View Full Version : .224 Valkerie conundrum
We had a buddy come out and shoot with us and he brought out his new .224 Valkerie build. Rifle is a 20" Wilson Combat barrel.
Gun is set up with a Diamondback Tactical scope. We got it zeroed with some Fusion loads and some ELD 88s... both factory. And only got some dismal 2-3 MOA groups. So the mount and scope were checked for tightness, etc.
The part we don't get at all is when we tried to reach out to 500 yards. The come up to get it on target was like 6 plus mils, when is should have been 3 or less. We didn't have our truck with the chrono in the back, so we couldn't check velocity.
How could this round possible dump enough velocity to need 6 mils at 500 yards???
Pappabear is having the barrel looked at by the riflesmith.
Perhaps the scope is the issue.
Scope is my first thought as well, followed by lousy lot of ammo.
I changed it it out with one of my QD scopes, not the scope. We scratched our heads on this one. Not only did it require 6 mils, bullets were flying everywhere. The only thing we could fathom, was a way over board barrel. So Im getting it pinned checked.
He used several boxes of decent factory ammo. Hornady ELD's was one of them.
But jeez....
PB
Not sure on the twist. But he was shooting an 88 and something lighter in the fusion bullet.
Ned Christiansen
12-25-18, 10:53
For the last 7-10 years I've been of the opinion that there were very few "bad" barrels. After a few things I ran across this summer I'm no longer saying that..... I think they still are not common, and that even some pretty pedestrian ones/ inexpensive ones can be pretty darned good. My limited experience with Wilson Combat AR barrels is that they are among the very best.... my long-term impression of the company is they go to lengths to make really, really good stuff and stand behind it.
So, I'd be surprised if it was the barrel and yet until you shoot it you don't know-- and then when you do, you still don't know.... 'cause it could be something else and you guys know that obviously. So my comments would be, 1, does it have a threaded muzzle and has something been way over-torqued onto it, and 2, we should all have the new Lyman Bore Cam. I'm not shilling for them, it's just a great tool for every enthusiast to have at under (sometimes well under) $300. How else to really know what's going on in there? 3, something in the hookup between the barrel and the upper receiver, like loose or so tight the upper cracked.
The ideal barrel length for .224 Valk is 24" (for factory ammo anyway) but I can't see 20" being the problem unless somehow it's not twisted right.
Well the kid said he torque'd the barrel nut to 50. And he'd spun on some obnoxious break which was loose enough that I just spun it off by hand so we could shoot without all the bark. (we shot to 500 with nothing on the muzzle.) There was a crush washer that hadn't been mashed down. So I'm doubtful the guy overdid anything at this point.
I heard that DCB, here, had read of some accounts of this round's velocity spinning these bullets too fast and causing all kinds of issues. This would perfectly explain everything we experienced last weekend.
I heard that DCB, here, had read of some accounts of this round's velocity spinning these bullets too fast and causing all kinds of issues. This would perfectly explain everything we experienced last weekend.
Commonplace or just certain combos?
It is supposed to be a known issue. For those in the know.
PB
Commonplace or just certain combos?
Specific bullets perhaps? Makes perfect sense.... Of COURSE you can't spin bullets at that RPM and expect no issues....
I looked back at some of the reading I was doing and figured out that I was thinking of a similar (but different) issue between a lot of these new "shove a smaller diameter bullet in a fatter necked down case" trends. So I was slightly off, PB.
The .224 Valkyrie has been plagued by a number of barrels being too slow in twist to stabilize the heavier 90gr projectiles at the velocities they are pushing it. Someone smarter than me on SH commented that the .224 Valkyrie was a great way of breathing life into dead inventory of "match grade" 223 barrels.
Many manufacturers took their old inventory and re-chambered the dead stock of 1:7 .223 barrels with the new reamer for .224 Valkyrie and suddenly they had a new hot product on their hands; but this resulted in a lot of .224 Valkyrie barrels floating around with insufficient twist for the .224. JP put out a memo even acknowledging this:
“Dear JP customer,
If you are receiving this email, it means your current order for one of our JP Supermatch™ barrels in .224 Valkyrie is eligible for fulfilment in our first production run. But, because of the unforeseen complications of developing barrels for a brand new caliber like this, we wanted to contact you before completing your order.
After final testing of these barrels, we have discovered that accuracy specific to 90gr. Sierra Match King and the 90gr. Fusion hunting ammo is only mediocre. These results are not up to the JP standard, and as such, we cannot honor our accuracy guarantee with this 90gr. ammunition.
However, the Federal varmint load using the 60gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip and our personal test loads using 77gr. Sierra Tipped Match Kings shot well from these barrels. With the 77gr. Tipped Match Kings, we achieved maximum velocities in the 3000 ft/s range. This compromise of utilizing lighter projectiles with much higher MV and slightly lower BC may actually result in higher hit probabilities within the effective range of the cartridge. This is particularly the case with unknown distance targets.
At this point, we want to offer you the choice of confirming your order and receiving one of these first JP .224 Valkyrie barrels. Alternately, you may opt to wait for our next run of barrels with further design changes to improve the performance of the 90gr. bullets. The choice comes down to your choice of application and ammo.
Please respond to this email with your preference.
If you choose to wait, your order will still be fulfilled in the order it was received as soon as the new barrels arrive and are tested. If you choose to wait, we expect to ship your order sometime in May.
Sincerely,
JP Customer service team"
and for what it's worth, the post I was confusing myself with about the jackets spinning off of bullets is from the 22 Creedmoor, where they are pushing 90gr bullets to 3000+fps, exceeding the 300k RPM threshold and disintegrating bullets in mid air (https://www.ocabj.net/224-valkyrie-mini-project-build/)
Similar issue seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07tseYJUvHA
So perhaps that 88 gr was spinning too slow and simply not stable. In any case, the accuracy was not acceptable at 100 with either load.
I have an AR barrel that will (for whatever reason) spin 55 gr hornady soft points into oblivion.
Interesting stuff. I have been arguing with myself whether I wanted to reload for another caliber. I have 223 gun I could rebarrel. If the heavy stuff is going to cause problems, not much point in my mind of getting involved.
Coal Dragger
12-27-18, 14:50
Interesting thread look forward to updates as they come in. Curious what twist rate will be needed at given velocities to stabilize the 90gr bullets, I’ve considered a .224 Valkyrie rebarrel on one upper but have been letting others get it figured out first.
For what it's worth, the gun cycled good. He was running some sort of 6.8 spc mag.
The guy called Wilson Combat and was told to try lighter bullets and said they heard of these stories. They said get back to them if it doesn't work out and they would make good on whatever needed to be done . Good call by WC.
I agree, if you have to shoot 55-62 grain pills then why even have the gun. Seem like this caliber got ahead of itself for a minute.
The .224 Valkyrie has been plagued by a number of barrels being too slow in twist to stabilize the heavier 90gr projectiles at the velocities they are pushing it. Someone smarter than me on SH commented that the .224 Valkyrie was a great way of breathing life into dead inventory of "match grade" 223 barrels.
Many manufacturers took their old inventory and re-chambered the dead stock of 1:7 .223 barrels with the new reamer for .224 Valkyrie and suddenly they had a new hot product on their hands; but this resulted in a lot of .224 Valkyrie barrels floating around with insufficient twist for the .224. JP put out a memo even acknowledging this:
JP’s letter never said anything about twist rate not being sufficient to stabilize the projectiles. The letter said that the 90gr bullets were not meeting JP’s accuracy requirements. I’ve shot several JP barrels that were sub-MOA with the 88gr ELD ammo and SOME lots of 90gr Gold Medal. Also, both Frank Galli and Brian Whalen have taken JP barrels (with 88gr ammo) out to 1500 yards. JP’s current barrels are still 1:7 twist.
Also, nobody is just rechambering .223 barrels as .224 Valkyrie without major rework. The Valkyrie case is shorter and will not completely replace a .223 chamber. To change an existing .223 barrel, you would have to spin off the barrel extension, cut .060” to .080” off the back end of the barrel, reinstall the barrel extension (timed with the existing gas port), and then finish the .224 Valkyrie chamber.
Federal put the 90gr Gold Medal load on a temporary hold while they worked with Sierra to improve the 90gr SMK projectile. Within the last month or so, Federal has started to ship the improved FGMM rounds out to the public. Initial reports are that accuracy and consistency have greatly improved.
Also, nobody is just rechambering .223 barrels as .224 Valkyrie without major rework. The Valkyrie case is shorter and will not completely replace a .223 chamber. To change an existing .223 barrel, you would have to spin off the barrel extension, cut .060” to .080” off the back end of the barrel, reinstall the barrel extension (timed with the existing gas port), and then finish the .224 Valkyrie chamber.
Perhaps they were trying to move barrel blanks.... not .223/556 completed AR barrels.
None the less, I'd like to see what this same barrel would do with a few various lighter bullet loads.
JP’s letter never said anything about twist rate not being sufficient to stabilize the projectiles. The letter said that the 90gr bullets were not meeting JP’s accuracy requirements. I’ve shot several JP barrels that were sub-MOA with the 88gr ELD ammo and SOME lots of 90gr Gold Medal. Also, both Frank Galli and Brian Whalen have taken JP barrels (with 88gr ammo) out to 1500 yards. JP’s current barrels are still 1:7 twist.
Also, nobody is just rechambering .223 barrels as .224 Valkyrie without major rework. The Valkyrie case is shorter and will not completely replace a .223 chamber. To change an existing .223 barrel, you would have to spin off the barrel extension, cut .060” to .080” off the back end of the barrel, reinstall the barrel extension (timed with the existing gas port), and then finish the .224 Valkyrie chamber.
Federal put the 90gr Gold Medal load on a temporary hold while they worked with Sierra to improve the 90gr SMK projectile. Within the last month or so, Federal has started to ship the improved FGMM rounds out to the public. Initial reports are that accuracy and consistency have greatly improved.
I suppose I am guilty of making assumptions when I read a letter from a manufacturer that says "our barrels aren't meeting our accuracy guarantee" and their solution is to "shoot lighter bullets" that the twist rate is the fault. I've also seen / watched some commentary (admittedly hearsay) that say manufacturers told them their barrels were made with a bad reamer. (https://youtu.be/fijolxcIPLY?t=71)
Has JP released their updated barrels? I don't follow the 224V drama much; I assume their new barrel will be a faster twist, maybe I'm incorrect and they've already addressed the issue.
I can't be the only one with this line of thinking with stuff like this floating around:
https://i.imgur.com/gnCaEIV.png
https://i.imgur.com/IupAerk.png
https://i.imgur.com/m8sl3CC.png
https://i.imgur.com/DYu1s91.png
With regards to Frank Galli and the other Criterion sponsored shooter, I have trouble trusting what they say their equipment is. I work in a similar field and what our "pros" and "media personalities" get sent is very different from what the general public actually receive, and to my knowledge most of Franks' content is shot at a very high altitude (mile or more) which will favor stability SIGNIFICANTLY over where OP is shooting.
Perhaps they were trying to move barrel blanks.... not .223/556 completed AR barrels.
This is precisely what I meant.
With regards to Frank Galli and the other Criterion sponsored shooter, I have trouble trusting what they say their equipment is. I work in a similar field and what our "pros" and "media personalities" get sent is very different from what the general public actually receive, and to my knowledge most of Franks' content is shot at a very high altitude (mile or more) which will favor stability SIGNIFICANTLY over where OP is shooting.
Same thing in the music equipment industry. Signature model guitar stuff is almost never what the artist is actually using.
I suppose I am guilty of making assumptions when I read a letter from a manufacturer that says "our barrels aren't meeting our accuracy guarantee" and their solution is to "shoot lighter bullets" that the twist rate is the fault. I've also seen / watched some commentary (admittedly hearsay) that say manufacturers told them their barrels were made with a bad reamer. (https://youtu.be/fijolxcIPLY?t=71) Don’t know what to tell you but I’ve also spoken with folks at JP and they relayed the info about some lots of the 90gr FGMM working well and others didn’t work as well. This was born out with my own experience with JP barrels, an X-Caliber barrel, and a Craddock Precision barrel. Lots that shot bad in one barrel shot poorly in the others, as well.
Has JP released their updated barrels? I don't follow the 224V drama much; I assume their new barrel will be a faster twist, maybe I'm incorrect and they've already addressed the issue.
JP’s current barrels are 1:7 twist with a SAAMI-spec reamer, per my conversations with them.
I can't be the only one with this line of thinking with stuff like this floating around:
(Images snipped)
Federal tested stability and accuracy with 1:7 twist and several companies (CMT Tactical, Larue, JP, and Craddock) still offer 1:7 barrels that are performing well. I look at it the same way as 1:7 vs. 1:8 twist barrels for 300 BLK. It may or may not be needed, but people are going to want the 1:7 just because it’s available. With respect to the Johnny’s Reloading Bench videos, I would be more interested in him doing a comparison between the two twists with factory ammo instead of hand loads. Apart from one group, the faster twist was only marginally better. There’s nothing wrong with running a faster twist barrel but a 1:7 twist is perfectly capable of accurately shooting 90gr SMKs given a correctly cut chamber.
With regards to Frank Galli and the other Criterion sponsored shooter, I have trouble trusting what they say their equipment is. I work in a similar field and what our "pros" and "media personalities" get sent is very different from what the general public actually receive, and to my knowledge most of Franks' content is shot at a very high altitude (mile or more) which will favor stability SIGNIFICANTLY over where OP is shooting.
Neither of those guys are sponsored by Criterion and Frank purchased his rifle from JP, it wasn’t supplied. As far as I know, his rifle used off the shelf parts. I don’t know about Brian Whalen’s rifle but I believe his is also built with standard parts. Frank is very active on Sniper’s Hide and has a thread started about his JP rifle and its performance. He’s also posted a couple of videos with them shooting their Valkyrie gas guns. In terms of altitude, I believe their shooting was done at Blue Steel Ranch in NM (elevation: ~4000 ft). Markm (the OP) is in AZ and the average altitude of the state is also 4000 feet. If OP is in a drastically different altitude, then I apologize.
To answer the OP’s original question, a 6 mil drop seems VERY excessive. Even a slow 88 ELD or 90gr SMK should only need around 3 mils (per your original assumption).
To answer the OP’s original question, a 6 mil drop seems VERY excessive. Even a slow 88 ELD or 90gr SMK should only need around 3 mils (per your original assumption).
Absolutely. This and the dismal accuracy at 100 is pointing to some big stability problem.
Absolutely. This and the dismal accuracy at 100 is pointing to some big stability problem.
Wilson Combat uses 1:6.5 twist barrels so stability due to twist is not likely the issue. The 90gr Fusion accuracy doesn't surprise me as I haven't really seen any exceptional accuracy with them.
As odd as it sounds, the one X-Caliber barrel I had shot the factory 88gr like crap (huge POI shift and 3 MOA+ groups at 100 yards). It shot everything else just fine. It actually shot Fusion slightly better than the ELD's...
Do Markm (the OP) is in AZ and the average altitude of the state is also 4000 feet. If OP is in a drastically different altitude, then I apologize.
Missed this before... Elevation where we shoot is around 1400 feet.
If we get the gun back together, we may try both chronoing the ammo, and shooting through paper at distance to see if there's keyholing, etc.
Kansaswoodguy
01-02-19, 18:14
Have you verified twist rate with a cleaning rod? Maybe the wrong blank was used by mistake.
Have you verified twist rate with a cleaning rod? Maybe the wrong blank was used by mistake.
We have not.
The part we don't get at all is when we tried to reach out to 500 yards. The come up to get it on target was like 6 plus mils, when is should have been 3 or less. We didn't have our truck with the chrono in the back, so we couldn't check velocity.
How could this round possible dump enough velocity to need 6 mils at 500 yards???
Have you chrono'd this load yet?
IMHO there's a lot of marketing games being played with the Valk. Ballistic performance is touted using a 24" barrel while the vast majority of the uppers and rifles sold are 18-20". Much of the load data I'm seeing from Hodgdon and others for both the Valk and the .22 Nosler makes me question the usefulness compared to 5.56 NATO, .223AI and .22/250
Have you chrono'd this load yet?
No. The guy just took his barrel back from Pappabear. I think he's going to return it.
Roger that, thanks.
I'm watching this closely. I'm not yet convinced that the Valk is going to perform beyond the marketing hype. Of course I'm the guy who took one look at the 6.5 Creed and remembered it as the .260 Bobcat round that Jim Carmichael touted to an unimpressed shooting community a quarter century ago.
Im so slow to adapt new calibers but I fell for the 6.5 and I am not disappointed, but its going to take some crazy developments to get me on board with the Valk, but good for this who champion the new calibers or we would all be shooting 30-06.
PB
Im so slow to adapt new calibers but I fell for the 6.5 and I am not disappointed, but its going to take some crazy developments to get me on board with the Valk, but good for this who champion the new calibers or we would all be shooting 30-06.
PB
Gotcha! I agree.
Developing new calibers? Good.
Hyped marketing of new calibers before all the development's done? Not so much...
Roger that, thanks.
I'm watching this closely. I'm not yet convinced that the Valk is going to perform beyond the marketing hype. Of course I'm the guy who took one look at the 6.5 Creed and remembered it as the .260 Bobcat round that Jim Carmichael touted to an unimpressed shooting community a quarter century ago.
We took the gun back out the weekend before last, and the barrel shot better using some 75 grain bullets if I remember correctly. The guy is going to get some more heavier stuff and bring it out again.
As far as the 500 yard fiasco... there was a scope/user issue going on there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.