I'm in the planning stages of putting together a 20 caliber upper for prairie dog hunting, and I'm having problems making a decision regarding the chambering:
20 Practical - based on what I can see, this may be the best (of the three rounds mentioned) regarding feed reliability in an AR platform due to the fact that it's a simple neck-down rather than an altered shoulder angle, etc...; no off-the-shelf dies that I can find
20 Tactical - maybe a slight velocity edge over 20 Practical due to steeper shoulder, longer neck, (Lapua) factory brass (supposedly) available, off-the-shelf dies available; possibly not as smooth feeding as 20 Practical
.204 Ruger - available off-the-shelf ammo, available (Winchester) factory brass, probable velocity edge over 20 Practical/20 Tactical due to slightly larger case capacity; slightly longer case leaves less room for bullets that I want to run (Berger 55gr) vs. .223-based 20s
So... what sayeth the Hide? Obviously, the .223-based chamberings have the advantage of a (theoretically) endless supply of once-fired brass available for forming while the .204 has the advantage of offering off-the-shelf (affordable) brass and ammunition (if I forget/run out of hand loads). For the most part, I would expect performance of any of them to be close enough to the others for practical purposes (read: while I would be impressed with a 1/2" group at 500 yards, it's not a necessity).
Is there anything that I'm overlooking?
20 Practical - based on what I can see, this may be the best (of the three rounds mentioned) regarding feed reliability in an AR platform due to the fact that it's a simple neck-down rather than an altered shoulder angle, etc...; no off-the-shelf dies that I can find
20 Tactical - maybe a slight velocity edge over 20 Practical due to steeper shoulder, longer neck, (Lapua) factory brass (supposedly) available, off-the-shelf dies available; possibly not as smooth feeding as 20 Practical
.204 Ruger - available off-the-shelf ammo, available (Winchester) factory brass, probable velocity edge over 20 Practical/20 Tactical due to slightly larger case capacity; slightly longer case leaves less room for bullets that I want to run (Berger 55gr) vs. .223-based 20s
So... what sayeth the Hide? Obviously, the .223-based chamberings have the advantage of a (theoretically) endless supply of once-fired brass available for forming while the .204 has the advantage of offering off-the-shelf (affordable) brass and ammunition (if I forget/run out of hand loads). For the most part, I would expect performance of any of them to be close enough to the others for practical purposes (read: while I would be impressed with a 1/2" group at 500 yards, it's not a necessity).
Is there anything that I'm overlooking?
