It may become the 41 mag of rifle cartridges, but that’s ok, reloading gives you much more options. I actually like the 41, lol.Aero, JP, PSA - all exiting - that's not a good sign.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It may become the 41 mag of rifle cartridges, but that’s ok, reloading gives you much more options. I actually like the 41, lol.Aero, JP, PSA - all exiting - that's not a good sign.
Curious what everyone thinks the fate of the .224 Valkyrie will be between it's problematic start with the 90 grain ammo problems and now the 6 ARC being the new AR flavor of the year.
It looks like JP is getting out of the .224 Valkyrie game. They are no longer list .224 supermatch barrels as an option on their website, or as an option for any of their builds, and some retailers are blowing barrels out pretty cheap.
I’m curious about the win 760 I have a few lbs of that.Both of mine worked well out of the gate.
The first was a 22” Shilen 6.5 twist and its a consistent hammer. I’ve made 1st round hits on P Dogs out to 750yds. Go to powders are RL 17, Win760 and BLC-2 with 90 and 95 SMKs. It also nearly matches my 6.5 Creedmoor dope to 1000. I accidentally used my creedmoor dope card with it once and it was working with 95 SMKs at 2650 FPS.
I put a second one together and went with light weight parts for hunting.
It’s not a hammer, but still sub MOA. I used an 18” BSF barrel for its weight. It’s a 7 twist and doesn’t like the 90s. The 90s average about 1 inch sometimes a touch over, I wasn’t planning on shooting 90s for this one so I wasn’t disappointed.
It does shoot the 75 grain factory TMJs into .75 MOA consistently. It shoots the Federal 60 ballistic tips between .4-.7. I built it for a day time coyote hunting rifle. It’s not close to my Shilen barreled gun when it comes to group size but still plenty good for coyotes inside 500yds.
It’s also the only thing in stock at near normal prices. I’ve been snatching up 200 rd cases of the federal 75s TMJ for $129. Picked up 7-8 cases recently.
I’m vested pretty good in this round since it came about 3.5 years ago and didn’t have the problems some other guys had so I’m riding it out. My hunting Valkyrie I don’t load for “time constraints “ and the factory federal 60s do the job just fine, I’ve never had a “Runner” yet, all DRT.
Some of you guys that are loading, try RL17 and plain ole WIN760 and see what happens.
Both of mine worked well out of the gate.
The first was a 22” Shilen 6.5 twist and its a consistent hammer. I’ve made 1st round hits on P Dogs out to 750yds. Go to powders are RL 17, Win760 and BLC-2 with 90 and 95 SMKs. It also nearly matches my 6.5 Creedmoor dope to 1000. I accidentally used my creedmoor dope card with it once and it was working with 95 SMKs at 2650 FPS.
I put a second one together and went with light weight parts for hunting.
It’s not a hammer, but still sub MOA. I used an 18” BSF barrel for its weight. It’s a 7 twist and doesn’t like the 90s. The 90s average about 1 inch sometimes a touch over, I wasn’t planning on shooting 90s for this one so I wasn’t disappointed.
It does shoot the 75 grain factory TMJs into .75 MOA consistently. It shoots the Federal 60 ballistic tips between .4-.7. I built it for a day time coyote hunting rifle. It’s not close to my Shilen barreled gun when it comes to group size but still plenty good for coyotes inside 500yds.
It’s also the only thing in stock at near normal prices. I’ve been snatching up 200 rd cases of the federal 75s TMJ for $129. Picked up 7-8 cases recently.
I’m vested pretty good in this round since it came about 3.5 years ago and didn’t have the problems some other guys had so I’m riding it out. My hunting Valkyrie I don’t load for “time constraints “ and the factory federal 60s do the job just fine, I’ve never had a “Runner” yet, all DRT.
Some of you guys that are loading, try RL17 and plain ole WIN760 and see what happens.
I'm surprised that nobody on here (that I've seen, I skimmed the thread) is using the Valkyrie for 55gr bullets for hunting. Thats why i built mine, to get more knockdown power out of an AR for predators. Bang-flops are much preferred in the dark, and the AR doesn't hit like a 22-250 does. Neither does the Valkyrie, but its closer, and mine shoots sub MOA with a JP barrel.
Mine is also a 20". 1-7 so hopefully it shoots the light bullets just as well.I know that 55gr vmax in my 22-250 were cruising at 3600. They were merciless when they hit. Valkyrie is giving 3300 for 60's according to Federal, though I'm sure thats for a 24" barrel and mine's a 20". Haven't had time to load any yet, but I would think 55's would be close to that 3300 in my gun.
With all of the talk on the forums about long range it makes many think that everyone shoots 1000 yds but the long range crowd isn't as big as it seems. The defensive crowd (pistols) is the largest followed by hunters but hunters aren't so quick to think the latest whiz bang is needed to hunt the animals that they have been hunting their whole life with some other 70-100 year old cartridge.I'm surprised that nobody on here (that I've seen, I skimmed the thread) is using the Valkyrie for 55gr bullets for hunting. Thats why i built mine, to get more knockdown power out of an AR for predators. Bang-flops are much preferred in the dark, and the AR doesn't hit like a 22-250 does. Neither does the Valkyrie, but its closer, and mine shoots sub MOA with a JP barrel.
I agree completely. I just sold my 6.8 because I really needed cash. I loved that rifle and was a piece of cake ti build. Built it like a block ii but all black.There is nothing hard about installing a 6.8 barrel/bolt and getting it to run 100% as a 5.56 would.
Many deer and hogs have been taken with the 6.8, one of the best if not the best rounds in the AR15 platform for hunting.
Compare exterior ballistics of a 77gr .223 at 2750 vs an 80gr valkyrie at 2900 and it becomes obvious. Even 88gr pills at 2800+ are an improvement. Not saying it hammers like a 300wm, but it carries more energy and flies flatter than a .223. I can't speak for the 6mm arc. Haven't built or shot one of them (yet).I though about trying to build a precision ar15 that shoots good groups at 1000 or longer with an economical ar15 cartridge (valkarie, 6mm ARC or .223). The more I looked at the build, it became obvious that I aught to focus on inside 800 yards and stick to my bolt guns and their optimized cartridges for 1000 yards and beyond. AR15 cartridges just don't hold up for long distance shooting. So, why would a Valkarie be better than .223 inside 800 yds. In my mind, it's not. Should be a wildcat.
In your mind it may not be, but in reality is is better in an AR for within 800 yards.I though about trying to build a precision ar15 that shoots good groups at 1000 or longer with an economical ar15 cartridge (valkarie, 6mm ARC or .223). The more I looked at the build, it became obvious that I aught to focus on inside 800 yards and stick to my bolt guns and their optimized cartridges for 1000 yards and beyond. AR15 cartridges just don't hold up for long distance shooting. So, why would a Valkarie be better than .223 inside 800 yds. In my mind, it's not. Should be a wildcat.
Agree, If shooting long range with an AR15 the Valkyrie or 6mmARC are the best 2 choices, they run very close in drop and drift depending on bullet choice.In your mind it may not be, but in reality is is better in an AR for within 800 yards.
This is not to say that it is the absolute best AR cartridge nor that it is even better for longer ranges than others might be, but it is most certainly a better choice for shooting 600-800 than .223 in the same platform.
I'm thinking it was the .222 magnum. Big difference.Stoner originally designed the AR15 for the 222.
I'm thinking it was the .222 magnum. Big difference.
The .224 Special became the .222 magnum (apparently), which was the basis for the .204 Ruger.The primary small bore case they were working with at ArmaLite was the .222 Remington, which had been introduced in 1950. The Army Infantry Board kept moving the goal posts for the steel helmet perforation requirement, since the Ordnance Department had doubled-down on the .30 caliber as the only suitable bore diameter for an infantry rifle. There was a minority group of engineers and military thinkers that actually dated back to the 1800s who wanted to experiment more with smaller bores with very high velocity wounding mechanisms, which was seen as a radical approach to infantry rifle chamberings.
Spring, 1957
Remembering General Wyman’s favorable bent toward the AR-10 design, ArmaLite had also begun work on a scaled down version of the rifle. But this design, credited to John Peck, also uses the same small barrel extension as the AR-11. After the failure of the AR-11’s barrel extension in testing, work is discontinued on Peck’s design. Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan are eventually tasked with starting from scratch in scaling down the AR-10 to .222 Remington.
Concurrently, Earle Harvey of Springfield Armory designs a lengthened .222 Remington case to meet the new 500 yard requirement. Remington loads 10,000 unheadstamped .224 Springfield cartridges: 9,500 with 55 grain projectiles and 500 with the 68 grain “M1 ball homologue.” Albert J. Lizza designs a rifle around the cartridge, using the best features of Harvey’s 7.62mm NATO T25 and T47 rifle prototypes, along with items inspired by the T22 (a full-auto variant of the M1 Rifle) and the T44 (pre-M14). It also appears that a T25 may have been converted to chamber the cartridge. Once Dr. Carten learns of Harvey and Lizza’s development, all further work on the .224 Springfield is ordered to cease. Ironically, Dr. Carten cannot claim that Springfield Armory is not in the weapon building business as he did two years earlier with Aberdeen. However, Carten is busy shepherding the T44 rifle into what is now known as the M14. No competition for resources (or attention) could be brooked.
May, 1957
After a visit to Fort Benning, Stoner begins to tweak the .222 Remington round to fit the Infantry Board’s penetration requirements. First, Stoner and Sierra’s Frank Snow modify the .224″ 68 grain “M1 ball homologue” to 55 grains by shortening the bearing length and the boattail, while maintaining the original 7-caliber ogive and 9-degree boattail. The new projectile is also produced by Sierra. Robert Hutton uses Speer’s Ballistic Calculator to estimate the muzzle velocity need to provide the desired performance at 500 yards. The results indicate a muzzle velocity of 3,300 fps with the 55 grain bullet will be required. Hutton begins load development with IMR 4198, IMR 3031, and an unnamed Olin ball powder. Using a Remington Model 722 with a 22″ Apex bull barrel and a Lyman 25x scope, Hutton successfully perforates US helmets at 500 yards during a public demonstration. However, testing also indicates that the .222 Remington cannot achieve the required velocity without excessive chamber pressure. Stoner contacts Winchester and Remington about increasing the case capacity; Remington accepts the request. (This refusal is hardly surprising since Winchester had their own SCHV rifle and cartridge in the works.) The resulting cartridge is designated the .222 Special.
George Sullivan files a patent application for the forearm assembly used on the early AR-10 and AR-15 prototypes.
5.56 Timeline
One thing that is interesting about the AR-15 development is that once DoD/WH/USAF inertia counter to the Army Ordnance Board’s attempts to sabotage the AR-15 hit escape velocity, one of the Ordnance Board engineers wanted to totally redesign it around a 6mm or .257 BTFMJ with a higher BC than what was possible with .224” bullets. This would have required slightly enlarging the receivers and mag well in all directions, since the proposed cartridge would have a larger base diameter, longer COL, and more case capacity to keep the pressures down while being able to meet the steel helmet perforation requirement and provide more bullet mass as a wounding mechanism, as well as a barrier-defeat solution.
That effort was seen as another attempt to sabotage the AR-15 in order to allow them to fix all the production problems with the M-14, and at least get the AR-15 killed for the Army.
They pressed ahead with the .222 Remington Special instead, later type-classifying it as the 5.56x45mm M193 and M196 (tracer).
Outside of the .30 Carbine wildcats necked down to .224”, there were at least 3 different .224” cartridges associated with the SCHV at the time:The .224 Special became the .222 magnum (apparently), which was the basis for the .204 Ruger.
You are very correct, while the original design was centered around the .222, it soon moved on to what eventually became the 5.56x45 because it could not meet the ever changing requirements.
Interesting development for sure.
Those are some sexy Model 8's!Outside of the .30 Carbine wildcats necked down to .224”, there were at least 3 different .224” cartridges associated with the SCHV at the time:
Left: The already established and in-production .222 Remington
Center: The .222 Remington Special prototype cartridge that became .223 Remington and 5.56x45
Right: The T65 .224 Springfield which became the .222 Remington Magnum
Springfield SCHV Infantry Rifle in .224 Springfield
All of the SCHV cartridges in this category were based on the .222 Remington with cases lengthened to meet the Army’s steel helmet perforation requirement while managing the chamber pressure.
.224 Springfield/T65 (.224 Rem Mag) is a 2.280” COL cartridge, so it would have required a slightly larger magazine internal length that would need specs for allowance of tolerance variation in mass production.
In hindsight, they could have exceeded the 500yd steel helmet perforation test by sticking with .222 Rem and putting a sleek secant ogive with boat tail projectile in it, but muzzle velocity would have been reduced if the bullet would have weighed more than the 68gr flat base they were working with initially.
Coming back full circle to the Valkrie, it’s interesting that at least one of the engineers proposed a cartridge based on the .25 Remington but using a more modern Spitzer bullet with a nice boat tail and higher BC. This would give them the case capacity to drive velocity without pushing pressure too crazy, and enough projectile mass to play with the shape to optimize energy retention at 500yds to perforate the steel helmet. He basically proposed a .22-.25 Rem SPC with longer COL in the early 1960s, but it never went anywhere.
The medium rimless cartridge line-up from the turn of the Century included .25 Remington, .30 Remington, and .32 Remington in the Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle, (which the AK gets its safety/selector from).
Fast-forward several decades and the case for those cartridges was revived with the 6.8 Remington SPC, a .30 Remington case cut down and necked-down to .277” to fit into the AR-15 magazine well. I really think there was a missed opportunity to go with a .257” bore with that case in the AR-15, and while there are wildcats that do exactly that, none of them are well-known or picked up by any major company.
Remington Model 8s in .25 Rem, .30 Rem, .32 Rem., and .35 Rem (.35 Rem has larger case head of .458”):
So there is quite a history behind the evolution to .224 Valkyrie but for cartridges with different purposes. You would think that the industry would be more receptive to it, but the troubled start of getting it to shoot accurately in AR-15s does not bode well.
If you look at this and many other threads or videos, you’ll see shooters who have bolt guns chambered in it that shoot lights-out, while a lot of the AR-15s just don’t seem to hold a group well in many cases. I know there was extensive effort from JP and other respected shops who invested tens of thousands of dollars trying to get it to shoot consistently with no-joy.
I think one of the biggest problems is trying to set the chamber up for the loaded factory ammo spread from Federal, ranging from the 60gr Nosler Ballistic Tip all the way up to the 90gr SMK. With a conventional freebore, they put the leade in the middle of where it should work ok for all of these bullets, and spec’d the reamer that way.
Then you have the after-market where a laundry list of shops who think they can do it better, with entry-level barrel prices sold en-masse, start cranking out product without having really vetted their process in complying with SAAMI and the bullet requirements of the 90gr SMK in particular.
The juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore. My feeling is this:I really like the .250 Savage case as well. Kinda pushes you outside of the AR-15 though with the .473” case head, and steers towards a 2.500” COL cartridge that requires magazines as fat as 7.62 NATO mags, with COL in between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
When I run the numbers, does it make itself worthwhile to do all the development of the magazine to reach the performance levels that are midway between any of the current micro and short action cartridges?
So you think he designed it for the 222 magnum and then downsized it to the 223 because the military wanted faster velocities?I'm thinking it was the .222 magnum. Big difference.
No. When did I say that?So you think he designed it for the 222 magnum and then downsized it to the 223 because the military wanted faster velocities?
That was my whole statement "he designed it for the 222."No. When did I say that?
I was mistaken in regards to the AR15.
However, I was correct that the .222 magnum was under development at the same time, it was for a competing design.
If you would have read further, you would have seen that.
My Shilen barreled Valkyrie shoots groups like this as well with 90 and 95 SMKs.Did some more load work this morning. My Shilen barrel seems to love the Hornady 88 ELD’s. Five shots at 100 yds.
Well, then, you have a problem with comprehension.That was my whole statement "he designed it for the 222."
You said I was wrong that he designed the AR15 for the 222 magnum and there was a big difference.
Everyone knows he designed it for 1 cartridge but the military wanted more velocity so he changed it to the 223(5.56x45) to reach their target velocity.
I know there is a difference and that is why I said the AR15 was originally designed for the 222. I didn't bring up the 222 mag, you did. If you hadn't brought up a cartridge that had nothing to do with the AR15 we wouldn't be having this conversation.Well, then, you have a problem with comprehension.
Re-read my post, I clearly said "I'm thinking".
It was not a declarative statement, it was a statement that I believed (erroneously) but it clearly wasn't a statement of fact.
There IS a tremendous amount of difference between the performance of the .222 and the .223/5.56 and even more so the .222 Magnum.
Again, I've admitted I was wrong in regards to the 222 magnum. what the fuck more do you want, you're the one that keeps harping on it.I know there is a difference and that is why I said the AR15 was originally designed for the 222. I didn't bring up the 222 mag, you did. If you hadn't brought up a cartridge that had nothing to do with the AR15 we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Could you post more details about your build?My Shilen barreled Valkyrie shoots groups like this as well with 90 and 95 SMKs.
It’s hard to do it every time, but the potential is there.
When I Chump a shot, my groups open up to 1/2”.
It’s the most accurate gas gun I’ve ever had.
An 8 twist will stabilize up to an 80gr ELD if the muzzle vel is around 2900. I've heard the new 85 Berger will also stabilize.Answer me this, maybe I'm still new to shooting and just don't understand.
My Tikka (1:8 twist) chambered in 223 with factory 75GR PPU Match ammo did .74 MOA @ 100. As I am slowly buying stuff for reloading hoping to get that even smaller but for "cheap" ammo did pretty good. Why cant the valkyrie do the same with the same bullet/ twist?
Why does the Valkyrie have a problem stabilizing bullets, Why is it super jump sensitive, and why are people pushing the twist rates so fast for a little bullet; Wont these 1:6xx Twist just RPM the jacket right off?
Some of the Palma shooters take the 80GR 223 and shoot 1000 yards in comp with 1:7 twist. why doesn't 1:7 work with the Valkyrie
I wanna make a 224V in a bolt gun but with all these problems I dont want to
That’s a bunch.Could you post more details about your build?
Receiver set
Barrel
Extension
Twist rate
Barrel length
Gas system length
Who chambered it and with what reamer
Gas block type and fitting method
BCG
Stock/spring/buffer
FCG
Optic Mount
Optic
Most 6.8 mags are decent.What magazines do you recommend for the 224 V?
It takes a barrel, bolt and mag, same as a 6mmARC except the 6.8/Valk bolts are stronger and mags feed better.
If you want a successful Valkyrie it is easier to forget the 90 and 95smk. Shoot the 80gr ELD using H4895 at 3000fps, it will outperform the heavier bullets in drop and drift. The heavier bullets even though they have higher BCs will never catch up to the 80 eld at 3000 unless you really plan on shooting past 1000yds..
Now that the 22 arc is out, fair to say the Valk is is more dead than it was last week.I'm not real sure the valkyrie is dead . I have been seeing more of them show up at prs gas gun matches . It seem's the 75 grain eldm is pretty popular with those guy's . Me myself I use my valkyrie for deer hunting and shoot 90 grain federal fusions with great result's . I'm using a 20 inch 6.5 twist barrel .