This is reflected in the highest honor we give (usually posthumously) to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor--men in battle who voluntarily place a higher value on other's lives than to themselves. Courage defined as love in action.
I personally don't see much to admire on Ayn (rhymes with "mine") Rand's ethic on altruism. When it come to Jesus' ethic or Ayn Rand's, there's no contest.
You seem to be missing the point. Rand does not condemn the choice to act in advancement of one's values. The point is that such an action (in order to be virtuous) must be a choice on the part of the actor.
If an individual should choose the advancement of his own values even over the value of his own life, his choice is a virtuous one. Her point, is that the choice must belong to the actor.
If the choice did in fact belong to the actor, then the act was NOT a sacrifice, but an act promulgated in advancement of that which was valued higher.
There is no such thing as a willing sacrifice. If the rational individual actor chooses to surrender value, he does so in deferenece to greater percieved value. If he jumps on a live hand grenade to prevent a terrorist attack, he does so because he values the lives of those he saved, even greater than he values his own.
Rand's philosophy does not condemn this action. It simply defines the action properly (as a choice on the part of the actor, to act in advancement of his own values, even at great cost).