As noted above, makes it easier to load bullets and it can avoid brass damage to the case neck from forcing a bullet where it does not want to go.
.224 Valkyrie? Anyone
- Thread starter TheDomFather
- Start date
- Status
As noted above, makes it easier to load bullets and it can avoid brass damage to the case neck from forcing a bullet where it does not want to go.
bpshooter13
Member
I remember reading this from the April 24th White Oak Armaments newsletter I received via email regarding twist rate for 224 Valkyrie. Interesting and pertinent to the thread so I thought I'd add it. It might be worth waiting for a 1 in 6.5 twist barrel from White Oak if you want to shoot heavy bullets which is kind of the point...
Spring has finally arrived in Central Illinois and two new cartridges the .22 Nosler and .224 Valkyrie continue to keep us busy, not only making the barrels, but answering questions too. So much information is available online, some of it even accurate information, but much of it just marketing hype. The result being that it is very hard to sort the wheat from the chaff and it is leaving a lot of people confused.
We are working on an article for next month’s newsletter to hopefully shed some light on the topic, or maybe just add to the information overload. Bottom line is both are great cartridges with just enough difference that they each fill a slightly different niche. Both have also had its obstacles to overcome. The Nosler was hindered early on by some poor brass, and with the Valkyrie we have learned again that the 90 gr .224 bullets do not reliably stabilize in a 1-7 twist (we learned that the first time back 20 years ago when we were shooting the 90’s in our service rifles). Nosler has made improvements to the brass which from early testing looks to have taken care of or at least greatly reduced the problems, and we are working on ramping up our inventory of 1-6.5 twist barrels for those who want to shoot the 90 gr and 95 gr bullets out of either cartridge. At this time we are assuming the 95 gr will work in a 1-6.5 twist based on Sierra’s information, but we have not done our own testing. However I have found that you can usually trust Sierra for such information (the Sierra box said that the 90’s needed a 1-6.5, it was the Federal box that said 1-7 would do). Fortunately, there are a lot of very good 75-83 gr bullets that will stabilize in a 1-7 and give excellent long range performance.
Again, we hope to have something put together for the next issue with some chronograph data and our thoughts on the cartridges and the differences between them.
We are working on an article for next month’s newsletter to hopefully shed some light on the topic, or maybe just add to the information overload. Bottom line is both are great cartridges with just enough difference that they each fill a slightly different niche. Both have also had its obstacles to overcome. The Nosler was hindered early on by some poor brass, and with the Valkyrie we have learned again that the 90 gr .224 bullets do not reliably stabilize in a 1-7 twist (we learned that the first time back 20 years ago when we were shooting the 90’s in our service rifles). Nosler has made improvements to the brass which from early testing looks to have taken care of or at least greatly reduced the problems, and we are working on ramping up our inventory of 1-6.5 twist barrels for those who want to shoot the 90 gr and 95 gr bullets out of either cartridge. At this time we are assuming the 95 gr will work in a 1-6.5 twist based on Sierra’s information, but we have not done our own testing. However I have found that you can usually trust Sierra for such information (the Sierra box said that the 90’s needed a 1-6.5, it was the Federal box that said 1-7 would do). Fortunately, there are a lot of very good 75-83 gr bullets that will stabilize in a 1-7 and give excellent long range performance.
Again, we hope to have something put together for the next issue with some chronograph data and our thoughts on the cartridges and the differences between them.
CoalTrain49
Member
Another new .224, who would have guessed it? I hope that everyone that buys these new .224"s, 6 and 6.5mm rifles reload. If you don't you're going to be spending big bucks on ammo. I just looked and .224 V is 0.45/rd. All I can figure out is the ammo companies who introduce these new cartridges must think the profit margin is in the new cartridges. It probably doesn't cost an ammo manufacturer anymore to make .224 Vlk than .223 Rem. but retail it costs about twice as much.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
The eighty eight grain ELDs cost one dollar more than the eighty grain bullets. The eighty extra grains of lead and copper in the pack of one hundred is worth one bullet. So that bullet is worth one dollar.
It must be the best shooting one in the box, but for the life of me, I can't figure out which bullet it is.
They all look the same!
It must be the best shooting one in the box, but for the life of me, I can't figure out which bullet it is.
They all look the same!
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,933
Only considering the raw materials unit cost of a new product isn’t an appropriate means of comparing the life cycle cost of a new product against a legacy product. It absolutely costs companies a LOT of money to begin production of a new product. From hard costs of tooling to soft costs of production time/campaign commitment (meaning time which can’t be used to produce other products with lower capitalization), marketing, R&D, inventory costs for inbound supply as well as product, product development and management overhead costs, sales force training costs, licensing costs - where applicable, supply chain overhead...
Knowing what it costs for high unit volume CPG manufacturers to tool up for new products, I can’t imagine a larger ammunition manufacturer like Winchester/Olin, Remington, Hornady, Federal, etc could have anything less than a few million dollars invested when they pump out a new cartridge.
From what I understand, Federal had just completed a military contract selling 6.8 SPC to some Middle Eastern countries. I suspect that tooling was paid for by the contract. Thus, all that was required on that end was changing the dies to neck the brass to .223. The longer heavier bullets were already produced as well. So, load analysis and marketing were probably the major costs here along with coordinating and persuading barrel and bolt manufacturers to support the product.
The proliferation of cartridges is driven by the same process as why there are so many different car and SUV's floating around. To make more money, you have to offer a different experience than simply offering a box with powerplant and wheels. It is easier if you spin off something that is relatively easy to adapt your manufacturing process to.
Toyota has to differentiate between a Corolla and Lexus if they want people to pay more for the Lexus but do so where they can make a profit. I remember GM botching such a thing when they made a smaller cheaper Cadillac out of the same frame as a Cavalier. Problem was that GM did not do a very good job at making that Cadillac Cimarron model appear much different than the Chevy Cavalier--same outside lines, colors, etc. https://infogalactic.com/info/Cadillac_Cimarron
Sears used to do this with their Good, Better, and Best lines when they were actually trying to run a retail business.
The proliferation of cartridges is driven by the same process as why there are so many different car and SUV's floating around. To make more money, you have to offer a different experience than simply offering a box with powerplant and wheels. It is easier if you spin off something that is relatively easy to adapt your manufacturing process to.
Toyota has to differentiate between a Corolla and Lexus if they want people to pay more for the Lexus but do so where they can make a profit. I remember GM botching such a thing when they made a smaller cheaper Cadillac out of the same frame as a Cavalier. Problem was that GM did not do a very good job at making that Cadillac Cimarron model appear much different than the Chevy Cavalier--same outside lines, colors, etc. https://infogalactic.com/info/Cadillac_Cimarron
Sears used to do this with their Good, Better, and Best lines when they were actually trying to run a retail business.
It would help if you typed "2752 fps" and "25.32 gr" instead of "twenty five hundred fifty two feet per second" and "twenty five and thirty two hundredths of a grain".
CoalTrain49
Member
Just about all of the things you mentioned are capital expenditures. R&D is an actual dollar-for-dollar credit against taxes owed or taxes paid. Additionally, the taxpayer may be able to expense all such qualifying R&D costs in the year incurred.
You can't just say that the million dollars invested isn't somehow recaptured in a companies 5 year business plan. These ammo mfg's may in fact already know that the cartridge might be a flop, maybe even counting on it. In the case of Hornady, they're probably looking at the reloading market anyway. That one is an easy trap to fall into.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,933
“Recaptured” value is a poor way of saying “ROI.”
Inventory costs, supply chain, product management, marketing... it’s all continuous cost to steward the product throughout it’s life cycle. The more product SKU’s you manage, the more money you’ll spend managing SKU’s.
Inventory costs, supply chain, product management, marketing... it’s all continuous cost to steward the product throughout it’s life cycle. The more product SKU’s you manage, the more money you’ll spend managing SKU’s.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
Means, I can't. I'd rather buy lead than a keyboard. Though I understand what you mean, that's why I included the picture.
Interesting article on barrel length effects on the .224 Valkyrie including comparison with other long range cartridges. Helped me make up my mind on what sort of barrel lengths might work to the Valkyrie's advantage.
He is using an altered Remington 700 action (with a .224 valkyrie/6.8 bolt head) and a Shilen barrel.
https://rifleshooter.com/2018/02/224-valkyrie-effect-of-barrel-length-on-velocity/
He is using an altered Remington 700 action (with a .224 valkyrie/6.8 bolt head) and a Shilen barrel.
https://rifleshooter.com/2018/02/224-valkyrie-effect-of-barrel-length-on-velocity/
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
Yes, it’s a giant conspiracy to make money, almost as if they are a for profit company.
I never understand why people seem to think that the idea of an ammo manufacture trying to make money by marketing new products is somehow a bad thing. Don’t we all want them to make money selling speciality products at high margin so that we can get our commodity products at low margin? If we don’t want to pay a premium for speciality products we simply don’t have to buy them.
I never understand why people seem to think that the idea of an ammo manufacture trying to make money by marketing new products is somehow a bad thing. Don’t we all want them to make money selling speciality products at high margin so that we can get our commodity products at low margin? If we don’t want to pay a premium for speciality products we simply don’t have to buy them.
Just about all of the things you mentioned are capital expenditures. R&D is an actual dollar-for-dollar credit against taxes owed or taxes paid. Additionally, the taxpayer may be able to expense all such qualifying R&D costs in the year incurred.
You can't just say that the million dollars invested isn't somehow recaptured in a companies 5 year business plan. These ammo mfg's may in fact already know that the cartridge might be a flop, maybe even counting on it. In the case of Hornady, they're probably looking at the reloading market anyway. That one is an easy trap to fall into.
CoalTrain49
Member
I guess what all this comes down to is the fact that any new cartridge is going to have to be versatile. The 224 V is a far better 22 cartridge for long range but it still has it's limitations. Will it replace the .223, I doubt it. The first reason is the .223 is fine for 400 yards and it's probably the cheapest CF cartridge to shoot. If you want LRP, step on up to a 6.5 CM. Want an LRP AR, step on up to a 6.5 CM. Want an LRP AR and a good game cartridge, step on up to a 6.5 CM. Now that's my idea of a versatile cartridge.
Personally, I'm just not seeing this .224 V going anywhere. Wait 5 years and see if anyone still builds ammo for less than .50/rnd.
Personally, I'm just not seeing this .224 V going anywhere. Wait 5 years and see if anyone still builds ammo for less than .50/rnd.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,933
Why do luddites assume every new cartridge released to market has to REPLACE cartridges which went before?
The lack in understanding of market competition in our culture is astonishing.
The lack in understanding of market competition in our culture is astonishing.
Skylerbone
Member
I read from doubters the very same arguments about the new 6.5s. Get a .308. The 30-06 already answered that question. Remember who’s gonna buy 9mm when we have .38SPL? 40 S&W??? Really??? Man up and carry a .45ACP. And my favorite; why would anyone want an AR, they’re ugly, inaccurate, expensive, and they don’t run well (ok that last one was dad’s advice).
Speaking of dad, it took me buying a CW9 and giving it to him before he finally quit carrying his Colt government. Now that’s just one senior being recruited but there are scores of newer shooters with empty safes looking to fill them who do not have an ingrained position on what they “should” buy.
Speaking of dad, it took me buying a CW9 and giving it to him before he finally quit carrying his Colt government. Now that’s just one senior being recruited but there are scores of newer shooters with empty safes looking to fill them who do not have an ingrained position on what they “should” buy.
CoalTrain49
Member
Well, that's the marketing hype I keep reading. It took 10 years for the Creedmoor to catch on even though it was designed from the ground up to be a versatile cartridge, which it is. Eventually I think it actually will move some older cartridges aside, it's that good.
The 22 Nosler was introduced a year before the .224 V. As nearly as I can tell the .224 V does the same thing except it has a larger case head and needs a different AR bolt face. I don't know that from experience tho because I'm not an AR fan.
Maybe federal can convince people that it's a better cartridge but I doubt it. I don't think either one will ever be as cheap to shoot as .223 or even close. I shoot 2-3K of .223 a year. If I were shooting .224V that would be $1100 in ammo costs for factory ammo. I realize not everyone shoots that much but what's the point of LRP if you only shoot a few boxes of ammo a year. You certainly don't need LRP to hunt. The two box a year guys are hunters and a 22 probably wouldn't be their choice anyway. That's my understanding of market competition.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
That's exactly my point. The 9 mm has been around over a hundred years. Some people still won't buy one because they have preconceived notions about the cartridge. One of the reasons a new cartridge has to be better in every way for people to even consider buying into it and some still won't. They just go with what they know and what works for them.
If you buy me a new .224 V I promise I'll shoot it. I'll even take some pics at the range to verify that I'm actually shooting it and I'll send you the sales receipt for the dies and brass if I can find any.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,933
Again - a complete lack of understanding in competitive marketing. If Product X is great, Product Y doesn’t have to be great, and it can happily compete in the same market just by being the same.
Coke, Pepsi. Ford, Dodge. Nike, Reebok. Apple, Samsung.
Capitalist markets thrive on competition. Consumers often buy products just because they are NOT mainstream.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
Precisely. I won't be shooting at a thousand for some time yet. I have a Valkyrie purely because it is new and different.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
I’m just not sure what your point is. The .224 Valk is not meant to compete with .223, nor expected to be as cheap as .223. The point is that it’s a cartridge that’s meant to stretch the capabilities of the AR15 platform. Other cartridges have successfully done this in the past by focusing on various capabilities. Many continue to be successfully sold along side of .223. Is the .224 guaranteed to exist forever? No. Is it better than everything at everything? No. Is it the economy cartridge of the future? No. It’s just another option. For many it’s just another excuse to build or buy another upper receiver. This is America, we don’t have to worry about every product being “necessary.”
CoalTrain49
Member
Yes, but do they buy enough of them to keep the product line profitable. Companies drop product lines all the time because there is no longer enough demand. Tell me what happened to the WSM cartridges. If there is that much room in the market as you suggest why have so many new cartridges more or less disappeared?
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,933
I would say your “more or less disappeared” must really mean, “aren’t mentioned in gun mags any more...”
WSM’s are still kicking around. Might not be making the headlines in hunting magazines, but there’s still ammo on the shelves, still rifles, still brass (actually better supply for WSM brass today than there was 5-10yrs ago).
Ruger Compact Mags and the RSAUM’s are still kicking around as well. The 416Remington never has been mainstream, it’s still around, even feeding an incredibly niche application - replace “Remington” with Rigby, and the statement remains true. 404 Jeffery just made a bit of a resurgence after around 50yrs of near-obscurity. The .458win Mag has enjoyed continuous life, despite being a very low volume and variable popularity cartridge. The 6.5 Grendel is doing better today than any time in a decade before, despite overwhelmingly bad market launch strategy by Bill Alexander. The 6.8spc is still enjoying blood flow despite being overshadowed in the firearms advertising media by the 300blk while it was still in adolescence - which has already itself been overshadowed by the 22 Nosler and 224 Valkyrie. The 6mm Dasher is more popular today than any time in the last 15yrs at least. The 260remington was floundering around in “whocaresville” for decades before the 6.5 Creedmoor shined a spotlight on its cartridge class... how popular would you consider the 17 Remington, 22 Hornet, 7 Dakota, 30-378 Weatherby, 257 Roberts, 7-30 waters, 7 Mauser, 221 Fireball, 17 Mach IV, 30-40 Krag, 32 Special, or any of a thousand other cartridges which can be found in production for ammo or brass, but which don’t draw much market popularity or gun magazine/online forum fanfare?
There’s a wide chasm between the second most popular cartridge in the world (5.56/223) and complete obscurity. A friend messaged me today about a Winchester 71 in 348winchester - only two models of rifle were ever chambered for it, one of which was almost cartridge exclusive, and production halted 60 years ago, and only 3 factory loads were made even when it was in production. An obscure rifle in an obscure cartridge of an obscure caliber, but brass, bullets, and dies remain readily available to keep a rifle well fed...
So when you say “disappear,” it tends to make a guy think it can’t be found - whereas any of these new cartridges haven’t “disappeared”.
WSM’s are still kicking around. Might not be making the headlines in hunting magazines, but there’s still ammo on the shelves, still rifles, still brass (actually better supply for WSM brass today than there was 5-10yrs ago).
Ruger Compact Mags and the RSAUM’s are still kicking around as well. The 416Remington never has been mainstream, it’s still around, even feeding an incredibly niche application - replace “Remington” with Rigby, and the statement remains true. 404 Jeffery just made a bit of a resurgence after around 50yrs of near-obscurity. The .458win Mag has enjoyed continuous life, despite being a very low volume and variable popularity cartridge. The 6.5 Grendel is doing better today than any time in a decade before, despite overwhelmingly bad market launch strategy by Bill Alexander. The 6.8spc is still enjoying blood flow despite being overshadowed in the firearms advertising media by the 300blk while it was still in adolescence - which has already itself been overshadowed by the 22 Nosler and 224 Valkyrie. The 6mm Dasher is more popular today than any time in the last 15yrs at least. The 260remington was floundering around in “whocaresville” for decades before the 6.5 Creedmoor shined a spotlight on its cartridge class... how popular would you consider the 17 Remington, 22 Hornet, 7 Dakota, 30-378 Weatherby, 257 Roberts, 7-30 waters, 7 Mauser, 221 Fireball, 17 Mach IV, 30-40 Krag, 32 Special, or any of a thousand other cartridges which can be found in production for ammo or brass, but which don’t draw much market popularity or gun magazine/online forum fanfare?
There’s a wide chasm between the second most popular cartridge in the world (5.56/223) and complete obscurity. A friend messaged me today about a Winchester 71 in 348winchester - only two models of rifle were ever chambered for it, one of which was almost cartridge exclusive, and production halted 60 years ago, and only 3 factory loads were made even when it was in production. An obscure rifle in an obscure cartridge of an obscure caliber, but brass, bullets, and dies remain readily available to keep a rifle well fed...
So when you say “disappear,” it tends to make a guy think it can’t be found - whereas any of these new cartridges haven’t “disappeared”.
Last edited:
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
The reality is, most people can probably live their whole life full with nothing but .22LR, 9MM Luger, 5.56x45, and .308 Win. Some though like finding something a little bit niche to their use. We could all drive F-150s or Toyota Camrys and complain that big auto is trying to take advantage of us by marketing other options that may or may not be popular 10 years from now, but it seems like a more useful discussion is talking about the limitations and advantages of a particular cartridge so people can decide for themselves what they want. If someone can only afford 1 rifle or has really limited resources, yeah I probably wouldn’t recommend a speciality product. Recommend the commodity product. If people are going out of their way to explore lots of options and have the resources to obtain a specific tool for specific jobs then what’s the problem? So, in 5 years when if it disappears I’ll by another barrel and bolt, or I’ll just load it myself like I do for .277 WLV which can’t be purchased in any store today.
I suppose the Valkyrie is okay, but it seems to be more relevant to the AR platform than to greatly improving ballistics in the .224 realm. If I were into increased performance from a short-action .224 bore, I'd look at the .22-250 Ackley Improved, which solves the tapered body/case-stretching problem of the original while improving ballistics. If rifle twist rate is increased, it would shoot heavier bullets than the original .22-250, which was good under 300 yards, but a little too wind-sensitive with 50-55 grain bullets. Now that would be a great .22 Centerfire to own!
Coal Dragger
member
Another new .224, who would have guessed it? I hope that everyone that buys these new .224"s, 6 and 6.5mm rifles reload. If you don't you're going to be spending big bucks on ammo. I just looked and .224 V is 0.45/rd. All I can figure out is the ammo companies who introduce these new cartridges must think the profit margin is in the new cartridges. It probably doesn't cost an ammo manufacturer anymore to make .224 Vlk than .223 Rem. but retail it costs about twice as much.
A quick search rendered .223/5.56mm match ammo coming out to $1.05/round for Black Hills 77gr (SMK), and .224 Valkyrie with a 90gr SMK at $1.30/round.
$0.25/round difference in price for much longer legs, and ability to cheat the wind if you step up to the .224 Valkyrie.
No one who buys the Valkyrie is probably all that concerned with bargain basement bulk ammo. That is what 5.56mm uppers are for. Comparing the two based on plinking ammo costs is stupid. No one is buying a .224 Valkyrie because it can shoot cheap bulk ammo.
Your argument is without merit, and therefore invalid.
- Status
