Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Horse-stopper, yes. If some old, old, writer's are to be believed, the .45 Colt cartridge was designed as a "horse-stopping" round. Primarily a Cavalry arm, the pistol had to be effective against other cavalry horses as the horses in a Cavalry against Cavalry engagement were more often the target than their riders. The first Colt 1873's were tested against cow's and condemned horse's and data was kept on wound location, how functional the animal was after being hit and time it took to die. Also, the Colt 1911 .45 ACP cartridge was the winner in the .38 Colt, 9MM parabellum, .45 Colt trials in the early 1900's. They used pigs and "stag's" (steer's) for that one. Pretty disgusting, but how about the "Goat Test's" in Strasburg? That wasn't too many years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Terry G said:
The .45 Colt, man-stopper? Nope.
Terry, the .38-40, .44-40, and .45 Colt were popular among the tough guys of that period, so there had to be some merit to those cartridges.

Horse-stopper, yes. If some old, old, writer's are to be believed, the .45 Colt cartridge was designed as a "horse-stopping" round.
This is somewhat true. It was intended as a dual purpose (horse and enemy) catridge.

Primarily a Cavalry arm, the pistol had to be effective against other cavalry horses as the horses in a Cavalry against Cavalry engagement were more often the target than their riders. The first Colt 1873's were tested against cow's and condemned horse's and data was kept on wound location, how functional the animal was after being hit and time it took to die.
Surprisingly, the ballistics researchers of that day associated a bullet kinetic energy with effectiveness. They sought the MINIMUM energy to do the job, so as to reduce recoil. They reasoned that this would reduce shot-to-shot recovery, shooter fatigue, and parts wear. Very smart, if you ask me.

Also, the Colt 1911 .45 ACP cartridge was the winner in the .38 Colt, 9MM parabellum, .45 Colt trials in the early 1900's. They used pigs and "stag's" (steer's) for that one.
They also used cadavers. Yes, "beeves" were used, as they called them. Pigs were used because they kney their physiology was so similar to people.

Pretty disgusting, but how about the "Goat Test's" in Strasburg? That wasn't too many years ago.
I have not been able to verify the Strasburg test. I did find evidence of a French military test involving goats, but it was decades before the Strasburg test was said to have occurred.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
First day, they shot 1 steer in the guts with each of 6 loads, once per minute. All were still standing after 6 minutes, killed with sledgehammer. Second day, 6 were shot in the chest, rapid fire, fastest one to fall was 40 seconds, by the .38 L Colt, due to a severed aorta. No pigs were used.

They hung cadavers by the neck, and shot them. Some of the shooters " thought" that the bodies "twitched a bit more" with the larger calibers. .45 ACP was not used, and .455 Webley 476 Eley were used. No measurements were deemed possible to get, nor were they attempted. There wasn't a damned bit of data supporting their recommendation of the .45. They just made the recommendation out of their predjudices, that's all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
GBullet, I believe Terry was being facetious saying the .45 Colt wasn't a manstopper.

I.E. "It's not designed to stop men, it's designed to stop something bigger." With the obvious intent of saying "Of course it's a manstopper."

Or maybe I missed you being facetious?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Yes, Gecko, I was poking fun at the old test's and the methods used. If a round is going to stop a horse, I would certainly think it would get a human's attention. Test's are test's, nothing more. Shooting horses, cow's, goats,dog's, etc. Proves that you can shoot all the above. It does not give reliable evidence as to how a human reacts when shot. I have related the instance when I observed a North Vietnamese soldier shot in the left bicep with an M-16 round. The bone wasn't struck and he was stone dead 30 seconds later. Another NVA took a three round burst of 7.62MM from an M-60 and walked into a Special Forces camp on his own and surrendered. Weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
It's not what you use, it's how you use it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Gecko45 said:
GBullet, I believe Terry was being facetious saying the .45 Colt wasn't a manstopper.

I.E. "It's not designed to stop men, it's designed to stop something bigger." With the obvious intent of saying "Of course it's a manstopper."

Or maybe I missed you being facetious?
Oops, my bad. I missed the obvious. :punch:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
The hell it aint what you use. That's only true to a certain extent. YOu use a .22 short, and I'll use a .460 Rowland with SN's, in calvary combat, and we'll SEE who's what. In typical combat, on foot, the "placement" of shots is almost completely bs. The guys are moving, you are flinching and ducking, the light's bad, your eyes are bedazzled by the flashes, your ears are blown out by the blasts, you're probably wounded, have your loved one's brains dripping off your face, you're dysenteric, exhausted, dehydrated, depressed, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
andy said:
you are flinching.
Don't try to put your flinching problem on me andy. You're the one who requires the soft recoiling .223 with bipod to make 100 yard shots. Bet $10 you last 24 hours.

RIKA
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
I didn't say a word about flinching. I said WHERE'S THE .20 SECOND repeat hits, with the N frames, with the easy recoiling .45 loads? Since it's so EASY to deliver such times with full charge 357 ammo, according to all the liars here. You found OUT just how CORRECT I was about that, but you aint big enough to admit it. You've never cracked .35 second with the 357 in an N frame, much less .20 second. and you will almost certainly never crack .25 second, because it's a pointless waste of time and money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
no, you were bitching about flinching.

drugs do this to your brain, stop them while you can, it'll at least cut the damage down to what's already been done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,471 Posts
Post 10 in this thread:
...The guys are moving, you are flinching...
Post 11 in this thread:
Don't try to put your flinching problem on me andy...
Post 12 in this thread:
I didn't say a word about flinching...
Post 13 in this thread:
no, you were bitching about flinching.
Post 14 in this thread:
not in this thread I wasn't. You can't read.
Not only 'in the same thread', but multiple times in adjoining posts on the same page. We've gone past "funny and sad at the same time" to just "pretty darn sad".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,471 Posts
I suspect a big part of the caliber's mystique was that it was so much better than the handguns they had at the time. IIRC, even the .44-40 didn't come out until a year or two after the .45 colt, so the .45's main competition was probably cap & ball revolvers and maybe some weaker metallic-cartridge calibers; at least as far as what was available for defensive handguns. So for its time, it would have probably been a massive leap forward; again, compared to what was around to compare it against.


The old 45 did not need to be fancy it was big and heavy time and experience have proved that this is what is best to get the job done
Agree. It's not really the "ideal combat caliber" imo just due to capacity limitations, but round-for-round, it's very capable. If you handload for it, in round-for-round terms it's crazy capable. I've pushed extra-light 80-some grain bullets to 2400 fps with it, while still staying within saami load limits. Not something I plan to re-do on any regular basis, but it's certainly capable of a lot. Even if you don't handload, some modern stuff is VERY good. The standard-pressure Barnes 200-grain SCHP averages 1064 fps from my 5" revolver, for over 500 ft/lbs. And from the 20" carbine it runs 1301 fps; over 750 ft/lbs. That's plenty respectable by even 21st-century standards. And considering that it's a 19th-century product, it's phenomenal imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,839 Posts
Since November, I have been trying to find a nice comfortable, accurate, target load, without a lot of recoil for my Ruger "Original" Vaquero in .45 Colt with 250 CMJ Bullets. I've tried W231, Unique, Red Dot and just recently Tite Group. Can't find anything that will give me the accuracy I'm looking for at 15-20 yds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,471 Posts
I didn't say a word about flinching. I said WHERE'S THE .20 SECOND repeat hits, with the N frames, with the easy recoiling .45 loads? Since it's so EASY to deliver such times with full charge 357 ammo, according to all the liars here. You found OUT just how CORRECT I was about that, but you aint big enough to admit it. You've never cracked .35 second with the 357 in an N frame, much less .20 second. and you will almost certainly never crack .25 second, because it's a pointless waste of time and money.
Another example of weirdness.

John - Nowhere in this thread prior to this post had you said anything about .20 second hits; nor had you said anything about N-frames either, for that matter.

And on the ".35 second" hits with a revolver, I've shown better than that; a lot better. It was a 9mm rather than a .357, but it was an unported snubnose which is absolute worst case for revolver recoil, and if you check the BBTI charts a 2" 9mm often has MORE power than a 2" .357 magnum does. And even worst case like that, still getting seven hits at 9-10 yards in 1.49 seconds. And again, I'm only decent; not great. You constantly underestimate the ability of everyone who isn't you, and that's a horribly self-defeating habit to have.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top