20 Practical vs Tactical

[Lefty2506]

Lefty-- you don't HAVE to fireform any of the cartridges that you mentioned, except size the necks to 20 cal. Load them and shoot them.
My first experience with an Ackley cartridge was with a .223 Rem. Some of the best groups with that rifle were when I was forming the cases. The same with my 20 Tac. All I did was run them through a sizing die to form the neck, load them and shoot them.
I also don't care for these proprietary cases, i.e. the .204 Ruger. You have to buy a special case to have the advantages of the performance. You can forget about trimming cases and split case necks. You can wring out the performance with the ubiquitous .223. The advantage of shooting these modified cases, as far as I'm concerned, is case life. The sharper shoulders and straight walled cases are the key.
As far as not being able to get a "sploder" for an AR, you will have to take that up with the barrel people. The only problem I can see, is because of the straight walled case, there might be a problem ejecting the cases. Some on this forum have said that because of the sharp shoulder they have had feeding problems.

The 20P is my first "wildcat" adventure so I opted against needing to move the shoulder. Technically, there is fireforming involved to get the 30 deg shoulder, but I get what you're saying. While I've always liked the idea of a 30 or 40 deg shoulder, for a 223 based 20 cal, it just didn't offer any real advantage to me.

As far as the Sploder goes, I agree. I'm just saying that I don't understand why someone who offers 20 Tac AR barrels wouldn't offer 20 Sploder barrels. I've heard that about the straight walls, but everyone I've talked with that owns a 223AI upper says they feed fine and they love theirs.

 

[Evan]

The 20P is my first "wildcat" adventure so I opted against needing to move the shoulder. Technically, there is fireforming involved to get the 30 deg shoulder, but I get what you're saying. While I've always liked the idea of a 30 or 40 deg shoulder, for a 223 based 20 cal, it just didn't offer any real advantage to me.

As far as the Sploder goes, I agree. I'm just saying that I don't understand why someone who offers 20 Tac AR barrels wouldn't offer 20 Sploder barrels. I've heard that about the straight walls, but everyone I've talked with that owns a 223AI upper says they feed fine and they love theirs.

No, there’s not. Look up the dimensioned diagrams. The shoulder on the Tactical is at 1.415” vs a 223 with the shoulder at 1.438”. You push the shoulder down and into a 30 degree configuration with the FL die in a single stroke, leaving the case ready to go and only needing as much fireforming as any virgin case. Only benefit to a 20 Practical is you can pop a smaller bushing into a 223 die if you have one already. The 20 Tactical requires a 20 Tactical die.

 

[Greg Y]

I cut my chamber end back (93thou iirc) and ran 223 brass in a 204 collet die that I also shortened. I'm able to get by just fine on the cheap now.

 

[Greg Y]

I ran a .204 reamer in short and shortened a .204 die and used LC 5.56 brass. You could probably just shorten the chamber end of your barrel and use a shortened .204 die.

That's exactly what I did.... cut the chamber end off and move the shoulder forward......and done.

 

[jwv2001]

As far as the Sploder goes, I agree. I'm just saying that I don't understand why someone who offers 20 Tac AR barrels wouldn't offer 20 Sploder barrels. I've heard that about the straight walls, but everyone I've talked with that owns a 223AI upper says they feed fine and they love theirs.

First of all, find yourself a good gunsmith that has a reamer for the 20 Sploder. Have the smith ream the chamber or buy a new 20 Practical barrel and have it reamer for the Sploder. You want him to already have the reamer, so you don't have to buy one. Good Luck

 

[JLT]

I break it down this way:

1. Relative work involved,
2. Results on target, and,
3. Terminal/field performance

For 400 yards and in, the winner is the .20 Practical in my book. A couple of passes in a .223 die with the proper bushings produces a .20 Practical case that is ready to go in every respect. I have not seen a difference on target, 'fire forming' v. 'formed' brass. The amount of work on the brass is also kept to a minimum. Relative work involved, advantage .20 Practical.

Results on target - some of smallest groups I've ever shot have been with a .20 Practical built on a Stevens 200 action and a Shilen barrel, sitting in a Choate Tactical stock. A notable 5 shot group was no bigger than a .224 caliber hole. This rifle routinely delivers groups in the ones and twos with 32 grain - 40 grain bullets and a variety of powders. In my experience, the .20 P is as easy, or easier, to tune, than a Dasher or 6 BR and the results will raise an eyebrow or two if you know what you're doing. Quarter-minute groups are easily achievable with thrown charges of several ball powders.

Terminal performance - A crow, ground squirrel or groundhog at 300 yards is as dead as dead gets if you hit 'em with a .20 P, a .20 VarTarg or a .20-.250. 100 fps won't make a lick of difference. I've had a ball thinning prairie dog towns with the .20 P and the results on target have always been acceptable at the very least. If you're looking for that 800-yard shot, you'd better have a 6mm or better, or a whole bunch of ammo and a lot of time. Within the limits established by the caliber, the .20 P is no better and no worse than most of the 20s. The marginal costs of 'increased performance' are quite large, very much like any other caliber. A .257 Weatherby burns twice the powder of a .250 Savage, but that doesn't make it a dangerous game round. It's still a deer and antelope rifle.

I'm all for trying different things, but let's keep it real. The differences we're talking about are not that large. And not really material. Shoot what makes you smile. That's a win.