Did a little shooting yesterday then ran to Helena and saw my first box of .204 Ruger, beings as how my buddy and I already have CZ's on order I bought em. Pulled one apart and discovered 30.0 grains even of a fine ball powder that looks amazingly like H335 (probably isn't but sure looks like it), the case is longer and thinner than the .20 Tactical: length 1.841 compared to 1.750, .3575 at the juncture of the case body and shoulder compared to .3625, .372 at the pressure ring compared to .374. Real short neck. Using H335 I was able to get 34.2 grains of powder in the .204 (full to the case mouth) as opposed to the Tact.20's 32.4. Personal opinion is the Tactical .20 is a more balanced looking cartridge, but I still want to compare the 2 so I just have to get one ( for comparison only mind you ). Should be interesting.

this is off subject, but do you use a Stoney-Point OAl gauge on your Tac.20?

So, what's your thoughts on the .204 Ruger? Will it super-seed the 20 Tac. My thoughts are yes, just b/c of the commerical cartidges out there that can be picked up at a local store. I also have news that Sierra bullets will have reloading 20 cal for us small caliber folks.
Have a nice one.
tbeasley

I took a Stoney point .17 and took it out to .202 (just the one that attaches to your caliper and meassures off the ogive). As to the comparison there isn't 4 cents worth of difference between the two ballisticaly, in spite of that some guy's will swear by one and curse the other. When I got my Tac the .204 wasn't even mentioned yet. Personally I like the look of the Tac better because to me it's a more balanced looking round and I like the availability of the high quality .223 brass. Having said that I have an order in for the first CZ in .204 that shows up at my resident gun pushers, and I'm looking forward to a side by side.

what about the Tac 20 brass, did you make your own or have stoney-point make one. I had Todd Kindler open my 17cal to .195 to measure the ogive. Is there some way I can neck down my .223 Stoney-Point case correctly. I did however neck it down to the Tac.20 already and of course messed up.

Didn't think of how I was going to measure since the bullet diameter is .204 and the brass opening is .200 now.



appreciate any info

thanks

tbeasley

mountdog,
I quite imagine the difference between the Ruger .204 and
the Tac 20 will amount to the difference between Todd
Kindler's version and Greg Tannel's version of the Tac 20 --
not much.

They will both be deadly varmint cartridges and hopefully
the Ruger .204 will be as accurate as most Tactical 20's.
But it's doubtful a coyote will notice the difference. As
for me, I'll stick with the VVCG Encore Tac 20 barrel. She's
as accurate as any bolt I have ever had -- still hard for
even me, who has experienced its accuracy, to believe it.
Any Tac 20 owner is also a reloader by necessity, and that
.223 brass will always be easy (and cheap) to get. The
higher quality (IMI) will never be available for the Ruger.

At any rate, hope ya have good luck with your CZ.

montdoug, I picked up a box of the ammo yesterday also. Early press articles say it is a necked down 222MAG case so I compared the two! I shoot 222MAG and have scads of brass so I was hoping it was a simple "neck down" job! However the 204 looks more like a 222MAG AI!! The shoulder is moved farther out and the shoulder differs also! It would require fireforming of 222Mag brass to make this one just like the AI cases! As far as the 30 grains of powder you found, I use 30.0 grains of VARGET and the 40BT in the 222MAG and am hoping VARGET works as well in the 204! Wish they would hurry up and get here!!! I'm waiting on the Remington versions! I had a Ruger ordered but when I found out Remington was coming with it, I changed my order!! GHD

tbeasley1
I ran a 223 stoneypoint case through a 17 mach iv #1 form die it works perfect. I think the 17 mach iv #1 and 20 tac form dies are the same so try with your form die.