5.56X45 Ammunition In The News
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 8 months ago
The simplest, yet most important, difference between the two cartridges is their respective pressure limits. The .223 Rem. cartridge is held to a lower pressure than 5.56 NATO. Some of the testing methods to determine these actual pressures can be confusing, as both cartridges have been tested by the ballistic authorities (read CIP and SAAMI) in the same 5.56 mm chamber, and the resulting data will appear to be nearly equal. However, because of the dimensional variations in the distance between the case mouth and the beginning of the rifling, trying to fire 5.56 NATO ammunition in a .223 Rem. chamber is, simply put, just a bad idea.
The reverse is not true. It is, and always will be, safe to shoot .223 Rem. ammunition in a chamber marked for 5.56 NATO. Commit that idea to memory, and you’ll never get in trouble. The pressures that a 5.56 NATO cartridge can generate are too high for the .223 Rem. chamber, and that is based primarily on the leade dimensions. If you feel that the ability to shoot 5.56 NATO ammunition out of your .223 Rem.-chambered rifle is paramount, take that rifle to a competent gunsmith to have the chamber reamed out to handle 5.56 NATO ammunition.
That chamber dimension for the 5.56 NATO is, in fact, slightly larger than the chamber for the .223 Rem.—in order to have the smoothest feeding and ejection, even with a dirty weapon, to best serve as a battlefield implement—but it is the leade dimension that makes the biggest difference. Leade is defined as the area from the bullet’s resting place before firing to the point where the rifling is engaged. The shorter the leade dimension, the faster the bullet will engage the rifling, and the faster the pressures can rise to a dangerous level.
The most interesting thing about the article is that there is a throw-down in the comments over whether the author is perpetuating the alleged “myth” that 5.56mm cases have thicker walls and therefore less volume, leading to the higher pressure.
John Farnam at Ammoland:
After decades of piously assuring us the 5.56×45 round was “adequate” for military purposes, despite mounting complaints (unsatisfactory range and penetration), dating back to Vietnam, the Pentagon has apparently finally changed its mind.
In spite of a dreary series of failed “wonder bullets” that have, every few years, come forth to “upgrade” the 5.56 round, faith that the 5.56 can ever be “adequate” is fading!
Just as the Marines are buying the HK 416 (M27), a gas-piston AR (in 5.56×45 caliber), to replace aging M4s, Congress and the Army are putting the breaks on that project.
After fifty years of pointless hope that the 5.56×45 round might really be “adequate,” a new, bigger military caliber may now be about to make its debut!
When the AR (in 5.56×45 caliber) first reared its head, and garnered the attention of then Secretary of Defense McNamara, it was slated to gradually replace only the M1 Carbine, never the M1 Garand, later the short-lived M14.
The M1 Carbine, manufactured by the millions during WWII, was originally intended only for rear-area defense and police actions. It was never intended to be a front-line, battle rifle, although it eventually found its way into every corner of the campaign during WWII and Korea.
When I was in Vietnam in 1968, M1 Carbines were still around in large numbers. I saw (and used) plenty of them.
Yet, the AR (in 5.56×45 caliber) somehow eventually became the main, battle rifle of all US Forces, and remains in that status to this day. This, despite continuous misgivings about its adequacy that have been desperately voiced since Vietnam.
Up until now, the Pentagon as assured us that these qualms about adequacy were all in our imaginations!
That is apparently about to change.
Of course, the Pentagon will never admit they’ve been wrong all this time. They’ll simply say “It’s time to move on.”
It was time to move on fifty years ago!
You can color me unimpressed with John’s analysis. First of all, nothing is going to change because Amerika is flat broke and printing money like there’s no tomorrow.
Second, the only real need for caseless ammunition is so that women can be sent into combat.
Third, there is nothing wrong with the 5.56mmX45. That’s the real myth here.
The 5.56mm round has killed scores of enemy fighters (hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions) in Vietnam, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan and South America. It doesn’t need to be replaced, and it did just fine for my son in Iraq.
There are exceptions, of course. He once told me of a time when he had to shoot an insurgent with a nine-round burst from his SAW, only to see the fighter keep coming at him. It took a grenade to stop him. He also told me that he and other Marines had to continue the fight with insurgents (foreign fighters) who had lost limbs and continued to shoot or fist fight.
Those kinds of fighters are ideologically motivated and doped up on epinephrine and morphine. They tested them and learned that information after the fact. It would take a .50 Sasser to bring someone like that down with one shot.
The better option is to teach Soldiers to shoot, uphill and down, at distance, and supplement their ranks with a designated marksman who shoots something larger than the 5.56mm or employ a crew served weapon. Each weapon system has its purpose, and there isn’t a do-everything gun. If anyone tells you that, he’s lying.
On the other hand, if they do actually replace the 5.56X45, I’ll just grin and nod and say, “Good. That’s just more for me.”
On August 9, 2018 at 11:51 pm, sambo said:
I agree. And we do not have to stick to FMJ rounds. We have all kinds of better bullets to choose from.
On August 10, 2018 at 7:37 am, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith,
“You can color me unimpressed with John’s analysis.” I agree.
There is this mentality in Amerika that if something or someone is “old” that they or that item are no longer useful. How wrong those folks are.
Regarding 5.56mm, I have long been a proponent of 77 grain bullets as standard fare in a 5.56mm loading. Seeing as Mark 262, Mod 1 is already in the system, it would a simple event to change standard 5.56mm issue to 77 grain cartridges.
Should the military-congressional-industrial complex get the change they want, as you stated, there will be more for me (5.56mm).
On August 10, 2018 at 8:28 am, JoeFour said:
Slightly off-topic–I stumbled across this video last night that gives one Marine’s perspective on the M27 (he really liked it)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9_rHu772s
On August 10, 2018 at 8:53 am, Fred said:
“take that rifle to a competent gunsmith to have the chamber reamed out to handle 5.56 NATO ammunition.”
Can somebody explain this to me? Is this a real thing to do with a .223 barrel? This seems like terrible advise. Shouldn’t one get a purpose built weapon?
On August 10, 2018 at 10:20 am, June J said:
@Fred.
When I read the report yesterday that comment struck me as terrible advice.
Although I have shot a lot of 5.56 in my 80’s vintage “.223 only” Ruger Mini-14 with no issues, I would never have the chamber/barrel modified on it. (I don’t shoot 5.56 in it anymore since I bought an AR)
A better solution would be to replace the chamber/barrel with one specifically manufactured to handle both cartridges.
On August 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm, Gryphon said:
June – I had a similar, but Not Good experience with the Same Gun – an early 80’s Mini-14; Shot it a bunch w/commercial .223, then came across a Pile of M-193 Surplus stuff that Cambered just Fine, but Kicked noticeably Harder. I didn’t think anything about it other then the Military Loads were ‘Hotter’, until it started Jamming Bolt-Open.
Took it to a Gunsmith I knew, and He immediately went “Whoa! That’s going to eventually put the Bolt Upside your Head!” Bolt an Op Rod were starting to get Bent, so I replace them, and He hit the Barrel with the 5.56 Reamer, and it’s had over 5,000 More through it without a Failure. The Chambering Difference is only a Few Thousandths of an Inch; this is not the ‘Headspace’ but the Leade, or distance from Bullet to Rifling.
On August 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm, =TW= said:
A new barrel for your Mini might run into a few bucks:
http://www.accuratemini14.com/index.php
If performed competently, I see no problem with rechambering a .223 barrel to 5.56 . As noted in the OP, the 5.56 chamber is slightly larger and the leade is a bit longer. Very little material would be removed from the .223 barrel.
“Wilde” chambered AR’s are designed to accommodate both cartridges safely.
On August 10, 2018 at 4:48 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
In evaluating the performance of a given cartridge, such as the 5.56×45 NATO, or for that matter, its predecessor, the .30-Carbine – it is vital to keep in mind the roles for which these cartridges and their respective weapons were designed.
Although the M-1 Carbine is often categorized alongside the M-1 Garand SLR and Springfield M1903 bolt-action as a battle rifle, it was actually never intended to replace either of those designs. The M-1 was intended as a replacement or substitute for the M1911 Colt side-arm, as a weapon which improved the firepower available to personnel whose primary job was not as a rifleman – i.e., officers, senior NCOs, combat engineers, tank and artillery crewmen, and the like.
The M-1 (the M-2 was the version capable of select-fire) Carbine fired what amounts to a souped-up pistol cartridge (7.62×33), as is evident in its straight-walled case design. Firing 110-grain FMJ (Ball), a muzzle velocity of 1990 fps is attained, with an initial KE of 967 foot-lbs. Effective range was 300 yards, the maximum distance displayed on the rear ramp-style aperture sights.
Hardly the performance of 30-06 M2 Ball 150-grain, but then neither the rifle or its cartridge were meant to deliver that kind of performance.
The M-1/2 Carbine was explicitly designed for use at close-medium range, and performance falls off dramatically outside of the 0-300 yard envelope.
Depending upon whether one sees its cartridge as a true intermediate round or not, the M-1/2 Carbine may be considered the first actual assault rifle fielded by a major power – as it fulfills in its M-2 guise, all of the criteria of this new class of weapon, and appeared a year (1942) before the StG44/MP44.
– Short barrel/over-all length and light weight
– Capable of select-fire operation
– Fires from a closed-bolt (unlike a submachine gun)
– Employs a cartridge intermediate in power between a pistol/SMG cartridge and a full-power rifle cartridge.
– Optimal performance 0-300 yards (meters, as applicable)
Obviously, the StG44/MP44 became the archetype of all modern assault rifles. The M-1/2 Carbine, on the other hand, if it isn’t precisely an assault rifle according to some analysts, neatly fulfills the role of what has come to be known as a “PDW” – or personal defense weapon.
The great majority of complaints about the M-1/2 over the years have come about because of personnel using the weapon in roles for which it wasn’t designed.
The late Jim Cirillo, veteran of more than a dozen gunfights over the course of his career with the NY City Police Dept., including duty with the elite stake-out squad, preferred the M-1 Carbine for such use, and said that when used with hollow-point/expanding ammunition, the weapon was a potent fight-stopper.
In looking at the M16/AR15 story, it shares many commonalities with the M-1 Carbine, including at times some confusion about its intended role and use, as well as the design of the weapon itself and its cartridge.
The interesting thing about the AR15/M16/M4 family of weapons is that, while the design fits the criteria for being an assault rifle, the distinction isn’t quite as clear as it would be with an AK47/AKM or StG44/MP44.
As originally released, with a 20-inch barrel firing 55-grain FMJ, the M-16 was an assault rifle. Despite its sights being graduated to an optimist 800 meters, the rifle was best-suited for use inside 300 meters. Since both the M193 and its follow-up, the 5.56×45 M855 62-grain NATO standard round, were highly-dependent upon MV for their terminal effects, the weapon remained best-suited for close-to-medium range use.
By this time, short-barreled carbine versions of the rifle had appeared, the 14.5 inch barrel version being the most-common, but with other SBR variants available as well.
The plot thickened, however, with the technological advances made in the late 1990s and early 21st centuries. New, high-performance types of ammunition, not so dependent upon high MV for their terminal performance, began to appear – and the virtues of 69-77 grain bullets became known. Once manufacturers began mating these new ammunition choices with full-length rifle barrels with faster twist rates, the M16/AR15 family of 5.56×45 NATO weapons all of a sudden became more capable at ranges outside of its previous performance envelope.
A twenty-inch 1:7 RHT barrel mated to 77-grain OTM (open-tipped match) ammunition was effective out to at least 800 meters in most operational environments, and in really skilled hands, out to 1,000 meters. Often run suppressed, and with ancillary gear (DBAL, NVGs, TVG).
At present the Army and Marine Corps now issue M4-type 14.5-inch barrel carbines (1:7 RHT) to their personnel. Special purpose and special ops troops have a wide assortment of weapons at their disposal, including M4s chambered in non-standard calibers such as 300 Blackout, as well as SBRs and AR-pistols in a variety of short barrel lengths. Some of these, especially when chambered in pistol calibers, such as 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP, are de facto SMGs – even if they do fire from a closed bolt.
Many operators of these carbines use them suppressed, and as before, with ancillary gear (DBAL, NVGs, TVG).
Is the AR15/M16 an assault rifle, or a battle rifle? Is the M4 carbine an assault rifle, de facto SMG or a PDW?
In the end, it doesn’t matter what the tools are called, as long as they do the job asked of them by the grunts, the guys at the sharp end of the spear.
On August 10, 2018 at 9:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Georgiaboy,
Thanks for the long and detailed comment. You’re right about everything you said.
For the USMC, the doctrine is to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.”
Given this, a cartridge that works up to 600 meters or a little beyond, which is light enough to carry aplenty, and which is small enough to fit a copious amount in a magazine, is ideal.
If the doctrine evolves back to stand-off marksmanship from 1 Km, then you must consider the weapon in light of doctrinal modifications, and modify the weapons systems accordingly.
I don’t think any right-thinking man would claim that the 5.56mm is all you should have. But it’s ubiquitous enough that every man should have one or more guns in that caliber.
One reason I like what I’m seeing with the 224 Valkyrie is that it fires a bullet with an even higher BC and in the 90 gr range, giving you good performance out to 800-900 meters. Anything heavier and I’ll just stick to a bolt action hunting rifle.
And Savage makes a nice 224 Valkyrie gun that, compared to other new guns of like kind, is relatively reasonably priced. And the FDE Cerakote looks nice too.
Can you take a wild guess as to what I’m targeting for my next purchase?
On August 10, 2018 at 10:46 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Re: “And Savage makes a nice 224 Valkyrie gun that, compared to other new guns of like kind, is relatively reasonably priced. And the FDE Cerakote looks nice too. Can you take a wild guess as to what I’m targeting for my next purchase?”
Yep, and you aren’t the only one, I’m sure. It’s definitely an intriguing cartridge. I’m probably going to outwait the early-adopters and get one further down the road, so that maybe prices will come down a bit – but will probably hope on that train sooner or later. The Savage looks like an excellent platform – and knowing them, it is probably a tack-driver right out of the box.
Far as giving up 5.56×45 NATO/.223 Remington, it’s not going to happen at least as far as I am concerned. As I get older, light weight and modest recoil appeal more and more to me.
On August 10, 2018 at 11:13 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Regarding your interest in .224 Valkyrie, I notice that the Savage Arms MSR15 VALKYRIE features an 18-inch barrel with 5R rifling and a 1:7 twist. A 1:7 twist is perfectly adequate for handling 75-80-grain loads, depending on length, but may not be sufficient to stabilize the 90-grain Sierra Match King BTHP, especially at longer ranges (500 yards +).
Aeronautical engineer, Berger chief ballistician and owner of “applied Ballistics,” Bryan Litz, who is my go-to authority on matters related to exterior ballistics, rates the 1:7 as being adequate to stabilize 90-grains, but it is borderline. Meaning you’ll probably be OK with a 1:7 but no guarantees.
Something to think about. Personally, I’d have been happier if Savage had gone with a twist of 1:6.5 or 1:6, which is what the long-range high-power shooters prefer at Camp Perry for the 1,000 stage using the longest and heaviest .224-caliber pills – but Savage does make an excellent barrel and maybe my concerns are groundless. Just thought I’d mention it…
On August 10, 2018 at 11:14 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Typo corrections department:
“applied Ballistics” obviously ought to read “Applied Ballistics”…
On August 11, 2018 at 5:17 am, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith & Georgiaboy61,
There are few target engagements of opponents by riflemen beyond 300 meters. While this .224 Valkyrie appears to be a long-range shooter’s dream-come-true, the historical fact is engagement distances seldom exceed 300m. The actual target engagement ranges, more often than not, are 100-150m. Urban warfare engagement ranges occur at 30m or less, across the street and bad breath distances.
The benefits of any rifle/carbine, regardless of caliber, to engage opponents beyond 300m is NEGATED by visibility and the lack thereof. Target identification and then subsequent target engagement is hindered by the shooter’s ability to see the target. A camouflaged opponent is extremely difficult to see/acquire even at several meters distance. Combine that with incoming belt-fed rounds fired from 700m, whizzing past your ears and smacking all around you. Nevertheless, as a trained USMC 0321 or US Army 11B you attempt to engage the camouflaged, machine-gun firing bad guy(s) at 700m with your newly issued, (hypothetically), H&K wonder weapon chambered in that miracle caliber .224 Valkyrie. As you peer through your issue red dot sight or (if you’re fortunate) 4x ACOG in the 10 seconds you are willing to pop your head up, you ask yourself “How the f*** am I gonna hit this guy, can’t see him enough to hit ’em” ?
But never fear….the platoon’s 240B team is busy doing THEIR job putting area fire down on the machine-gun position. You observe the beaten zone .30 cal rounds impacting, helping to squash the machine-gun fire long enough for you and your team mates to take a deep breath, grab your balls and start fire & movement on the bad guy(s). In the meantime your platoon sergeant is calling in company mortar fires on the opposing machine gun position. With your 240B and mortars raining hellfire all around the MG, you are able to maneuver within 100-150m of the MG and SEE your camouflaged adversary. Using your beloved issue red dot sight or 4x ACOG (if you’re fortunate) you put several rounds of DoD’s beloved, long-range caliber .224 Valkyrie, into the combat effective zones of the opposing machine-gun team ! Whew. You breath a sigh of relief and thank the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex for having the insight to provide you the .224 Valkyrie chambered, wonder weapon !
For you folks so enthralled with long-range target engagements (500m +) I offer you this challenge. See what you can do. Then try it at 800m with a Valkyrie should you have one. No optic greater than 4x.
1. Secure a 8″ high, combat boot.
2. Place it at 300m.
3. Lay it on it’s side simulating a prone opponent.
4. Secure a shooting buddy or two (friend or relative).
5. Secure a shot timer.
6. As the shooter, secure an AR-malite or Kalashnikov (caliber your choice for either).
7. Equip your long arm with a red dot sight or a 3x/4x ACOG. ACOG is non-ocular focus. (Your aged eyes will appreciate the non-focus ACOG, hehehehe….).
8. Secure a loaded magazine
9. Secure numerous strings of firecrackers.
10. At your safe shooting range, cow pasture, backyard, whatever…. MAKE READY.
11. From the STANDING READY….
12. Without a “STANDBY” warning, your shooting buddy or two have in hand numerous strings of firecrackers, a dependable, wind-resistant lighter and the shot timer.
13. Within 60-90 seconds, randomly, of you acquiring your STANDING READY, your shooting buddy (or two) initiate the machine-gun attack by tossing strings of firecrackers to your front, left and right sides.
14. Upon the firecrackers going off, you may acquire and engage the opposing target….the 8″ high, combat boot at 300m.
15. Task, Conditions, Standard:
a. TASK: From the STANDING READY engage visible part(s) of machine gunner (combat boot) upon MG firing (firecrackers exploding).
b. CONDITIONS: Given a safe range allowing 300m target engagements, AR-malite or Kalashnikov weapon equipped with red dot sight or 3-4x ACOG, one 30rd magazine, loaded, 1-2 Assistants, several strings of firecrackers, 1ea shot timer, eye/ear pro for shooter and assistants.
c. STANDARDS: Within 30 seconds of initial contact (firecrackers exploding) shooter using any position (standing, kneeling, prone, no bench), acquires target (boot), engages target and hits target with one or more rounds from the shooter’s weapon.
GOOD LUCK !
For some insight into average, combat engagement ranges I suggest reading:
donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/Infantry-Rifle-Combat-Distances.html?m=1
On August 11, 2018 at 9:39 am, Robert Gschwind said:
I guess I made out. I bought a Ruger AR556. Takes both rounds. I figure when the SHTF, there will be lots of 223 and 556 laying around. I made my choice so I could fire both. The AR556 is not a light rifle by any means. It still weighs less than my M-1. I bought the M-1 to reach out and touch someone at a long distance. All weapons have their purpose.
On August 11, 2018 at 1:16 pm, Ray said:
When I was trained on the M16A1 ,WAY BACK , when everything was still OG107 all of our cadre were Vietnam vets. I was taught that the M16A1 firing the M193 had an MV of 3300 FPS with a maximum effective range. From quote. FM 7-8. “All ranges given are those at which a 50:50 chance of a target hit are expected” “Range -moving target. 200 meters; stationary target 250 meters” (page 1-17) We were trained that maximum GRAZING fire was 300 meters. We were also taught that with the “177E2” we should cut those ranges by half. We were taught that the maximum effective range of the AKM in 7.62X39 was 400 meters. Personally I never liked or trusted the M16 or any of its clones. I consider the 5.56 an inferior killing round. BUT !! That’s just me and my life experience. If the AR is your tool of choice then train hard and learn your systems limit.
On August 11, 2018 at 3:29 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Robert,
Most ARs today are running something like the Wylde chamber which can take both. In a way, the advice in the article is a little dated except for guys with really dated guns who want to modify it to run another round.
As Fred said, it’s better to get a purpose-made gun.
@Ray,
With all due respect, you were told wrong, but what was customary then. The experience in Afghanistan shows that a Marine can use a 4X ACOG and a 14.5′ barrel M4 to take down Taliban fighters at 500 yards (I wish I could find the video, but cannot but when the Taliban fighters figured out that walking away wasn’t going to work with the Marines on their tail, they surrounded themselves with women and children to avoid being shot at 500 yards).
My son’s experience with the round also proves the counsel they gave you wrong.
But as I said, it was delivered wisdom at the time.
On August 11, 2018 at 9:45 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Dan III
Re: “The benefits of any rifle/carbine, regardless of caliber, to engage opponents beyond 300m is NEGATED by visibility and the lack thereof. Target identification and then subsequent target engagement is hindered by the shooter’s ability to see the target. A camouflaged opponent is extremely difficult to see/acquire even at several meters distance.”
I don’t doubt that everything you say is true. However, I don’t understand where you get from what we (Herschel and yours truly) were discussing – a cartridge (.224 Valkyrie)and rifle dedicated for long-range shooting (for sport and hunting; thus far, no military users of whom I am aware) to combat conditions of the kind you mention.
For what it is worth, I fully agree with your comments. The only standing I have for making any comment at all is because of my interest in military history, and in firearms history, development and use. I offered my services to Uncle Sam several decades ago as a young man and again at the opening of the conflict in 2001, and he took a pass both times – so I’m strictly an armchair soldier at this point.
You’ve “been there, done that” – whereas I have not. I would not presume to tell someone like you what to carry into combat or for what reasons.
About the only observation I might add is this: A great deal of what I have heard, seen and read about how our forces operate in the GWOT suggests that our troops often prefer to deploy on missions – especially those with long, unprotected sightlines – with some sort of precision rifle over-watch from a DM or sniper. Wouldn’t the .224 Valkyrie be relevant to that sort of role, for that matter any reasonably well-informed discussion on LR precision shooting?
In other words, we were just chewing the fat. What harm is there in that?
Your “test” sounds quite challenging and even fun – so thanks for sharing it. I very much doubt, however, that the range officer at the local outdoor target shooting emporium will let me carry it off, though, so someone else – perhaps in a more-remote area of the country – will have to do it instead.
Read you loud-and-clear about aging eyes and the ACOG – although my TA11H-G 3.5×35 with green-donut BDC never gave me any trouble in that dept. (since sold) when I still owned it.
Cheers and thanks for writing…
On August 11, 2018 at 9:52 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
“The experience in Afghanistan shows that a Marine can use a 4X ACOG and a 14.5′ barrel M4 to take down Taliban fighters at 500 yards (I wish I could find the video, but cannot but when the Taliban fighters figured out that walking away wasn’t going to work with the Marines on their tail, they surrounded themselves with women and children to avoid being shot at 500 yards).”
Can’t recall precisely when – maybe a decade ago – but there was a story in the media that the International Red Cross and some other aid-humanitarian groups were complaining that Iraqi fighters were being slain, execution-style, with head-shots in the fighting between the insurgency and U.S.-coalition forces.
The Judge-Advocate General people did an investigation, which discovered that there had been no such “gangland style” executions – just lots of U.S. Army soldiers and U.S. Marines proficient with their rifles and carbines equipped with ACOGs, who were scoring routine headshots out to 500 meters.
By all accounts, the ACOG has been a tremendous force-multiplier over in the sandbox.
Please ask your son about the story above; maybe he’ll know something about it that I do not.
On August 11, 2018 at 10:06 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Georgiaboy,
My interest in the 224 Valkyrie has to do with not liking the reduction in muzzle velocity that comes with shooting anything much heavier than a 62 gr round, and wanting something a little heavier, around 90 gr. Here the Valkyrie excels.
The MV is about the same with that weight as the 5.56 but with a different bullet mass and BC.
Good for hog hunting, and anything else that threatens me that isn’t a large predatory North American animal (for which something like a .270, 7mm magnum or something of like kind would be more appropriate).
On August 12, 2018 at 12:47 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Roger that – thanks for the clarification!
On August 12, 2018 at 4:36 pm, DAN III said:
Georgiaboy61 @ 2145,
Perhaps I should have salutated my remarks to “ALCON”. Not yourself and the blog author. Myself, I was using my training scenario to emphasize the difficulties in combat target engagements. As Valkyrie seems to be the communities flavor-of-the-month caliber I used that round in my remarks. Hell, could of used .308 or Creedmore for that matter.
Nevertheless, my apologies if I offended you or the blog author. Was not my intent.
On August 12, 2018 at 6:35 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Dan III
Re:”Nevertheless, my apologies if I offended you or the blog author. Was not my intent.”
No offense taken, mate – cheers and thank you for your always well-informed posts.