7mm Valykrie

[Texas by God]

Did anyone see the article on this in Handloader magazine? What a dream cartridge for the OCD reloader! 8 steps to form brass & they claim .270 performance out of an AR15. I'll rush right out and ignore it, thank you very much. Best, Thomas.

[bruce drake]

I saw the article in the mag but I haven't read it yet. there are already ARs chambered in 7TCU cartridges and the 6.8SPC which is a basically the "270 Short" cartridge
http://www.7mmvalkyrie.com/uploads/4/9/9/6/49963803/_1434329996.png
I'm not seeing the need but building the case on the 6.5x47 cartridge design basically means its in a niche between the 7mm-08 and the 6.8mm-223 (277 Wolverine) in regards to powder space and velocity. I just can't see it as a 270Win though.

With all that, I do shoot a 30-223 Wildcat in an AR so all power too them if they think they can make a commercial go of it.

[Maven]

I saw that article, Thomas and am still scratching my head over it. As you said, only 8 steps, and so-so accuracy, which begs the questions "why?' and "who needs such a 'tack driver'?"

[Texas by God]

I am an AR fan but it puzzles me how these custom cartridges with only 30 grains of po
wder capacity can outperform the old standards that hold 50 to 60 grains of powder?
Black Rifle Magic?

[NoAngel]

Slap some fancy whizbang BS numbers on it and people will buy it.

[Texas by God]

Yes and there are those who say a .300 Blackout is a 30-30 in an AR. I have both and it ain't.

[NoAngel]

THey only say that because you can load light weight jacketed bullets to standard 30/30 velocity for the same weight. IOW, you can load a 125g soft point in a 300 to what a box of factory 30/30 125g stuff is...or close.
Handloaded ammunition comparison.....not even close.

I'm often confused by people's need to reinvent the wheel.

[charles.k.terry]

It looks interesting, but I doubt it will ever get much of a following. If I could get 270 Win performance out of my AR 15 I might retire my 270. Probably not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bruce drake]

The volume difference between the 7mm Valkyrie and the 6.8SPC is 6gr. That is less than 15% of the total volume of the 7mmValkyrie which is 42gr according to the. That difference can be made up with some of the newer, more efficient powders anyways.

A lot of wildcats are being developed for the AR15 line of rifles. I will support them if they can get into the market successfully, but I know there are a lot of other cartridges already in production that are being rejuvenated with newer powders.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

The gun magazines need something to fill the pages between the various political ads. A lot of the hype around the AR-15 and the various new calibers seems to stem from a need to justify the whole platform as a viable civilian hunting rifle. Law abiding citizens have a right to an AR-etc. with whatever capacity magazine they feel like hauling around, but to claim it is a practical hunting/home defense rifle for the average person is ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nekshot]

I am kinda impressed and I would love to build my dream rifle on a ar15 rifle but for that I need deer killing power at 300 yards and the ability to shoot cast and I have desired the 7mm calliber. If this deal gets love from the ar community then I might get on board also! Any sheeples following this round?

[vzerone]

Yes and there are those who say a .300 Blackout is a 30-30 in an AR. I have both and it ain't.

I was never caught up in the .300 BO craze. I said you can eat your cake and have it too with the 7.62x39 especially since they have dedicated AR receivers for it now.

[vzerone]

You all forgot this AR15 7mm.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/14/raptor-shooting-systems-introduces-7-raptor-and-257-raptor-ar-15-rounds/

[Kestrel4k]

I am an AR fan but it puzzles me how these custom cartridges with only 30 grains of po wder capacity can outperform the old standards that hold 50 to 60 grains of powder?
Black Rifle Magic?
It's pretty simple when they just lie about it.

My last conversation along these lines was the forum commentary not long ago re: a .358"-caliber AR-compatible cartridge that 'equaled .358 Win performance' with ~10% less case capacity? :rolleyes:

[Bloodman14]

Sounds like another solution looking for a problem. I agree with the 300BO vs. the 7.62X39 school of thought. Especially since I can fire the 316299 GB boolit using 1.4/1.5gr of LeveRevolution.

[Ed in North Texas]

The gun magazines need something to fill the pages between the various political ads. A lot of the hype around the AR-15 and the various new calibers seems to stem from a need to justify the whole platform as a viable civilian hunting rifle. Law abiding citizens have a right to an AR-etc. with whatever capacity magazine they feel like hauling around, but to claim it is a practical hunting/home defense rifle for the average person is ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We certainly agree that a law abiding citizen has a right to whatever he/she wishes to have (or would have if the NFA and GCA were repealed), I'm still sorry I didn't pick up a cheap Boyes .55 or one of the Lahti or Solthurn 20mm AT rifles back in the day. Even a $500 Reising. Oh well...

That being said, there's nothing wrong with the AR platform as a hunting rifle (though I don't see it as a means to "justify" the platform). It might be offensive to the eyes of some of us (It was mine when first issued, but I got used to it), but it is a functional rifle. As to choice of hunting cartridge, I choose the 6.8 SPC over the 5.56mm. Great on hogs, though I still prefer my Savage 99s for hunting. Home defense? Depends on where. In the house - handgun or shotgun. Away from the house out on the farm road or down the pasture the AR is fine as a go to home defense weapon. YMMV (obviously it does, but difference of opinion is why we have so many options).

[dragon813gt]

Law abiding citizens have a right to an AR-etc. with whatever capacity magazine they feel like hauling around, but to claim it is a practical hunting/home defense rifle for the average person is ridiculous.

So what's impractical about them? They may not be aesthetically appealing to most but it's a very practical rifle. The average person can work on them easily. They come apart easily for cleaning. They handles well and are lightweight. They can be chambered in many cartridges that are well suited for hunting. They're modular and a quick upper swap allows you to shoot another cartridge. Optics mount easily. Match grade triggers are abundant. And they're cheap w/ lots of parts available. So what's impractical about them? May not be as cheap as the Ruger American line but they aren't modular like the AR.

BTW, I live in a state where semis are banned for hunting. The regs will be changing shortly. But I can see the value in them. They won't win a beauty contest but they flat out work.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

So what's impractical about them?.

I will start this response with, in my opinion.... Also keep in mind my first response was in context of the 7mm Novelty.

Ever since Mr. O got in the liberal left have been screaming, “what practical need does anyone have for an AR?” Gun forums, YouTube videos, NRA magazines, etc. for the last 9 years have been running with this idea that the AR is now the best rifle for every form of shooting, hunting, and self defense situation. All to justify a “need.”

Is the AR adaptable for many situations? Yes it certainly is.

Can you hunt with one? Sure, where legal.

AR for home defense? I guess so...

To claim that it is the best rifle for every situation is ridiculous though.

In my opinion, I find an AR awkward to shoot in any prone or bench situation. In the field the rifle is very tall, especially if a scope is mounted. In my situation I feel a 12ga semi or pump shotgun is a far more suitable HD weapon. Ballistically the AR is a varmint rifle. All the various AR uppers that offer larger calibers are cool, but bolt action rifles in better calibers for about the same price as a new upper are readily available.

That being said, I do own three ARs, and I think every law abiding citizen should own and know how to use one.

While not a beginners rifle I do agree that with an instructor near by most novice shooters do fairly well with an AR. They are light weight, 5.56/223 offer low recoil, and the safety clearly reads “fire” or “safe”.

I like my ARs as truck and varmint rifles, but for every other shooting scenario I have far more practical rifles.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vzerone]

I can understand 2nd's opinion and he'd rightfully entitled to one. The AR15/M16 was a major departure from what America grew up with. That is a non-pistol grip walnut stocked rifle with blued steel receivers, barrels, trigger guards, etc. Look at how many of bemoaned having aluminum trigger guards and polymer ones. Many hated fiberglass and polymer stocks. It was a shock to our soldiers when they gave them M16's in Vietnam. They loved the old school M14's.

I don't find the AR's that ackward. When I shoot off the bench I use a shorter low capactiy magazine so i don't have to bag the rifle as high. As for the scope alignment I'll agree you got us there, but now they have riser's that put it in the proper eye alignment. Of course I'm speaking about the "flat-top" AR's. The old permanent handle one's were terrible to scope. It's a fact that AR's can rival bolt action accuracy. You are correct on the small caliber AR's being varmint rifle, but that ends there with the AR 10's. The 5.56 NATO was derived from varmint cartridge lineage. Do you agree our military will never go back to a walnut wood stock? There is no one rifle best for everything. You want to try an ackward firearm try a Thompson machine gun. That turkey is hard to sling carry comfortably too! The controls are not ergonomic either and the rear sight is too close to your eye. The one type of rifle I could never cozy up too are the bullpups. The M4 carbine would be good for home defense providing you weren't using over penetrating ammuniation.

[MT Chambers]

I was never caught up in the .300 BO craze. I said you can eat your cake and have it too with the 7.62x39 especially since they have dedicated AR receivers for it now.

My chronograph must be dif. then most as it shows that neither of these come close to the 30/30 and I don't believe that the 7mm whisbang will either.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

Do you agree our military will never go back to a walnut wood stock?

Most certainly, I don’t think they should go back to wood. Just like I do not ever think LEOs will ever go back to revolvers. The world has moved on.

As a military rifle I personally think the M16/M4 is one of the best service rifles ever. The 5.56 round is a little light for some applications, but in general it is a good round/rifle that serves the majority of roles need. The M16/M4 also lends it self to a wide variety/diversity of troops. With training they are easy to maintain, and very reliable.

I have never understood the endless debate of AK vs M16. The M16 wins hands down! The early reliability issues with the M16 was a fault of bean counters at Washington that opted to issue rifles without cleaning kits and ammunition with cheap powder.

Most service members I have talked to like the M16/M4. If they have an opinion on the the 5.56 they seem to wish the military would go to 55gr bullets rather than the heavier 62gr+ bullets that theoretically tumble. Honestly though most troops don’t really seem to be gun guys/gals and have little or no opinion on the 5.56.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vzerone]

2nd's I like you, you're very easy to debate with. Like I've told other members if we went into Vietnam with the M16 and ammo of today things would have had a much different outcome. That is all except for the die hards that stick by the M14. They had reason to back during Vietnam as the M14 was perfected before that war, whereas the M16 was not. Now the M16 of today isn't radically different from the M16 back during Vietnam. They've beefed up the barrel, changed the stocks and forearms, put the forward assist on it, maybe better metal, definately a better rear sight. The ammo is of a better quality and I'm not discussing bullet weights. Today's soldiers are trained better on the M16 and their absolutely are cleaning tools and instructions for them that didn't exist on the first issue M16's in Vietnam.

Back in Vietnam I would think that the AK47 was a better more reliable rifle then the unrefined M16 we had. Today I would say it's hard for an AK 47 to beat a M16. Some will argue and say some of the better design AK are in the likes of Valmets and Galils. Don't get me wrong the AK is a very good system.

Who knows what our military will end up with in the future, but I'll bet the new to be old timers will be clamoring to have those M16s back.

I've always said that if the M14 is the end to all rifles and it's God's rifle, then why isn't our government making them again? If it's politics then why aren't all the branches of service breathing down their throats to get them to make it again? I love the M14, I love the Garand, and I love my AR's too!

[2ndAmendmentNut]

I’ll agree with the majority of what you said, except I believe the end result of the Vietnam War would have been the same. America lost because of poor leadership at the highest levels.

Oh and say what you will, God’s caliber is the 44-40(WCF) with black powder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vzerone]

I’ll agree with the majority of what you said, except I believe the end result of the Vietnam War would have been the same. America lost because of poor leadership at the highest levels.

Oh and say what you will, God’s caliber is the 44-40 with black powder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I stated it wrong, but by end results I mean how the M16 performed and the opinion of it back then.

Totally agree with us losing was political and protesters had much to do with it. We didn't lose on a warfare basis.