5.56x45mm M199A1 Fluted Dummy/Drill Round From UDC (Jay Bell, Formally Mast Technology)

Just got some of these:

Headstamp.
5.56x45mm Dummy-Drill, UDC 2020, c

Source:

Previous thread on UDC:

Brian

2 Likes

Will these also break like all other aluminum dummies?
Seems every 15 years these show up in all armies and companies as personell has been cycled and knowledge about failures is gone…

I just ordered a set…I’ll let you know!

At least it is good looking!

We cycled these through all the weapons required by the spec. I never had any breakage issues. The most I saw was some scratching. No worse than brass. However, we did not run at cold temperature phase - it was not required.

What were the circumstances of the failures? Any test reports?

This did just happen in 57mm. They went with a 1 piece and then stopped.

Jay

Jay, of course I do not have the reports on examinations of the exact reasons for the rim failures (if these were done).
Have seen many such broken aluminum dummies in a variety of calibers ranging from small arms ammo pistol and rifle cartridges up to medium calibers.
So my remark was basing on the experience and the question what shall be different this time?
Unless all the people did the same mistake and used the weakest aluminum alloy? Would that not be unlikely then?

Are these approved to a NATO standard ?

Pete

Shame about the absolute lack of willingless to ship internationally for literally every Gunbroker seller ever. Would like one of these.

Ole

Ole - the issue is that anyone should have to file for an export license (not sure about recent changes to ITAR and USML). Under the old rules even rifle scope mounts required a license.

It cost $2700 per year to be registered and probably another $1000 to 2000 to comply with all paperwork. So let’s say $5000 all in. They need to make that cost back.

You might try to pool a group to get a bunch of them on order and ship to a company like Conway.

J

EOD - we used the highest grade of Alum. The Army left this up to the manufacturer, so I’m sure it will be an issue in the future.

The army thinks they are saving money by giving the contractor a choice. However they are mistaken.

J

Jay, if not difficult please keep us tuned about feedback on these.

I noticed in another thread, Jay mentioned cycling M199A1E1 and M63A1E1 through M249 and M240.

I assume the appending of E1 is the correct designation for the dummies?

Why not X prepending?