224 Valk

[stagpanther]

CAUTION: This thread includes loading data not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge, and involved chambers with differing throat dimensions. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.


Haven't put anything together in a while--and I just happen to have a spare lower and thousands of extra 224 bullets lying around--and along comes PSA's mailer with a 224 Valk build kit with a 20" 1:7 416 barrel--so why not?

Any thoughts/experience with these little hot potatoes?

[FrankenMauser]

Thoughts?
I think you're crazy.
And I think the cartridge is a one truck pony.


But I eagerly await your field/range reports.
So far, I don't know anyone - that I can trust - that has properly tested the cartridge with more than factory loads.


Be sure to find a way to mount a bayonet. ...Just because.

[stagpanther]

I'm flattered--I think.
Theoretically it's capable of getting some heavy 224's way out there--we shall see. If availability is any kind of indicator--components and equipment for reloading the valk is pretty thin on the ground. I like the case ergonomics--my guess is that I can get some long pointy things seated well in it.

[birdshot]

I was surprised to see 224 valkery in 90 grain at walmart. Pretty amazing, a 90 grain bullet in 22 caliber.

[DukeConnor]

Ammo manufacturers seem to be on board. It will probably be my next.

[brasscollector]

I'm waiting a year or so when/if I decide to try one on. By that time the footwork will be done and someone will be selling their dies for 1/2 price..

[stagpanther]

I was surprised to see 224 valkery in 90 grain at walmart. Pretty amazing, a 90 grain bullet in 22 caliber.

I read some place that 100 and 105 grs may be on the way for 224

[stagpanther]

Ammo manufacturers seem to be on board. It will probably be my next.

Federal seems to be behind it in a big way. Makes one wonder--being a prime military ammo contractor.....hmmmmmm

[Mobuck]

No help from me. I don't see a real need for 90 grain .224 bullets. I have a .308.

[marine6680]

I've wondered if the caliber would be useful as a military round.

I don't know how hard they are pushing the cartridge... If it could be bumped up a bit like with 5.56 vs 223...

But a 90gr 22 caliber bullet traveling at 2700-2800fps from a carbine might be useful. More mass to work with for terminal effects, and would stay viable for 600yds... Might be something desirable. So long as the ammo weight isn't prohibitively higher than current 5.56.

Just seems like a bigger punch without the ballistic drawbacks of something like 6.8spc.

But that is just idle curiosity.


I do like to shoot out to 600yds, and with 69-77gr bullets, the wind calls are still crazy with a decent breeze. Heavier bullets would help there.

[FrankenMauser]

That's where my "one trick pony" opinion comes into play.

.224 Valkyrie's only real selling point is launching its special 90 gr bullets at 2,700 fps, for a theoretical result of remaining supersonic to 1,300 yards.

With lighter bullets, it does nothing that other cartridges can't also achieve.

[ed308]

From what I've read, the 1:7 barrels aren't accurate with the 90 gr SMK. A 1:6.5 twist barrel would be my choice.

[stagpanther]

Federal has factory ammo out there in a wide variety--some of which is as low as $11.00 a box of 20. They clearly have a horse in this race. Useful or not? who knows--but I like what I see and am willing to give it a shot, so to speak.

[brasscollector]

Federal seems to be behind it in a big way.

I'm pretty sure it's Federal's baby

[Mobuck]

I saw an AR barrel add yesterday featuring the "XL rifle gas system".
It seems these "new and improved" cartridges may have exceeded the limits of gas management in the standard AR DI system.

[stagpanther]

Define "exceeded."

I have 3 builds using the so-called xl rifle (which is nothing more than rifle + 2" gas port positioning) including my 284 win hybrid that I had cut to use the rifle xl gas port position. All it does is adjust timing of the gas impulses within the barrel. Other variables such as dwell time, powder burn characteristics etc. also come into play. I don't think it's even possible to exceed the pressure tolerance of a modern barrel (barring a blockage or failure to chamber, or, as I once tried, use the wrong powder).

For the bigger cartridges in the xx308 platform, a 22" or more barrel I would not use anything else but the rifle xl, under that is borderline and probably not needed. Just my opinion on a relatively new implementation.

[ed308]

A 22" melonite treated barrel with 1:6.5 twist and +2 rifle gas system is what I plan to buy. AR15 Performance has them coming in in May. What I like about the Valkyrie, low recoil in a AR15 frame that uses 6.8 brass, bolts and mags and has performance that's nipping at the heels of the 6.5 Creedmoor.

[stagpanther]

...and has performance that's nipping at the heels of the 6.5 Creedmoor.

distance and velocity--maybe; energy, highly doubtful.

[stagpanther]

I decided to "go cheap" with the PSA lit just to see if I like it or not--I think the 20" barrel is a good starting point--that's about as long as I see reasonable in an AR15.

[MarkCO]

I have shot several and seen several shot in matches and in testing. It is legit, but IMHO, it is a specialty cartridge. 600 to 1200 yards with heavy .224 bullets on targets, yes it has almost identical bullet flight as the 6.5CM. When I was on spotter, harder to pick up trace and bullet and target splash past about 900 gets to be a bit difficult.

As for the 90 grainers and the "issues" it is not the twist, but the characteristics of the bullet. I've shot a good amount of .223 Rem, 5.56 and 224V with 69, 77 and 80 grain bullets and the 224V has an edge, which should not be surprising. However, 77s in a .223 Wylde chamber loaded to 5.56 pressures is a pretty impressive load and will do the vast majority of what the casual shooter, plinker will ever want to do.

My personal 224V is the JP 22" barrel and bolt with the XL gas system. It is the sweet spot for the cartridge IMHO. Just for hitting the target, it is equal to or better than the normal 6.5mm bolt gun cartridges used for long range shooting out to 1000 yards. The 6mms beat it in most respects, and it is not a .22-250.

[stagpanther]

...and it is not a .22-250

funny you mention it; I've seen that comparison made. Thanks for the input.

I have a selection of bullets from 70 to 90 grains on way, including, of course, 90 gr matchkings.

BTW--have you tried anything bigger than 90gr? real curious about that.

[44caliberkid]

A few months before the Valkyrie came out I bought a 22 Nosler barrel. I feel like I bought a 1966 Mustang late in the year and then the '67 Camaro's came out in October. So that will be my build. I want to do a hydro dipped upper/ lower/ handguard, so I have to teach myself that first.

[T. O'Heir]

"...is a one truck pony..." There's a lot of stuff sold these days like that. Mine's a .41 AE barrel for my Inglis HP. Saved by buying 500 cases when I bought the barrel.
"...extra 224 bullets..." No .223 rifle?

[stagpanther]

No .223 rifle?

I have a 5.56 carbine (of course) but I'm principally interested in the heavier weight bullets for the valk-- 62 grs being as far as I go in a 5.56.

[COSteve]

While it looks good for an AR-15, it's nothing special or exciting for anything else. If you're tied to the AR platform type, stepping up to the AR-10 and going with the 6.5 Creedmoor is smarter move. However, not everyone wants the larger AR-10's size and weight so for an AR-15 platform the 224 Valkyrie will have some appeal. How it will fare against the 22 Nosler and others I don't know.

In anything but an AR-15; an AR-10, an M1A, or especially a bolt gun, the 6.5 Creedmoor is really the only answer as ballistically, it beats the .224 Valkyrie in every category important to long range, 1,000yd shooting. Using Handloads.com's ballistic calculator I compared the 143grn Hornady ELC-X 6.5 Creedmoor's claimed performance to the 90grn Fed Gold Metal Sierra .224 Valkyrie's claimed performance.

- Sierra claims that their 90grn .224 MatchKing bullet used in the Valkyrie has a BC of .563 while Hornady claims that their 143grn .264 ELD-X bullet used in the 6.5 Creedmoor has a BC of .625. With a higher BC bullet at the long range both were designed for the advantage is clearly with the Creedmoor.

- Assuming an 85° day with a 10mph 90° crosswind, and using the bullet drop data at 1,000yds that they advertise HERE, I derived the 90grn Valkyrie's MV at 2,590fps based on the 1000yd drop data they claim while the Hornady data claims their 143grn Creedmoor produces 2,710fps. Clearly, a larger diameter, heavier bullet with a higher BC traveling at a higher velocity gives a distinct advantage to the Creedmoor.

- At 1,000yds Handloads.com calculates that the Valkyrie will drop 381.08" (the exact same as Federal claims) with a drift of 78.71" in the 90°, 10mph crosswind (Federal claims only 59.92" drift with the same 10mph at 90° but I don't believe it *) while Handloads.com calculates that the Creedmoor will drop 325.41" and drift 64.31" in the same conditions. Again a distinct advantage to the Creedmoor.

* Federal's crosswind drift claim of only 59.92" is difficult for me to believe as it's totally inconsistent with the other data they provide that's exactly consistent with Handload.com's calculations on drop and velocity. Using it I found that a 90grn, .224" diameter bullet with a BC of .563 as they claim that drops 381.08" at 1,000yds starts with a MV of 2,590fps on a 85° day. I tried a 75° day and the closest I could get was 2,606fps with a drop of 380.11 and a drift of 79.98". I also tried a 95° day and the closest I could get was 2,577fps with a drop of 381.26 and a drift of 77.39" so it looks to me like they also used 85° as the drop is exactly the same and that drift is calculated at 78.71", a far cry from the 59.92" Federal claims.