Does anyone actually know this gun?

D

Dean Speir

New member
fam-mk3.jpg
Anyone have any information about this Colt's oddity, circa 1969-1971, a 2½-inch barreled Mark III Trooper with a removable plastic cylinder and rubber projectiles, supposedly produced for the "Sky Marshals' Program?" (Contrary to urban legend, the Federal Air Marshals were not armed with Charter Arms Bulldogs and .44 Special Glaser Safety Slugs.)

More photos of the gun and unique cylinder are here.
 
I have never seen or heard of that one, and I have been collecting Colt's for a long time.

It may be a fake.. I definitely would need a letter from Colt to convince me its for real.

If it is for real, I would have no idea what it would be worth.
 
I've definately heard of these. The Marshal's carried several extra plastic cylinders of ammo. As I recall, the plastic cylinder wasn't reloadable quickly, for some reason, so the extra's.
 
Maybe they'll sit back down and be good?

I would think a rubber bullet driven to a high velocity in close quarter could well be lethal. Not many other options when you're cruising along in a thin-skinned pressure vessel. Weren't the .22s that the Reagan attempt was made with (devastators?) supposed to blow up on impact... for just this type of application? Although from what I recall, none of the rounds that actually hit their targets exploded.

How about a whomper? :D 1.5" thick dowell of hardwood, 2' long with a lanyard. Real good for checking tires too!
 
"Not many other options when you're cruising along in a thin-skinned pressure vessel. "

Handfull of bullet holes would cause rather insignificant leakage in relation to the amount of normal leakage in pressurized transport aircraft. The risk in shootin in a plane lies more in the off chance of hitting a hydraulic or electrical line. Even there, a lot of redundantcy is built in. Of course, Murphy is always vigillant.

Sam
 
Sam...

Wha...???

You mean Hollywood isn't correct that everyone and everything on the plane is sucked THROUGH the bullet hole?

I'm shocked, dreadfully shocked. :D
 
Even there, a lot of redundantcy is built in.
Click to expand...

Well, in most aircraft, yes. The DC-10 is another story, according to a senior aircraft mechanic I knew 'bout 20 years ago.

I don't know the current status, but back then TWA's Pilot Safety Review Board rejected the DC-10 because the primary and secondary control lines for the control surfaces run in the same channel under the cabin. In any other plane, they separate them, for obvious reasons. :eek:

Another problem with the DC-10 is the engine mounting. Ever looked at one and thought the tail engine looks like an afterthought?

It was. THe plane was originally designed for 2 engines which GE had promised to develop for the plane. GE backed out, leaving Douglas with no available engine that had enough thrust to get the bird up with only two engines. a quick redesign and the tail engine was added. :eek:


Hey, it was cheaper than starting from scratch. Why, no, I won't fly on a DC-10 if I can help it. Why do you ask?

:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top