Topic Options
#5508292 - 08/10/11 .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger
Calif. Hunter Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 04/05/01
Posts: 3054
Loc: OC, CA
A friend seems to be enamored of the .20 Practical, which is, I believe, a .223 simply necked down to .20 caliber with no other changes. He feels that it will allow him to see the hits on prairie dogs better than the .204 and certainly better than his .22-250. I don't think there is much difference between the .204 and the .20 Practical, other than one is a factory load. Am I missing something? Does the .204 allow you to see prairie dogs hits? I would think you can load either to a lower level is that is your goal....
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” George Orwell

RV 728 BP
#5508299 - 08/10/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: Calif. Hunter]
GuyM Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 4768
Loc: Washington - dry side
Haven't ever tried the .20 Practical, but can see my hits just fine with the .204 Ruger. Great little cartridge - and no need to load it down...

#5508355 - 08/10/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: GuyM]
GreatWaputi Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 11/07/02
Posts: 13020
Loc: Land of liberals, hippies, and...

#5508697 - 08/10/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: GreatWaputi]
ipopum Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 07/21/09
Posts: 430
The draw to the 20 Practical is the issue of abundant 223 brass as opposed to buying factory 204 brass. From what I can find Ballistics are for all practical purposes the same. As for seeing your bullet strike you can do that with the 223.

#5508700 - 08/10/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: ipopum]
mjbgalt Offline
Campfire Outfitter

Registered: 01/29/08
Posts: 7655
Loc: ohio
yeah and i don't think brass is any different in price either way if you're not buying the cheapo stuff
I put Varget on my cornflakes...

#5508727 - 08/10/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: mjbgalt]
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 07/24/01
Posts: 41492
Loc: Banana Belt, Montana
My experience is that a heavy-barreled .223 will come down out of recoil enough to see bullet hits at 150-200 yards or more--sort of, depending on where the bullet hits. But I couldn't see the bullet strikes consistenly with a heavy-barreled .223 a month or so ago on a PD shoot, even when using 40-grain bullets

A sporter-weight .204 allows you to do the same thing, often even better. With a heavy-barreled .204 you can look through the scope the entire time, especially with 32-grain bullets. Of course a .221 or .17 Fireball, .22 Hornet, or anything like that upsets the view through the scope even less--but they don't have the range of a .204.

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015

#5529142 - 08/17/11 Re: .20 Practical vs .204 Ruger [Re: Mule Deer]
ipopum Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 07/21/09
Posts: 430
MD Does stock design play a role in seeing the hit or not? I have ran more than 15000 rounds through a Herters 223 regular barrel and have no problem seeing my hits or misses at 400 yards. But with a Savage comp. stock of recent vintage it is a little harder to see. Both are sporter weight barrels and I shoot mostly 55 gr. bullets.
I think than most high volume shooters who reload shoot more Military brass than commercial. At least that is the case with the ones that I know. That would be the draw to me to go to the 20 Practical. For those that do not reload the cost would be much the same.


Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 
RV 180 2
OX 160 1
LJ 160 2
Who's Online
176 registered (10generation, 204guy, 223, 2legit2quit, 280shooter, 20 invisible), 741 Guests and 960 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RBCN 160 3

Copyright © 2000-2017, Inc. All Rights Reserved.