.284" (7mm) 175 grain, SD .310
.308" (.30) 200 grain, SD .301
.308" (.30) 220 grain, SD .331
.321" (8mm) 220 grain, SD .301
.338" (.338) 250 grain, SD .313
.375" (.375) 300 grain, SD .305
.416" (.416) 400 grain, SD .330
.458" (.45) 500 grain, SD .341

 

[CraigC]

You call 300 and 405 grains "lightweight"?

I call 300gr lightweight and the 405gr Remington lightly constructed. You do whatever you want, since you are already so staunchly convinced it will do the job.

In other words...you don't have it?

I have it in PDF form on my PC. If you want to read it, search for it. I'm not gonna do everything for you.

Read up a little about who is shooting WHAT out of the SOCOM so you will be better versed when you choose to talk so expertly about it.

Do not assume that because I am unfamiliar with shooting cast bullets in a gas operated rifle that I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. If you bothered to read what I've posted, I am very positive on the .458SOCOM. I said I was open to being proven wrong and I thank you for your info on using cast bullets in an AR platform. The condescension was unnecessary.

Yup, it comes in various colors, consistencies and materials.

You can even shoot "paper patched" bullets instead of lubed bullets...but not many folks are doing it.

Gee whiz, you don't say???

And some folks (at one time) argued the world was flat.

I've heard more than one complaint about .22LR conversion kits in AR's clogging up the gas system. Spare me the condescending tone.

 

[mshootnit]

OK so I've got my Saiga 308 and a 20 round mag full of 165 gr. barnes TSX. Am I basically going to just piss off the charging grizzly or do I have a good shot of stopping it? 308 with a tough bullet enough? I am thinking along the lines of the fact that the newer solids offer great penetration and retention

 

[Flintknapper]

Craig,

I will try being a little bit nicer.

You try being a little less wrong.

Hows that.

 

[CraigC]

I'm not wrong about your bullet selection but you guys seem to have your own ideas (theories) about what works and what doesn't so go on about your own business. I'll do the same.

Weird, if a 300gr expanding bullet is good for 1000lbs of PO'd brown bear, I wonder what those 500gr bullets could ever be useful for???

 

[Robert]

3 pages is enough for this one. There is some good info in here, and there is a lot of static. Op take the good info and use it to help you make a decision. Also using caps lock is the internet version of screaming at someone. If you want to stress a point Italicize the desired text.