.45 acp vs. .357 magnum oil tank ventilation. - Page 2

74A95 · May 26, 2019, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Do your own research if you don't believe me.

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%27s_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.

shurshot · May 26, 2019, 09:50 PM

Nanuk IS correct.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dai...onic-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...t-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.

T. O'Heir · May 27, 2019, 12:07 PM

"...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-...ucts/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.

mk70ss · May 27, 2019, 12:37 PM

Some of you guys can find controversy in the most mundane posts......the man shot holes in an old tank....

shurshot · May 27, 2019, 01:04 PM

https://inspectapedia.com/oiltanks/O..._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.

Nanuk · May 27, 2019, 10:42 PM

Quote:

You post the information, you're responsible for providing the resources. If you can't provide the resource, why would we believe it?

Wrong. The truth is self evident if you are educated in the topic. I am not going to link a citation for everything I say.

Nanuk · May 27, 2019, 10:44 PM

Quote:

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.

A picture is worth 1000 words.

74A95 · May 27, 2019, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Wrong. The truth is self evident if you are educated in the topic. I am not going to link a citation for everything I say.

You are responsible for what you post. Are you saying you're not?

**JohnKSa** · May 28, 2019, 01:27 AM

A cite has been provided. Even if it didn't come from the claimant, it's now available for everyone's perusal so I think we can move on.

Pathfinder45 · May 28, 2019, 01:34 AM

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....

Nanuk · May 28, 2019, 07:05 AM

Nevermind

**44 AMP** · May 28, 2019, 11:00 AM

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".

74A95 · May 28, 2019, 11:26 AM

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.

Siggy-06 · May 28, 2019, 11:26 AM

I’m learning more about oil tanks and dead horses in this thread than I am firearms...

shurshot · May 28, 2019, 01:00 PM

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!

**Aguila Blanca** · May 28, 2019, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Quote:

You post the information, you're responsible for providing the resources. If you can't provide the resource, why would we believe it?

Wrong. The truth is self evident if you are educated in the topic. I am not going to link a citation for everything I say.

"Self-evident" means that the evidence of accuracy or correctness is present in the statement as offered, without need for recourse to outside sources. A self-evident statement is the type of statement that generates responses such as "Thank you, Captain Obvious."

Your statement was NOT self-evident. You were saved by someone else who supplied a link to documentation for your assertion, but in reality it was your responsibility to have done so. Your statement manages to commit two logical fallacies in one try: the Proof by Assertion fallacy, and the Onus Propandi fallacy.

gwpercle · May 28, 2019, 02:39 PM

A PMC 357 magnum , 125 grain jacketed hollow point that penetrates 1/2 inch thick steel plate...
I reserve the right to be skeptical ... Momma told me not to believe everything I read on the internet !
Gary

RaySendero · May 28, 2019, 05:46 PM

Was at range when a guy brings a new silhouette cut from what looked like mild steel.
He put it out at 400 yds. Ask him why so far, said it would be harder to hit.

LOL, I quickly said I can hit. He said go ahead and try.
I said "Your target - You should go first". He said Nah go ahead and try.
OK. Figured my 270 was 20" low at 400 with my 200 zero.
Aim 3 shots at the top of the head. Put 3 through lower chest area.
He could believe a 270 would go through it - So we walked out to check target.
The 3 shots were perfect bullet dia size holes.
Each hole looked like the steel had "splashed" both going in and out.
Just 150 gr cup/core bullets.

**44 AMP** · May 28, 2019, 07:24 PM

When I was a wee lad, and my grandfather told me something, had I asked for "proof", the proof I would have gotten was the back of his hand...

We may be in a more enlightened age now, but I still hold to the idea that its not up to me to prove I'm right, its up to you to prove I'm not. I'm from an age where doing research meant more than a few mouse clicks. It meant finding books and articles, and usually spending your own money to buy them, in order to read them.

If you think I'm wrong, fine, prove it. Get off your butt and do your own research. Spend YOUR OWN MONEY doing it. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't willing to do that, then your challenge is of no significance.

What we learn from the OP's shooting an oil tank is that smaller diameter bullets at higher speed penetrate hard objects better than larger ones a slower speed. That's it. And while that may be news to some of us, it has been widely known for a few centuries or so.

74A95 · May 28, 2019, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

When I was a wee lad, and my grandfather told me something, had I asked for "proof", the proof I would have gotten was the back of his hand...

We may be in a more enlightened age now, but I still hold to the idea that its not up to me to prove I'm right, its up to you to prove I'm not. I'm from an age where doing research meant more than a few mouse clicks. It meant finding books and articles, and usually spending your own money to buy them, in order to read them.

If you think I'm wrong, fine, prove it. Get off your butt and do your own research. Spend YOUR OWN MONEY doing it. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't willing to do that, then your challenge is of no significance.

What we learn from the OP's shooting an oil tank is that smaller diameter bullets at higher speed penetrate hard objects better than larger ones a slower speed. That's it. And while that may be news to some of us, it has been widely known for a few centuries or so.

You're giving yourself a free license to say any BS you want without repercussions.

In the professional world, you are responsible for what you say and have the burden of proof.

This still stands without exception: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

**Aguila Blanca** · May 28, 2019, 09:59 PM

We have gone from confirming that .357 Magnum is better at punching holes in metal than .45 ACP (which was a "known" fact when I was a youngster and Dick Tracy used to stop cars by shooting the engine block from a helicopter), to discussing how thick the walls of an oil tank are, to questioning whose responsibility it is to provide documentation of an unproven assertion.

I think this discussion has about run its course.

May 26, 2019, 09:50 PM	#27
shurshot Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2006 Posts: 1,819	Nanuk IS correct. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dai...onic-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...t-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 by shurshot; May 27, 2019 at 06:50 AM.

May 27, 2019, 12:07 PM	#28
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...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-...ucts/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. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

May 27, 2019, 12:37 PM	#29
mk70ss Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2008 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,598	Some of you guys can find controversy in the most mundane posts......the man shot holes in an old tank.... __________________ Say when.....

May 27, 2019, 01:04 PM	#30
shurshot Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2006 Posts: 1,819	https://inspectapedia.com/oiltanks/O..._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. Last edited by shurshot; May 27, 2019 at 04:24 PM.

May 28, 2019, 01:27 AM	#34
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,971	A cite has been provided. Even if it didn't come from the claimant, it's now available for everyone's perusal so I think we can move on. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

May 28, 2019, 01:34 AM	#35
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	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.... Last edited by Pathfinder45; May 28, 2019 at 01:39 AM. Reason: spelling

May 28, 2019, 07:05 AM	#36
Nanuk Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2005 Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam. Posts: 3,082	Nevermind __________________ Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

May 28, 2019, 11:00 AM	#37
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,803	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". __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

May 28, 2019, 11:26 AM	#38
74A95 Senior Member Join Date: November 26, 2016 Posts: 1,564	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.

May 28, 2019, 11:26 AM	#39
Siggy-06 Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 1,148	I’m learning more about oil tanks and dead horses in this thread than I am firearms... __________________ Flicks just like a lighter, just a different kind of fire.

May 28, 2019, 01:00 PM	#40
shurshot Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2006 Posts: 1,819	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! Last edited by shurshot; May 28, 2019 at 01:13 PM.

May 28, 2019, 02:39 PM	#42
gwpercle Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2012 Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana Posts: 1,752	A PMC 357 magnum , 125 grain jacketed hollow point that penetrates 1/2 inch thick steel plate... I reserve the right to be skeptical ... Momma told me not to believe everything I read on the internet ! Gary

May 28, 2019, 05:46 PM	#43
RaySendero Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2010 Location: US South Posts: 857	Was at range when a guy brings a new silhouette cut from what looked like mild steel. He put it out at 400 yds. Ask him why so far, said it would be harder to hit. LOL, I quickly said I can hit. He said go ahead and try. I said "Your target - You should go first". He said Nah go ahead and try. OK. Figured my 270 was 20" low at 400 with my 200 zero. Aim 3 shots at the top of the head. Put 3 through lower chest area. He could believe a 270 would go through it - So we walked out to check target. The 3 shots were perfect bullet dia size holes. Each hole looked like the steel had "splashed" both going in and out. Just 150 gr cup/core bullets. __________________ *Ray*

May 28, 2019, 07:24 PM	#44
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,803	When I was a wee lad, and my grandfather told me something, had I asked for "proof", the proof I would have gotten was the back of his hand... We may be in a more enlightened age now, but I still hold to the idea that its not up to me to prove I'm right, its up to you to prove I'm not. I'm from an age where doing research meant more than a few mouse clicks. It meant finding books and articles, and usually spending your own money to buy them, in order to read them. If you think I'm wrong, fine, prove it. Get off your butt and do your own research. Spend YOUR OWN MONEY doing it. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't willing to do that, then your challenge is of no significance. What we learn from the OP's shooting an oil tank is that smaller diameter bullets at higher speed penetrate hard objects better than larger ones a slower speed. That's it. And while that may be news to some of us, it has been widely known for a few centuries or so. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

May 28, 2019, 09:59 PM	#46
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	We have gone from confirming that .357 Magnum is better at punching holes in metal than .45 ACP (which was a "known" fact when I was a youngster and Dick Tracy used to stop cars by shooting the engine block from a helicopter), to discussing how thick the walls of an oil tank are, to questioning whose responsibility it is to provide documentation of an unproven assertion. I think this discussion has about run its course.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search