So what are the logistics of taking a barrel chambered in 204 and have it converted over to a 20 Tactical?

with the shoulder of a 204, wouldn't one have sort of a 20 Tactical AI?

Looking at doing this, since I have tons of 223 brass.. and the 204 Hornady Brass I have been using, isn't overly durable...

After a quick perusal of the 8th edition Hornady manual, and doing some simple math, it looks to me that you would have to set the barrel back a minimum of .325"... or about 2-3 turns of the barrel and rechamber. Since both have a 30 deg. shoulder, then likely you would end up with a standard .20 Tactical.

It would seem to me that one could merely reduce ones load in the .204 by 3-5% and end with the same result, velocity wise. Also reducing the load, would likely increase the brass life.

Therefore; performance would be the same, and you would spare the expense of setting the barrel back... (Likely $100-$150 ) also spare the cost of custom dies. (Another $60-$100). For that, one could buy a lot of .204 brass...

Also, not to mention that setting the barrel back would alter the inleting...

To me, it wouldn't be worth it... However, YMMV!

You could rechamber to a 20 Practical. Its a 223 necked down to 20 cal. A buddy has one and it shoots very nice.
Then you can use Redding or Hornady bushing dies for the 223 and just change the neck bushing for which cartrige you want to size.
You still have to have the barrel set back and rechambered.
I am thinking of doing this also. If you do it post up how it turns out.

I have both the 204 and 20 practical and can't tell a dimes worth of difference in the performance and accuracy between the two other than brass for 20 P is much easier to come by. 20 Tac wouldn't be worth the trouble or the cost and making brass would be a lot more work .

I bought a 204 and had it shortened and rechambered to the 20 VarTarg and took the 204 freebore into account so I had it shortend by 16.35mm (.644) rather than the 11.4mm (.449)difference in base to case mouth.

I hate that 204 freebore. Gonna deal with it soon.

The 20 Tactical and 20 Practical are the same are they not?

I am considering this due to availability and cost of 204 brass...

I have access to thousands of 223 cases at a low cost...

I think the 20 Tactical has a longer neck and needs a little forming of the shoulder. I like the Tactical better for that reason. Dunno why it wasn't standardized.
Not only that, but my SECOND issue with the 204 Ruger besides the throating is the quality of the brass. El Banana. I'd rather get my hands on a big pile of good 223 brass and form it up rather than hunt for brass only to find out on firing it stinks.

Seafire,

If the .20 Practical is merely a .223 necked to .204 (According to a previous poster...), Then they are different. The .223 has a 23 deg. shoulder. The .20 Tactical has a 30 deg. shoulder.

GH

Thanks Grasshopper,

found this article surfin on line for the answer to that question....

I had been told that they were the same, but evidently by someone who didn't really know...

http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek061.html

so now thinking on the logistics of putting together the Practical...since I have access to a lifetime of 223 brass...

Seafire,

I, too, learned something from this thread... I had always thought that the .20 Tactical was merely a .223 necked down. Until this thread, I'd never heard of the .20 Pratical.

I'll likely never own either... I'm pretty fond of the .204 Rug. I have two of them, and am looking at another....

GH

I use Redding FL 223 Bushing Dies and just switch out the Bushing to a 20 cal to load for my 20 Practical .

How about a 20 Practical Improved that is dirt simple to build, that you don't have to have a high dollar set of case forming dies for and uses off the shelf loading dies. Performance is virtually the same as the .204 and has top quality brass available for it. Sound interesting?