.45 acp vs. .357 magnum oil tank ventilation.
- Thread starter shurshot
- Start date
- Status
Capt Rick Hiott
New member
Yep,,,,your right guys.
I hunt hogs and deer with a .454 Casull. I understand whats going on here with this
I hunt hogs and deer with a .454 Casull. I understand whats going on here with this
Need a valid reference for this.
You post the information, you're responsible for providing the resources. If you can't provide the resource, why would we believe it?
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
We need to see this specifically stated as the criteria in the Military's proposal for the requirements of the cartridge. No speculation or anecdotes accepted.
Nanuk IS correct.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.da...-surprising-facts-about-this-iconic-cartridge
I'm sure some doubting Thomas on here will even question Mike V., and want further references.
Some of you guys Remind me of the two old men up in the balcony on the Muppets, always negative and complaining. 
.
Interesting read here as well.
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/07/17/lthompson-lagarde-test-45-colt-1911 It is mentioned in this article, testing the .45, out on live horses, cattle and cadavers. Not PC in today's world, but interesting from a historical perspective.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.da...-surprising-facts-about-this-iconic-cartridge
I'm sure some doubting Thomas on here will even question Mike V., and want further references.
Some of you guys Remind me of the two old men up in the balcony on the Muppets, always negative and complaining. . Interesting read here as well.
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/07/17/lthompson-lagarde-test-45-colt-1911 It is mentioned in this article, testing the .45, out on live horses, cattle and cadavers. Not PC in today's world, but interesting from a historical perspective.
Last edited:
"...Steel was about 1/2 inch thick..." Oil tanks are not that thick. A standard heating oil tank has 12 gauge(no punning!) thick walls. 12 gauge is .081" thick.
https://www.granbyindustries.com/en-us/petroleum-tanks/products/standard/
I suspect the shape of 'em has more to do with their seemingly bullet proofness than anything else. Shot one that had been laying around outside for years myself(with a .22 as I recall. Might have been a .22 Mag or a .243. Wasn't recently) and it just dented.
"...in Saving Private Ryan!..." A lot of stuff happened that could not in that and every movie. Replacing the scope on a 1903A4 and having it zeroed for instance.
https://www.granbyindustries.com/en-us/petroleum-tanks/products/standard/
I suspect the shape of 'em has more to do with their seemingly bullet proofness than anything else. Shot one that had been laying around outside for years myself(with a .22 as I recall. Might have been a .22 Mag or a .243. Wasn't recently) and it just dented.
"...in Saving Private Ryan!..." A lot of stuff happened that could not in that and every movie. Replacing the scope on a 1903A4 and having it zeroed for instance.
https://inspectapedia.com/oiltanks/Oil_Storage_Tank_Life.php
Note where it says; "We suspect that there is a wide variation in indoor above ground and outdoor above ground oil tank life due to the considerable variation in both the quality and thickness of oil tank steel (older tanks seem to have been a heavier gauge steel ), as well as other factors determining oil storage tank life."
Please note just before the life expectancy table... "A typical modern residential storage tank steel is 14-gauge (2.0mm) to 12 gauge (2.3mm) as shown in the oil storage tank data tag picture below. Some older residential oil tank walls may be thicker."
Did you read that???
May not have been exactly 1/2" (I didn't measure it as I previously posted, I stated "ABOUT"), but it was far closer to a 1/2" than 1/4". But, certain people want to insinuate I'm a liar. I didn't realize we had so many Polygraph and heating oil tank experts on here.
Next time I shoot an old oil tank, prior to posting I'll get 3 Notarized Affidavits and a video. Some of you guys need more fiber and sunshine.
Note where it says; "We suspect that there is a wide variation in indoor above ground and outdoor above ground oil tank life due to the considerable variation in both the quality and thickness of oil tank steel (older tanks seem to have been a heavier gauge steel ), as well as other factors determining oil storage tank life."
Please note just before the life expectancy table... "A typical modern residential storage tank steel is 14-gauge (2.0mm) to 12 gauge (2.3mm) as shown in the oil storage tank data tag picture below. Some older residential oil tank walls may be thicker."
Did you read that???
May not have been exactly 1/2" (I didn't measure it as I previously posted, I stated "ABOUT"), but it was far closer to a 1/2" than 1/4". But, certain people want to insinuate I'm a liar.
I didn't realize we had so many Polygraph and heating oil tank experts on here. Next time I shoot an old oil tank, prior to posting I'll get 3 Notarized Affidavits and a video. Some of you guys need more fiber and sunshine.
Last edited:
You are responsible for what you post. Are you saying you're not?
Pathfinder45
New member
Well if I say that the sky is blue today, does that make me responsible for the floods that happen where the sky hasn't been blue? If we could just lighten up a little, we would get a more harmonious outcome. Besides, those of us that have been shooting and reloading for the 45 Colt since the 1970's or so, have had some exposure to the history of the cartridge and the gun it was intended for. And yes, It was designed to take down a horse as well as the Comanche slung low on the other side of the horse.
Do we really need to challenge one another about this?
The Civil War was over, but the West was a frontier that had tribes of hostile mounted warriors. While they had various weapons, it could be argued that their greatest weapon may in fact have been the Horse itself. One of the most common martial revolvers at the end of the Civil War was Colt's 36 caliber 1851 Navy revolver; considered today to be ballistically equivalent to the .380 ACP. More power was needed. The 44 caliber versions were somewhat better as far as power goes; certainly the Dragoon revolvers and the Walker were at the top of the power scale of that period.
But it was the dawn of metallic cartridges and it was time for an upgrade. The military had learned a lot about revolvers during the Civil War and they wanted their new Cartridge revolver to be up to the tasks at hand. Rejecting the 44 caliber, they accepted the 45 Colt. Considerably more power than needed to dispatch humans, therefore why have such burdensome of a weapon with truly heavy ammo? It was because the primary adversaries of the day were mounted warriors, and well armed ones at that. Of course, the Army was choosing a revolver with horse warfare in mind. Tanks hadn't been invented yet, so the 45 would make do nicely.
All from years of random readings and hearsay, try not to ask me for a bibliography, or to prove it....
Do we really need to challenge one another about this?
The Civil War was over, but the West was a frontier that had tribes of hostile mounted warriors. While they had various weapons, it could be argued that their greatest weapon may in fact have been the Horse itself. One of the most common martial revolvers at the end of the Civil War was Colt's 36 caliber 1851 Navy revolver; considered today to be ballistically equivalent to the .380 ACP. More power was needed. The 44 caliber versions were somewhat better as far as power goes; certainly the Dragoon revolvers and the Walker were at the top of the power scale of that period.
But it was the dawn of metallic cartridges and it was time for an upgrade. The military had learned a lot about revolvers during the Civil War and they wanted their new Cartridge revolver to be up to the tasks at hand. Rejecting the 44 caliber, they accepted the 45 Colt. Considerably more power than needed to dispatch humans, therefore why have such burdensome of a weapon with truly heavy ammo? It was because the primary adversaries of the day were mounted warriors, and well armed ones at that. Of course, the Army was choosing a revolver with horse warfare in mind. Tanks hadn't been invented yet, so the 45 would make do nicely.
All from years of random readings and hearsay, try not to ask me for a bibliography, or to prove it....
Last edited:
Look all you want, everywhere you can, and there are still some things that '"everybody knows" that you will never find in official documents, specifications and the like.
I'd be amazed if you can find any official requirement or request stating the round must be capable of taking down a horse. Because it wasn't the kind of thing they wrote down in those days. You will find phrases like "adequate for military needs" and things like that, and you will find the Army's requirement that the new pistol be in .45 caliber...
what you won't find, is a requirement that says "be a .45 caliber so it will drop a horse"....
And, before we get too far down the road of thinking it was to drop the enemy's horse, or that pistols were the intended weapon of choice for stopping horses, lets consider a couple of points that 21st century man usually doesn't consider..
First, it wasn't JUST the enemy's horse that was the concern. It was YOUR horse (and those on your side) as well. Everyone was horse mounted, the pistol is a tool, most likely to be on hand (or on your belt) when needed. Powerful enough to cleanly put down a horse was a personal safety matter, AS WELL as one for combat. AND, while shooting the enemy's horse does remove most of his mobility, there is also wisdom in the saying "a dead horse gives them cover, a live horse is a whole lot of scared unpredictable.."
Also remember that when they were looking at the new auto pistol, the Army had long experience with the .45 caliber (and black powder), and a very recent BAD experience (in the Philippines) with the .38 caliber.
What the Army accepted, which became the 1911, was a semi auto 7 shot pistol delivering the power of the .45 Schofield round, and, while less powerful than the .45 Colt, was a known and accepted value, and "suitable for military use".
I'd be amazed if you can find any official requirement or request stating the round must be capable of taking down a horse. Because it wasn't the kind of thing they wrote down in those days. You will find phrases like "adequate for military needs" and things like that, and you will find the Army's requirement that the new pistol be in .45 caliber...
what you won't find, is a requirement that says "be a .45 caliber so it will drop a horse"....
And, before we get too far down the road of thinking it was to drop the enemy's horse, or that pistols were the intended weapon of choice for stopping horses, lets consider a couple of points that 21st century man usually doesn't consider..
First, it wasn't JUST the enemy's horse that was the concern. It was YOUR horse (and those on your side) as well. Everyone was horse mounted, the pistol is a tool, most likely to be on hand (or on your belt) when needed. Powerful enough to cleanly put down a horse was a personal safety matter, AS WELL as one for combat. AND, while shooting the enemy's horse does remove most of his mobility, there is also wisdom in the saying "a dead horse gives them cover, a live horse is a whole lot of scared unpredictable.."
Also remember that when they were looking at the new auto pistol, the Army had long experience with the .45 caliber (and black powder), and a very recent BAD experience (in the Philippines) with the .38 caliber.
What the Army accepted, which became the 1911, was a semi auto 7 shot pistol delivering the power of the .45 Schofield round, and, while less powerful than the .45 Colt, was a known and accepted value, and "suitable for military use".
The problem with things that are described as something "everybody knows" is that some of these are myths, repeated again and again over time without any real basis in fact.
It's not unreasonable to ask for the source of information to assess its validity to determine if it is fact or fiction. It's how many myths are confirmed or busted.
It's not unreasonable to ask for the source of information to assess its validity to determine if it is fact or fiction. It's how many myths are confirmed or busted.
Yes, we sure are learning allot about oil tanks, dead horses AND certain members of the Firing Line.
44AMP brings up some valid points. It's easy to forget and take for granted that we are all on the same level of discussion as so many of us on here have decades and decades of in depth experience, education and knowledge pertaining to firearms and relevant history. I love reading these posts and learning collective wisdom. However, we must also remember that some on here do NOT share the same level of in depth knowledge, experience or education, hence their constant crys and demands for "proof", reference material and documented evidence as if every simple opinion post or reply is being graded by the American Psychological Association research paper standards, or as if someone claimed to have captured a live Sasquatch! .
Thread appears to have just about run its course. Wear your hearing protection guys!
44AMP brings up some valid points. It's easy to forget and take for granted that we are all on the same level of discussion as so many of us on here have decades and decades of in depth experience, education and knowledge pertaining to firearms and relevant history. I love reading these posts and learning collective wisdom. However, we must also remember that some on here do NOT share the same level of in depth knowledge, experience or education, hence their constant crys and demands for "proof", reference material and documented evidence as if every simple opinion post or reply is being graded by the American Psychological Association research paper standards, or as if someone claimed to have captured a live Sasquatch! .
Thread appears to have just about run its course. Wear your hearing protection guys!
Last edited:
- Status