120 MM TPCSDS-T M865
I have a 120 mm sabot cartridge, used in the M1A1 Abrams tank, marked DUMMY CRTG 120MM TPCSDS-T M865 DVC-T-17-107 on one side of the sabot, and TSC FT. Knox marked on the opposite side. TPCSDS-T stands for Target Practice Cone Stabilized Discarding Sabot-Tracer and TSC stands for Training Support Center. The cartridge is made of a solid synthetic material except for the original steel base. It has the same dimensions and weight as the original, and was used to practice loading in the M1A1 Abrams tank. I believe it is uncommon to see these. Any idea as to value, hopefully at least $300?
0
-
Hope you have a BOS proving it came from a commercial source. Rather than it having being obtained, by 5 finger discount from the Army. Feds don't have much of a sense of humour, regarding that.
You play your cards wrong, you might wind up in Gitmo with the towel heads.0 -
They are out there on the resale market, usually priced around $500. The market is a small one and collectors will want to know how you obtained it. 0 -
Of course it was obtained legally- if someone was going to steal pone, they would have stolen a real bullet- not some dummy round. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
Of course it was obtained legally- if someone was going to steal pone, they would have stolen a real bullet- not some dummy round.
That's the point. The Army keeps close eye, on the real McCoy loaded rounds. Not so much on the functioning dummies. Every hot round has to be accounted for. If it isn't fired, has to go back to the magazine. Not likely the CID would get involved, if a functioning dummy goes missing.
Years back when I was in. Every year they had IG inspections. You were only allotted the specific equipment on your TO & E, nothing more. If you had more of anything, than you were supposed to have on your TO & E. It was made to disappear. The brass didn't care where or how.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
Hope you have a BOS proving it came from a commercial source.
You play your cards wrong, you might wind up in Gitmo with the towel heads.
Seizing an item as suspected stolen and requiring you to prove lawful ownership is one thing, but jailing someone simply because they couldn't prove their innocence of theft is another.
It's a constitutional thing. [;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments