Worth rebarreling an AR to 20 TAC?

[Lefty2506]

I was hoping to build my first bolt action rifle last spring from the ground up, but Uncle Sam took a huge bite our of our savings and consumed the funds I was going to put towards that project. The purpose was for plinking out to 500 yds or so and whacking prairie dogs. I liked the idea of a TAC over a practical because it seems like the (slight) increase in case volume would give me a little more room to find a good load, and maybe more importantly it would/should slow down case growth (I hate trimming brass). There's a potential that I might have the opportunity to take my dad on our next trip out west. The only appropriate rifle he has is a TC Contender which currently wears a 3-9 Simons... so either it would need some work, or (most likely) I'd need to provide him with a rifle. Either way, I'd need to provide him with ammo and I already have loads developed for my .223 bolt gun so I'm thinking it would be best to let him use that. I have a couple of very accurate ARs that I could take, but I'm wondering if I should re-barrel one of my other ARs instead. I have a 20" BCA upper chambered in 223 Wylde that's only seen 10 rounds go through it. Nothing wrong with it, but its highly doubtful that I ever get around to working with it. Seems like it would be a good candidate to receive a 24" 20 cal barrel.

2nd question is where to find a 20 TAC AR barrel. I still want to do a bolt action build, and would want a 20 TAC barrel for it as well. In my simplistic monkey brain, I'd like to have them both chambered with the same reamer, but I'm not sure if that's actually a good idea or not since one is an AR. Then there's the question of getting the rifle to feed. My understanding is that .223 AI can be problematic in that area and I'm guessing that the 20 TAC shares the same issue but haven't seen anything that really says one way or another.

Trying to have fun on a budget SUCKS LOL.

Thoughts, comments, or suggestions?

Thanks,
Mark

 

[GLShooter]

I own both in the AR and a PRAC in a bolt gun. On down range ballistics they so close as to make no difference. Both rounds feed flawlessly in my AR's. My TAC barrel is from DTEC up in Minnesota. My PRAC source would be from Tactical Ordnance up in St. Helens bought through Ritch's Precision Guns.

Accuracy is great with both. I really haven't seen that much difference in case growth. I use Redding dies for both with their Type S bushings. The PRAC is loaded with a 223 die. The TAC is done with dedicated chambering dies. The case capacity on the TAC with the shoulder moved back is a very slight amount less than the PRAC in my two..

Greg

 

[Lefty2506]

I own both in the AR and a PRAC in a bolt gun. On down range ballistics they so close as to make no difference. Both rounds feed flawlessly in my AR's. My TAC barrel is from DTEC up in Minnesota. My PRAC source would be from Tactical Ordnance up in St. Helens bought through Ritch's Precision Guns.

Accuracy is great with both. I really haven't seen that much difference in case growth. I use Redding dies for both with their Type S bushings. The PRAC is loaded with a 223 die. The TAC is done with dedicated chambering dies. The case capacity on the TAC with the shoulder moved back is a very slight amount less than the PRAC in my two..

Greg

That's some great information! Can I ask what kind or kinds of brass you are using?

I really don't want both a 20 Practical and a 20 TAC because I'm afraid of mixing the brass. I already keep a LOT of my 223 brass segregated and separated for different rifles and applications, but so far I've been able to do it all by headstamp. That said, I'm starting to run out of headstamps.... lol If there's no discernable difference in the lifespan of the brass, then the 20 practical seems like it would be my better option.

Its good to know that DTECH is still making good barrels. Before the 6.5 Grendel came out, I was looking REALLY hard at his WSSM cartridges. It might be nice to finally have one of his barrels

 

[GLShooter]

Brass is Winchester mostly though I have used LC in the TAC. I have a grundle of the Winchester so they get the call. Separating is easy. I shoot prairie dogs wot the TAC, the PRAC, 204 Ruger, 223 and 6X45. I take a magic marker and run a stripe around the case body to keep them separate.

The brass lasts just the same and as cheap as it is it's a non-issue. Making PRAC brass is so simple. The hot ticket is to size the cases in a standard GUTTED 223. That squeezes the neck down and then you finishe off with a single pass with a bushing. I make up 300-400 t a time and can convert from PRAC to Tac when I need to but honestly the PRAC gets 90% of the shooting.

This is a target shot with the Tactical Ordnance barrel. I cab get you set up to have it made in what ever profile you need. This was a bolt gun but the AR's shoot the same if you can hold hard. I believe Mike is starting to slow down and his delivery times are a bit long last I heard,

I personally believed you'd prefer the PRAC in the long run. Drop me an email at GLSHOOTER@AOL.COM and we'll chat.

Greg

 

[Knotwild]

Its good to know that DTECH is still making good barrels. Before the 6.5 Grendel came out, I was looking REALLY hard at his WSSM cartridges. It might be nice to finally have one of his barrels

His website says he uses Shilen blanks. But he does turn those blanks into AR barrels. I will say he is a great person to do business with and is very helpful.

 

[Hotshot]

Xcaliber makes ar-15 barrels in 20TAC
My gunsmith has one and it shoots great.
You will enjoy either one but a practical will be easier in my opinion.
I shoot a 204R in my ar-15.

 

[JB10]

I went practical route last year. Have 3 firing on some brass and no trim needed yet. LC brass. I can not find my chronograph data but if i remember right it was 3,718fps with a 40gr vmax. My 204 with a 35gr berger id 3,880

 

[dfrosch]

Gas Guns - AR15 Barrels - Craddock Precision

.224 valkyrie

craddockprecision.com

 

[searcher]

If you build a Tac 20, that caliber is capable of attaining 20 Practical (or .204 Ruger) speeds, but only with certain powders. It has less case capacity by a few grains and if your tube doesn't like those few powders that bring it up to speed, you just don't have the flexibility you have with either the .20 Practical or the .223.

You can use the same reamer for both the AR and the bolt gun. You will want to have about .003" more headspace in the AR than your bolt gun. No matter which caliber you choose for your A/R, you will be doing more trimming than with your bolt gun, as I'm sure you know. Seeing how most folks only get about 6 to 7 loadings in an A/R before having brass issues, you are really only going to need to trim the brass maybe once after your first loading, so I'd not let trimming dictate which caliber you choose. I think the little extra case work to make the .20 Tac case is on par with the trimming - so no saved time there by going Tac 20, I don't think. Since brass lasts considerably longer (usually...) in a bolt gun, the Tac makes more sense in that respect for a bolt gun.

Personally, I'd opt for the .20 Practical. I have several .223's and .20 Practicals and have yet to encounter trying to load the wrong round into the wrong gun. I keep my ammo in 100-round hinged MTM Case Guard or other plastic boxes in different colors, depending on the caliber. I also have "20" or "223" in HUGE letters across the top of each box. I never have both sets of brass on the bench for any prep work at the same time.

I've shot the .223's and .20's many thousands of rounds on each - and I love them equally - but that .20 really shines when things are hot and heavy within 250 yards as no elevation adjustment or holdoff is required at all. If it's close, I aim lower body. If out to 250 or so, I aim higher on the body - but always on the body. That is until the wind kicks up, requiring horizontal holdoff in any caliber. When they are crawling on the ground, you need to hold off a bit with the .223. That is not really an issue - just describing how flat that .20 shoots.

So, if you feel the need for another caliber, while nothing wrong about the Tac, I think you'd enjoy the .20 Practical a bit more. You might enjoy the .22 Nosler if you wanted one of the rigs to reach further than the .223, but not have the recoil or barrel heat of the faster cartridges. In Saami specs, it is throated to shoot a pretty good variety of bullets. Gives you speedier exit than a .223, much more varied bullet selection (you really will only be using 32, 39 or 40 grain bullets as a rule in the .20) and will shoot heavier and longer bullets than either the .20 Tac, Prac, or most 223's set up for varmint-weight bullets when wanted. It only uses a few more grains of powder than a .223 and is easy to find a good load and no need for worrying about sticking it in the wrong rifle.

edit; White Oak Armament carries .20 Practical barrels and uppers, as well as .22 Nosler - all in stock, I believe, for the first time in a while....

 

[Lefty2506]

I didn't realize the shoulder was moved back on the TAC. I was thinking that it was a straight up 223AI necked down to 20. Either way, if nobody is seeing an appreciable difference in the case life or growth, then the 20 practical does make a lot more sense, and it will save me some $$ on dies as well

Going this route really does make more sense. In building a bolt gun, I was going to set it up so that I could do multiple barrels for it, which I still plan on doing. That said, for a single PD trip, having 2 rifles makes more sense. I'd looked at the 22 ARC pretty hard because I already have a Grendel (and love it), but it just doesn't get me where I want to but I think I'm going to eventually jump all the way up to a 22CM running 62gr and 90 gr pills and call it done. Run an AR with a 20 practical for everything out to 300 or 400 yds, and then run the 22 CM when we want to play around with some distance.