Rechambering

[eleaf]

I have a question about rechambering.

I'm very intrigued by the Tac 20 round (a WC cartridge based off of a .223 with a different shoulder angle) and would like to get a rifle chambered in said round.

That said, spending the money on a Cooper or Dakota Arms (the only 2 "factory" builders who sell in that chambering) or having a custom gun made isn't the route I'd like to take just yet. I'd like to be a bit more economical about it.

It was hinted that I could buy a factory .204 rifle (say any Remington 700), buy a Shilen/Pac Nor barrel chambered in 20 Tac, and simply switch barrels to make that Rem 700 a Tac 20 instead of its former .204 Rugerness.

Is this accurate? Or is this completely wrong?

If it's wrong, how wrong is it?

If this idea would work, I'm thinking of buying the cheapest Rem 700 chambered in .204, buying a Shilen, buying a nice stock, dropping said new action/barrel combo in to nice stock and having my 20 Tac for much less than the other options.

It won't be as nice as a custom or a Cooper/Dakota Arms, but it will be nice enough for evaluation. If I really like it, I can have the action/bolt worked over and be GTG.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Rechambering

If it is based off a .223, why not buy a .223 and rebarrel it?

The .204 is based on the 222 magnum, not a whole lot of difference in the 222 magnum and the 223, except case length and the 222 magnum had a longer neck.

Would the .20 tac be superior to the .204?

Remeber, in the event of rebarreling, with a 700, it will have to be done by a gunsmith.
With a Savage, a couple of hundred dollars worth if tools and you can do it yourself, plus change the barrel whenever you want to.

 

[HarryCallahan]

Re: Rechambering

Check into the .20 Practical, same 223 parent cartridge but easier to form. Use 223 bushing dies with smaller bushings. Several good articles out on it.

 

[eleaf]

Re: Rechambering

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Harry Callahan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Check into the .20 Practical, same 223 parent cartridge but easier to form. Use 223 bushing dies with smaller bushings. Several good articles out on it. </div></div>

Why form when you can use Tac 20 Brass by Lapua and standard reloading dies from RCBS or Redding?

Though I wouldn't argue that Tac 20 is on the way to being mainstream, it has enough following to have proper tools to reload for it now without the forming nonsense.

The Practical 20 is no longer as practical as the Tactical.

 

[eleaf]

Re: Rechambering

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it is based off a .223, why not buy a .223 and rebarrel it?

The .204 is based on the 222 magnum, not a whole lot of difference in the 222 magnum and the 223, except case length and the 222 magnum had a longer neck.

Would the .20 tac be superior to the .204?

Remeber, in the event of rebarreling, with a 700, it will have to be done by a gunsmith.
With a Savage, a couple of hundred dollars worth if tools and you can do it yourself, plus change the barrel whenever you want to. </div></div>

I'm sure that a .223 would work fine as well. Needn't be a .204 Ruger.

Ballistically speaking, the 20 Tac is oh so very slightly ahead of the curve of the .204 (as in mostly negligible), but it uses anywhere from .5-3 grains less powder to do it depending on the bullet.

Thanks for the tip on the Rem 700 v Savage barrel changes. I wasn't aware of that, though because Rem 700 have more aftermarket options and the bolt/action can be worked over by any number of riflesmiths, I'd still prefer to go that direction.