.224 Valkyrie Uses

#1
I have done some due dilligence on this new federal offering, but by no means am a ballistics guru. I thought this might just be a competition round, but seeing SOLGW put up an upper made me rethink. So I offer it up to the P&S:

Does .224 Valkyrie have any potential applications for mil/le? Is this a round that only makes sense punching paper past 800 yards, or is it the grendel-creedmoor-spr killer for AR pattern precision rifles?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 
#2
I'm still waiting on the truer, impartial numbers to come out. I know Federal's initial marketing assertions are using a 24" barrel and likely not sea-level atmospherics. If it can stay above transonic (1340ish fps) to 1000y with a 20" barrel in my AO, it might excite me for personal use.

As far as LE is concerned, I see no point to it over well-selected 5.56. While Federal has diversity in their current 5 or 6 ammo offerings, but that's all there is. There's plenty of support for the myriad of 5.56 duty ammo out there and scores of suitable factory 5.56 offerings. If I as an LE sniper am banking on an 800+ yard shot with either a 5.56 or .224 gas gun, then things are wrong. Even with my bolt guns...that defies all the stats on sniper shoots and would be a record. To muck with the logistics of integrating something like, it has to have the support and reason to replace something like 5.56 or 308...I just don't see it for the .224 Valk for the LE sniper mission envelope.

FWIW, Frank Galli and some PRS types seem to dig the .224 Valk, but mind you they don't mind excessively long barrels and match components that may not carry over to duty grade weapons. This leads me to believe that there is something there to work with to at least some degree.
 
#3
It’s going to kill grendle, it’s just a better round for that purpose. I could potentially see it for mil use if they keep chasing this longer range thing. This would at least save the guys from getting saddled with a damn ar10, but I don’t think it does enough over 5.56 to justify military adoption. They need to try fixing software issues first.
 
#4
I'm still waiting on the truer, impartial numbers to come out. I know Federal's initial marketing assertions are using a 24" barrel and likely not sea-level atmospherics. If it can stay above transonic (1340ish fps) to 1000y with a 20" barrel in my AO, it might excite me for personal use.

As far as LE is concerned, I see no point to it over well-selected 5.56. While Federal has diversity in their current 5 or 6 ammo offerings, but that's all there is. There's plenty of support for the myriad of 5.56 duty ammo out there and scores of suitable factory 5.56 offerings. If I as an LE sniper am banking on an 800+ yard shot with either a 5.56 or .224 gas gun, then things are wrong. Even with my bolt guns...that defies all the stats on sniper shoots and would be a record. To muck with the logistics of integrating something like, it has to have the support and reason to replace something like 5.56 or 308...I just don't see it for the .224 Valk for the LE sniper mission envelope.

FWIW, Frank Galli and some PRS types seem to dig the .224 Valk, but mind you they don't mind excessively long barrels and match components that may not carry over to duty grade weapons. This leads me to believe that there is something there to work with to at least some degree.

The only advantage to Valk over some 75 or 77gr 5.56 in a LE scenario that I can imagine would be one where you need precision in a windy environment (like a city). Since it has much less wind drift that 5.56 having that in a SPR style rifle would provide you an advantage to make a precision shot for maybe a SWAT scenario. Beyond that there's nothing that 5.56 can't do at LE engagement ranges that Valk can do better enough to justify a new logistics trail. I am neither SWAT nor LE so I apologize if the basis for my assumption is off.
 
#5
It’s going to kill grendle, it’s just a better round for that purpose. I could potentially see it for mil use if they keep chasing this longer range thing. This would at least save the guys from getting saddled with a damn ar10, but I don’t think it does enough over 5.56 to justify military adoption. They need to try fixing software issues first.
I thought the same thing about potential MIL use but based on the little I've read about the requirements for a new round/platform the Army is looking for a larger round than .22 caliber. Everything I've read is pointing to a 108gr .264 USA round (looks like a goldilocks round between Grendel and Creedmoor) travelling in the 2,600 to 2,700 fps range out of an 11.5" barrel. But I digress...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...es-solicitation-264-usa-rifles-carbines-pdws/
 
#6
The only advantage to Valk over some 75 or 77gr 5.56 in a LE scenario that I can imagine would be one where you need precision in a windy environment (like a city). Since it has much less wind drift that 5.56 having that in a SPR style rifle would provide you an advantage to make a precision shot for maybe a SWAT scenario. Beyond that there's nothing that 5.56 can't do at LE engagement ranges that Valk can do better enough to justify a new logistics trail. I am neither SWAT nor LE so I apologize if the basis for my assumption is off.
Do you currently have a 224 Valk? Also, the 90smk bullet wouldn't be the ideal choice for LE use much like 77gr smk is accurate, but there's far better terminal performers. So...not really apples to apples. I don't think the 224V vs 5.56 has half the weight of 6.5CM vs 308, and even that won't "justify a new logistics trail" much less defeat the "institutional inbreeding"/"way we always done it" mentality that is so prevalent.

Also the Valk is supposedly barrel length dependent; nobody wants a 20"+ AR that gives marginally better performance than a 16" or less 5.56. Sorry, but the Valk does not bring enough to the table to even come close to being a 5.56 alternative for LE/SWAT at this point.

I really wanted to like the Valk, but now I'm starting to question the ideal twist rate (no shortage of 1:7's on hand so that's what we saw). I'm seeing there were some references reamer problems. I saw an LMT rep mention having to address feeding/feed ramp issues. It looks to me now like the 224 Valk will be a wait and see thing. Will it be the next 6.5CM or 6.8SPC? Time will tell
 
#7
Do you currently have a 224 Valk? Also, the 90smk bullet wouldn't be the ideal choice for LE use much like 77gr smk is accurate, but there's far better terminal performers. So...not really apples to apples. I don't think the 224V vs 5.56 has half the weight of 6.5CM vs 308, and even that won't "justify a new logistics trail" much less defeat the "institutional inbreeding"/"way we always done it" mentality that is so prevalent.

Also the Valk is supposedly barrel length dependent; nobody wants a 20"+ AR that gives marginally better performance than a 16" or less 5.56. Sorry, but the Valk does not bring enough to the table to even come close to being a 5.56 alternative for LE/SWAT at this point.

I really wanted to like the Valk, but now I'm starting to question the ideal twist rate (no shortage of 1:7's on hand so that's what we saw). I'm seeing there were some references reamer problems. I saw an LMT rep mention having to address feeding/feed ramp issues. It looks to me now like the 224 Valk will be a wait and see thing. Will it be the next 6.5CM or 6.8SPC? Time will tell
Forgive me for being perhaps ignorant, but what exactly is .224 Valkyrie trying to achieve. From what I see is you get good very long range performance of something like 6.5 creedmoor but you can stuff a sizable number in a Pmag and throw it in a AR15.

But I ask why would the military, LE, or the shooting public need such a long range round when the whole point of the AR-15 is a light rifle that holds a bunch of bullets to deliver a high volume of fire at close-ish range. And furthermore when the round is compromised by having to fit in an AR-15 magwell and the majority of the guys carrying AR-15s probably don't have the gear or training or will be in situations to shoot a target with massive optics and the ballistic trigonometry to do long range stuff.

To me the whole concept seems to harken back to how back in WW1 we gave grunts rifles with 2000 yard sights and full power ammo when most people could not hit anything past 200 yards.

And also from a .mil perspective, why would you adopt this round (or any long range round in this whole ballistic overmatch hype) and have grunt's firing at the enemy at over 500 yards with rifles instead of crew served weapons? Have we focused on special forces and counter-insurgency so much we don't really work combined arms and maneuver warfare anymore?
 
#8
I see it as an attempt to satisfy the shooter who wants to run PRS comps with a "small-frame" AR and still be competitive. They won't shy away from the longer barrels, match bullets, full-blooded optics, and tinkering to make it work. The 22Nosler was supposed to be the "next big thing" but there were not high BC(with respect to .22 bullet BC) load options.