Any reason to pick one over the other?

One is a wildcat, the other not so you can get brass and dies cheaply. I have a 20 Tac and like it a lot, but I think they are pretty similar performance wise.

.204 being a factory round is just waa..aay easier . It's also my impression that the .204 holds a bit more powder , so it'll do a bit more than the Tact , or do the same at a little less pressure .

I was shooting my .204 on pd s last weekend with a load of Ramshot TAC driving the 39 gr Sierra at 3800 fps . The temps were running from 93 to 98 and I saw not the least bit sign of high pressure of any sort .

The performance of the cartridge was impressive to say the least , with no holdover needed out to 300 yards , and it shot across the wind right well too , considering it was a gusty 20 mph or so.

If a perfect PD cartridge was ever dreamed up , the .204 has got to be it .

Sdgunslinger: I concur with your observations completely!
I have not had anything to do with the Tactical 20 but I am so incredibly impressed with the 204 Ruger that I can not imagine myself looking anywhere else but to the 204 Ruger for my 20 caliber needs!
I have killed 2 Coyotes a Badger, several Rock Chucks, many Jack Rabbits, lots of Prairie Dogs
and quite a number of Ground Squirrels with my 3 Varminters in caliber 204 Ruger!
I find the 204 lacking in no way what so ever when used in the Varmint fields or at the range! The ultra mild recoil, splendid accuracy, amazing lethality and its ballistic performance make the 204 an "incredible" cartridge.
I must re-emphasize your points regarding the amazingly flat trajectory and the amazing wind bucking ability of the 204 Ruger cartridge! These attributes of the 204 can only be described as superlative!
I will repeat here for all to see that this new 204 Ruger cartridge is - in my opinion - among the top 5 Varmint cartridges ever devised!
And that, is saying a lot!
I do believe for performance and economy reasons the 204 Ruger would certainly be my pick between the two.
Good luck with whichever you choose!
Long live the 204 Ruger
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Would love to know the real and practical differences also....much has been written about the 204....anyone have any hands on experience with the 20 Tactical and 204 Ruger?

check out the last varmit hunter magazine. there's quite an article on the tac. 20. In general it seems like the only advantage is the longer neck to support heavier bullets. I'm having enough fun with the 204 not to worry about any other 20's

I ran into a deal on a Savage .204 VLP repeater that I couldn't pass up even though I already have a single shot version of the same rifle. I deceided to get the repeater rechambered to the .20Tac. Gunsmith told me to just send the barrel so I did. Couple days later I get an email from him telling me he needs the action to, because the factory chamber is off a few thousands and he wants to get it chambered right.

To make a long story shorter, this rifle is just fantastic. I have had hardly any copper, the barrel cleans up super easy and fast. The .204 single-shot version took awhile to break in and it still coppers some. As far as performance goes I'll take the .20 Tac over the .204. First loads I fired in the .20 Tac went over 4000 fps, some to 4160 fps. Right now I'm shooting the 39 Sierra over 10X at 3920 fps.If I want I can put that 39 over 4000 fps real easy. I haven't found a "safe" load in the .204 to duplicate it yet.

I like the .20 Tac so much that I ordered my own reamer with a little tighter neck(no neck turning) than the chamber in my Savage and just a little bit less freebore. And, I ordered a Krieger barrel 1x11 twist which should be here pretty soon.

This debate on which cartridge is better kind reminds me of what went on between the .223 and the .222 Mag and you know which one won that one!!

Ohlsen: Interesting coments on your Tac 20. Are you saying it is capable of higher handloaded velocities than the 204 Ruger?
And, yes, I do know which cartridge wins every debate (performance wise and ballistically!) between the 223 Remington and the 222 Remington Magnum!
The 222 Remington Magnum!
I knows! As I have used them both extensively!
Long live the 204!
Long live the 223!
Long live the 222 Magnum!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy, nope I'm not starting another war on which cartridge is the ultimate super-dooper round. I have yet to find a fairly "safe" load with the .204 that will duplicate what the .20 Tac does. Help me out here. :-)

I've pushed my .204 to 4000 fps with the 39 gr Sierra and IMR 4320 powder . No apparent pressure signs . I've also done 3900 with Ramshot TAC , but I thottled back my loads for PD shooting , as under those conditions I think it's best to err on the side of caution . Easier on the gun barrel too . But I think I will have no prob settling on a wintertime yote load that will run the 39 gr at around 4000 fps . The factory load V-Max I have on hand clock 4209 fps .

The factory loads and also .204 data from the bullet and powder manufacterers are held to around 55000 psi per SAAMI . I doubt that nuch of the data for the Tac is working with that linitation .

Olsen , since you have both Tac and .204 cases on hand , how does the capacity of each compare ?

Since the 204 is based on a 222 Rem Mag with the shoulder pushed forward and the 20 Tac is based on a necked down .223, the Ruger has the nod in case capacity.

All things being equal, the Ruger should have more versatility with heavier bullets and more velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
Since the 204 is based on a 222 Rem Mag with the shoulder pushed forward and the 20 Tac is based on a necked down .223, the Ruger has the nod in case capacity.

All things being equal, the Ruger should have more versatility with heavier bullets and more velocity.

Once fire-formed, the Tac 20 case has more
capacity than the .223 -- it is .010 more in
diameter at the shoulder. Having said that,
what does 100fps better or worse matter when
either is in the 4000fps range? Seems like Todd
Kindler got the Tac 20 to around 4300fps with
33gr bullets. Mine has an accuracy point of
4100fps, and I'll bet it kills coyotes just as
dead, just as fast, as if I were pushing it to
4300fps.

You guys are splitting hairs debating whether
either of these two great cartridges betters
the other!

DannoBoone: There is nothing wrong when splitting hairs ESPECIALLY when answering someones direct question.
I have had nothing to do with a Tactical 20 as yet but I would be surprised if the safe performance differences in the two cartridges in question is only 100 FPS (4,200 to 4,100 or 3,900 to 3,800!). I would have thought the differences would have been more on the order of 250 FPS.
OK I will admit my thought pattern may be off but even 100 FPS betterance by the 204 over the Tactical 20 is notable when replying to the direct inquiry.
You and Ohlsen may be exactly right when some company comes along and mass produces the Tactical 20 in a factory Rifle it may do to the 204 what the 223 did to the 222 Magnum! I think there is only a 5% chance of that happening. Come on Winchester, Sako and Savage do something bold. It may pay off.
The lethality at 4,100 compared to 4,300 FPS is like you say inconsequential on a Coyote - but the flatter trajectory of the 204 on a Prairie Dog or on a Ground Squirrel may just save a Varminter a miss out yonder! The slight edge in flatter trajectory and the slight edge in starighter bullet flight will on occassion come into need on the smaller targets at longer ranges.
I knows.
I been there!

Ohlsen: No war coming just an exchange of opinions. Like I say I have not had anything to do with the Tactical 20 as yet but everyone I know that uses them has been happy as a clam with them.
DB Bill is just asking for (and getting) input from us all!
Long live the Tactical 20!
Long live the 204!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy, I like the excange of opinions too, but it seems on the internet if you make any kind of statement you start a war and you have all kinds of guys chiming in that don't know diddly, or maybe I should say, "They think they know better."

Honestly you have to try a .20 Tac. You'll love it. I know you have to fireform the brass, but I fireformed a bunch of .222 mag brass last summer for the .204, but now it's in a plastic bag and I'm using Win brass. The .204 is a good rd, but I think it's popular because of all the factory rifles chambered for it, could have been the other way around.???

VarmintGuy, forgot something here, any loads for the .204 to push the 39 Sierra in the 3900's without excessive pressure??

I can do it with VV-N135.

Would it be reasonable/safe to say...the 204 ruger is faster in velocity...whether 50fps to 150fps....than the 20 Tac?

Ohlsen: No forgetfulness on this matter what so ever. I have only handloaded 32 gr. Hornady and 32 gr. Sierra's bullets along with 35 gr. Bergers bullets in my 3 Varminters chambered in caliber 204 Ruger.
And I relayed to you that I have had nothing what so ever to do with the Tactical 20!
Are you missing something in what I have posted?
And while we are on the subject, by the way - didn't YOU forget something?!!!
I will ask you again - "are you saying the Tactical 20 is capable of higher handloaded velocities than the 204 Ruger"?
Second time this question has been asked of you!
And yes, I am now keeping track.
And yes, if you DO make that contention I will have to call you on that! That contention of yours (if you choose to answer my direct question and infer that the 204 can not produce higher velocities than the Tactical 20!) would fly in the face of lessons I have learned in the last 43 years! During which time, I have been constantly handloading, reading about and studying ballistics as it relates to handloading!
Looking forward to your answer.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Originally posted by DannoBoone:
Once fire-formed, the Tac 20 case has more capacity than the .223 -- it is .010 more in diameter at the shoulder.
Having said that, what does 100fps better or worse matter when either is in the 4000fps range? Seems like Todd Kindler got the Tac 20 to around 4300fps with 33gr bullets. Mine has an accuracy point of 4100fps, and I'll bet it kills coyotes just as dead, just as fast, as if I were pushing it to 4300fps.

You guys are splitting hairs debating whether either of these two great cartridges betters
the other!

As VarmintGuy said, when asked a DIRECT question, I give a DIRECT answer.
The 204 simply has more case capacity than the 20 TACTICAL. Period.

The 223 “fireformed†to the Tac 20, doesn’t even have as much capacity as the factory 222 Rem Mag as far as I could see, and the 204 Ruger has more capacity than the factory 222 Rem Mag.

I would almost always pick a factory offering over a wildcat when everything is within 5%.
Especially when the factory offering has the edge…

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
DannoBoone: There is nothing wrong when splitting hairs ESPECIALLY when answering someones direct question.
...The lethality at 4,100 compared to 4,300 FPS is like you say inconsequential on a Coyote - but the flatter trajectory of the 204 on a Prairie Dog or on a Ground Squirrel may just save a Varminter a miss out yonder! The slight edge in flatter trajectory and the slight edge in straighter bullet flight will on occasion come into need on the smaller targets at longer ranges.
I knows.
I been there!

Ohlsen: No war coming just an exchange of opinions. Like I say I have not had anything to do with the Tactical 20 as yet but everyone I know that uses them has been happy as a clam with them.
DB Bill is just asking for (and getting) input from us all!
Long live the Tactical 20!
Long live the 204!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy, I do not always agree with you and you don’t always agree with me.
HOWEVER, on this you are ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT.

Better write this day down on our calendars, huh…

quote:

Originally posted by Ohlsen:
VarmintGuy, I like the excange of opinions too, but it seems on the internet if you make any kind of statement you start a war and you have all kinds of guys chiming in that don't know diddly, or maybe I should say, "They think they know better."

Honestly you have to try a .20 Tac. You'll love it.
I know you have to fireform the brass, but I fireformed a bunch of .222 mag brass last summer for the .204, but now it's in a plastic bag and I'm using Win brass. The .204 is a good rd, but I think it's popular because of all the factory rifles chambered for it, could have been the other way around.???

Yet another reason to stay with the factory offerings.
It may take awhile, but and it’s a BIG but, factory brass will become available.

Ohlsen, howz your supply of factory .20 Tac brass?

Oh that’s right, there isn’t any…

Flippy: So noted!
I am just chomping at the bit to get over to do some Prairie Dog Hunting with my 204's!
We were supposed to leave last week but my friend from the coast was hospitalized the day before he was to start this way! His heart was palpitating and he is now on a medication. He had a followup appointment today and will start out tomorrow for here - if all is OK.
I Hunted PD's last fall with two of my 204's but the new one (the XR-100) has not been whetted on Prairie Dogs as yet!
Yeah I am waiting for Ohlsen to clarify his stance. I am not at all adverse to being corrected I just am very certain my contention (and yours!) is correct in this matter.
I am thinking maybe he is under the impression that the Tactical 20 has a more efficient body shape than the 204? Or something along those lines. But in the natural progression of the calibers I am familiar with - the larger the case, the larger the powder capacity the faster the projectile from it goes once fired. And of course I am talking same caliber, same bullet weight here.
Thanks for the back up.
Maybe I am just somehow interpreting his posting or contentions wrong!
Long live the 204!
Long live the Tactical 20!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Ohlsen, the reason I waited to "chime in" on this thread, is that I could not believe this question was even asked in the first place.

And while I admit to not being THE sharpest knife in the drawer, I do have an "edge" over the butterknives...

BTW, Lapua will be producing Tactical-20 brass. Should be here in a few weeks. They also said 20 VarTarg brass will be available in a few months, but we'll see.

I love my Tac-20. I run 23.5 grains of H4198 with HDY 32 grain V-Max at 4050 fps. I shoot .100" three shot groups all day. I haven't tried to figure out how fast I can push it since I tend to go for accuracy over velocity once a certain velocity range is reached.

Regards,
Kory

Kory: I have read and heard lots of great things about the Tactical 20 and am in no way putting it down. I just feel the 204 Ruger is obviously capable of slightly faster, flatter and straighter ballistics when comparing same weight bullets.
That brass by LaPua will definitely be a feather in the Tactical 20's cap. If anything that LaPua brass might get those 3 shot groups of yours down around .095"! Or hopefully better!
Long live the Tactical 20!
Long live the 204!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy,

Can't argue with that. As they say "there is no replacement for displacement." I believe, and I could be wrong but I really don't care, that the 204 Ruger holds about 3 grains more than the Tac-20. When I was building a my Tac-20 I sat down and debated which cartridge to chamber: 204 Ruger or 20-Tactical?

I went with the Tac-20 because:

1. Back then, 204 brass was hard to find. I don't even like what is available now. I also had over 2000 IMI 223 brass on hand.
2. Every 204 Ruger shooter I talked to could not match factory velocities without pushing the loads real hard and reducing brass life. Again, I think this has changed since more hand loads have been developed for the 204 Ruger.
3. The name Tactical-20 sounds cool althought there is nothing Tactical about it.
4. I wanted to, in some way, support Todd Kindler. He did alot to make the 20 Caliber and 17 Caliber as popular as it is. I know Todd, he's a good guy.
5. I don't mind hand loading. As a matter of fact, I enjoy it.

The Lapua brass will save one setup in the forming process (you won't need the form die anymore) and fire forming won't be necessary anymore. It appears that Cooper and Dakota as selling enough Tac-20 and 20 VarTarg rifles that Lapua believes there is a market for the brass.

Kory

I have read that one advantage of the .20 TAC is the longer neck---> = better accuracy potential---any thoughts?

IV

quote:

Originally posted by Kory:
BTW, Lapua will be producing Tactical-20 brass. Should be here in a few weeks. They also said 20 VarTarg brass will be available in a few months, but we'll see.
Kory

And I wonder how much this Lapua brass will cost when it FINALLY does arrive?
204 brass is about 15 cents a piece.

Kory, I will admit the 20 Tactical is an accurate cartridge, but the powder savings will not make up for the hassle [read: expense] of loading a “wildcat†when a factory cartridge exists that will perform as well.

JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Kory:
VarmintGuy,

Can't argue with that. As they say "there is no replacement for displacement." I believe, and I could be wrong but I really don't care, that the 204 Ruger holds about 3 grains more than the Tac-20. When I was building a my Tac-20 I sat down and debated which cartridge to chamber: 204 Ruger or 20-Tactical?

I went with the Tac-20 because:

1. Back then, 204 brass was hard to find. I don't even like what is available now. I also had over 2000 IMI 223 brass on hand.
2. Every 204 Ruger shooter I talked to could not match factory velocities without pushing the loads real hard and reducing brass life. Again, I think this has changed since more hand loads have been developed for the 204 Ruger.
3. The name Tactical-20 sounds cool althought there is nothing Tactical about it.
4. I wanted to, in some way, support Todd Kindler. He did alot to make the 20 Caliber and 17 Caliber as popular as it is. I know Todd, he's a good guy.
5. I don't mind hand loading. As a matter of fact, I enjoy it.

The Lapua brass will save one setup in the forming process (you won't need the form die anymore) and fire forming won't be necessary anymore. It appears that Cooper and Dakota as selling enough Tac-20 and 20 VarTarg rifles that Lapua believes there is a market for the brass.

Kory

I can see your point about the availability of brass to fireform.
However, now is now and then is then. We ALL can lament the decisions we made THEN, knowing what we do now. AKA hindsight.

Unfortunately to fireform brass you have to LOAD IT and then SHOOT IT.
That adds considerably to the expense for the brass even when you don't figure in time to load AND shoot, barrel wear, etc.

Kory, I'm developing a new cartridge called the EXTREME tactical 20.
Interested?

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
And I wonder how much this Lapua brass will cost when it FINALLY does arrive?
204 brass is about 15 cents a piece.

Kory, I will admit the 20 Tactical is an accurate cartridge, but the powder savings will not make up for the hassle [read: expense] of loading a “wildcat†when a factory cartridge exists that will perform as well.

JMO.

Flippy, I'm thinking it will be $40 to $60 dollar for a box 100. Not cheap, but remember they are catering to the Cooper and Dakota shooters. I'm going to buy a box just to play with it and see how it does.

Kory

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
Unfortunately to fireform brass you have to LOAD IT and then SHOOT IT.
That adds considerably to the expense for the brass even when you don't figure in time to load AND shoot, barrel wear, etc.

Kory, I'm developing a new cartridge called the EXTREME tactical 20.
Interested?

Actually, my fire forming loads are the most accurate (they are the ones that shoot .1" groups), so I don't waste any ammo or time fire forming.

I just adjust the powder a bit more on the fire formed cases.

Kory

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
I have read that one advantage of the .20 TAC is the longer neck---> = better accuracy potential---any thoughts?

IV

A longer neck is supposed to aid in accuracy, however the 300Win Mag has a neck less than one caliber in length and it is noted for its accuracy.

So who knows?

Kory, that's LESS than I thought.
You are right about the clientele, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Kory:
Actually, my fire forming loads are the most accurate (they are the ones that shoot .1" groups), so I don't waste any ammo or time fire forming.

I just adjust the powder a bit more on the fire formed cases.

Kory

I wouldn't waste time with all the fireforming, if they are the most accurate.
I know they should have less velocity, but how much less?

I would just use .223 brass.

Flippy,

The fire formed cases run about 80 fps slower when using the same amount of charge as the virgin cases.

Mind you, when I say they are not as accurate, I'm talking about .250" groups versus .100" groups.

Kory

quote:

Originally posted by Kory:
...Mind you, when I say they are not as accurate, I'm talking about .250" groups versus .100" groups.
Kory

Kory, there are guys that pay BIG bucks to go from .250" to .100"

I would just shoot the .100" loads and forget about the others.
80fps is not bad.

OK folks, It's been a day or two posted so now after the discussions I'll chime in!!! The 222Magnum from the day of it's origination was an inherrently accurate cartridge capable of seeing duty at IBS matches and varmint fields alike!! The case design didn't function too well thru the prototype weapons the gov't wanted for their small arms automatic rifles so they adopted the 223 Remington instead(Same engineer.....Mike Walker of Remington designed them both!) Then somebody(a forward thinking wildcatter!) got the idea of necking the 222Mag up to 6mm......now known as the 6x47!!! Geuss what???? Such accurracy and small groups never seen before on the BR circuit!! Then old Pendell and Palmisano brought out a little ditty known as the "PPC" and the end of the "BR" circuit was in sight!!! Just call it the PPC society!!!
Then with all the excitement over the 17's and 20's, somebody said, "Let's neck the old 222MAG down to .204 and see what happens!!!" They did it but moved the shoulder forward a bit and guess what? The accurracy stayed in place!!! As far as speed goes, you folks talk about 4200-4300 like that's a big deal!! I've pushed the 32 grain Hornadys to 4635fps with bullets staying intact and giving .5-.6" groups at 100 yards!! DO I shoot it like that? NO!!! 3892 with the SIERRA 39 grainers do just fine!! And 4304 with the Hornady 32's(or Sierras) will suffice!! I do shoot the Hornady 32's out of the Model 7, 20" barrel at 4033fps though!!! And for the record I shoot 40 grain SIERRA BK's out of a 20", 40X barrel in 222MAG at 3650fps!!! And all of you reading this can probably shoot .2" groups with that rifle at 100 yards regardless of whether or not you've ever seen it or shot it or felt the trigger before!!!
Bottom line is!!! 1)The .204 is available commercially!2) Brass can be obtained by shooting factory loading(which do pretty good also!!)3)Fireforming 222MAG brass is an option!4)The lack of recoil allows one to see the "Red Mist"(and also the "hole" appear in the paper! 5) The darn thing is available to EVERYBODY without having to rechamber, fireform, spend oodles on "Lapua" brass and waste components!!!
Long live the .204, .223, .222MAG, 6x47!!! GHD

quote:

Originally posted by groundhog devastation:
Bottom line is!!! 1)The .204 is available commercially!2) Brass can be obtained by shooting factory loading(which do pretty good also!!)3)Fireforming 222MAG brass is an option!4)The lack of recoil allows one to see the "Red Mist"(and also the "hole" appear in the paper! 5) The darn thing is available to EVERYBODY without having to rechamber, fireform, spend oodles on "Lapua" brass and waste components!!!
Long live the .204, .223, .222MAG, 6x47!!! GHD

Thank You.

quote:

Originally posted by groundhog devastation:
OK folks, It's been a day or two posted so now after the discussions I'll chime in!!! The 222Magnum from the day of it's origination was an inherrently accurate cartridge capable of seeing duty at IBS matches and varmint fields alike!! The case design didn't function too well thru the prototype weapons the gov't wanted for their small arms automatic rifles so they adopted the 223 Remington instead(Same engineer.....Mike Walker of Remington designed them both!) Then somebody(a forward thinking wildcatter!) got the idea of necking the 222Mag up to 6mm......now known as the 6x47!!! Geuss what???? Such accurracy and small groups never seen before on the BR circuit!! Then old Pendell and Palmisano brought out a little ditty known as the "PPC" and the end of the "BR" circuit was in sight!!! Just call it the PPC society!!!
Then with all the excitement over the 17's and 20's, somebody said, "Let's neck the old 222MAG down to .204 and see what happens!!!" They did it but moved the shoulder forward a bit and guess what? The accurracy stayed in place!!!

Overly simplified explanation, but I'll let it go because it really doesn't matter for varmint hunting and I like GHD -- he's been good to me.

Kory

Kory, better oversimplified than overcomplicated.
Especially for me.

Besides I have read the entire story of the .222, the .222Mag, and the .223 many, many times...

My 222's do everything my 223's do. I think my 204 will do everything a Tactical 20 will do, and the 204 isn't a wildcat.