.327 Federal Magnum

[jrothWA]

new Federal .327 Mag cartridge and the Ruger SP101?

I wonder how it would be in a properly scaled-up High Standard type derringer?
Would be extremely interesting???

[chris in va]

I thought you misprinted 357 at first, until I did a search. Haven't heard of it until now. 6 rounds of 327 in an SP!

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/video/GATV_Federal327/

[BillCA]

A very interesting and possibly very exciting development!

Here's what Federal's Website (http://www.federalcartridge.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=4&s2=6&id=171&brand=5&year=2007)said about the .327 Federal Magnum;

Using a slightly longer 32 H&R Magnum case and our advanced powder and bullet technology, we’re able to offer more performance out of a smaller platform. And its recoil is milder than the 357 Magnum. We’re excited to partner with Ruger and bring this product to market in the SP101 firearm.”

On top of the advanced ballistics and additional round offered in this shooting platform, the Ruger SP101 will shoot 32 H&R Magnum, 32 S&W and 32 S&W Long ammunition—giving shooters four caliber offerings and a great, versatile product for target shooting and personal defense applications.

The ammunition will be available in three loads:
• PD327HS1 H: Federal Premium 85-gr Hydra-Shok™ JHP
(1330 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)
• AE327: American Eagle® 100-gr SP
(1400 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)
• 23914 : Speer 115-gr Gold Dot® HP
(1300 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)

So you don't have to do the math....
Energy Levels
PD327HS1H: 85gr @1330 = 334 ft-lbs (4.84 ftlbs recoil)
AE327: 100-grain @1400 = 435 ft-lbs (6.34 ftlbs recoil)
23914: 115-grain @1300 = 432 ft-lbs (7.00 ftlbs recoil)

Recoil energy is for a 3 1/16" Ruger SP101 @ 28 oz.

Load #1 will recoil slightly more than a 110gr .357 in a 4" 686.
Load #2 will recoil slightly less than a 125gr .357 in a 4" 686.
Load #3 will recoil about the same as a 145gr .357 Silvertip in a 4" 686.

Recoil will be less than firing a .38 Special +P 158gr LSWC-HP at 950 fps in a 4" K-frame.

The Federal .32 H&R Magnum shows ballistics of:
85gr @ 1120 3.66(recoil)
95gr @ 1020 3.75
But these are out of a FIVE inch barrel, not a 3".

I'm interested in the concept, though I wish the cartridges were closer in size to the .32 H&R instead of making it longer yet again.

[MTMilitiaman]

Interesting.

Not my cup of tea, but interesting nonetheless.

[BillCA]

I wonder how it would be in a properly scaled-up High Standard type derringer? Would be extremely interesting???

Supposing a 15oz derringer, it could be pretty exciting to say the least. Go fire some 180-gr .357 loads out of a 4" 686 to get an example of the recoil. I suggest you try it with either magna grips or pre-war walnut grips to really get the feel of it. :D

Here's another idea... what about bringing back a K-Frame Magnum, with SEVEN shots of .327 Magnum? Think of a snubby Model 19 2.5" barrel seven-shooter. Or a 3" Model 13 chambered for seven rounds of .327!

[44 AMP]

But my reaction is ...why bother? I suppose if you have a thing for .32 cal this is neat, but I never did, so to me...Ho Hum.....

On the other hand, if it gets even one more person interested in shooting, then I guess it is a good thing, isn't it?

[denfoote]

I like. :D
This may be just the thing to get me to buy an SP101. :eek:
However, I think I'll wait for others to help Ruger and Federal recover their R&D costs!! :p
I'll wait a spell before I go plop!! ;)

[BillCA]

44AMP - which would you rather have if you had to walk through a dark,
semi-deserted parking garage at 3am?

A 5-shot .38 Special with premium loads topping out around 245 ft-lbs.

A 5-shot .357 Mag with premium loads that put out 540 ft-lbs with a huge
flash, massive muzzle blast and heavy recoil.

A 6-shot .327 Mag that puts out 430 ft-lbs with low recoil, moderate flash and noise?

Better yet, for the size of a S&W K-Frame revolver we might be able to cram 7-shots in the cylinder. Maybe 8 into an L-Frame and 10 in an N-frame! :D

[oldbillthundercheif]

Maybe 8 into an L-Frame and 10 in an N-frame!

That's exactly what I was thinking. This could be a neat chambering if it catches on.

[Sarge]

I'll keep my little .357 Sp101, thanks. It shoots 38 wadcutters well enough to ding squirrels at 25 yards, spits 125 grain defense loads at 1300 fps, and will handle the heaviest 180 grain hard-cast loads with aplomb. Oh, It bucks & bellers a little with the heavier loads but in the grand scheme of things that matter to me this is inconsequential.

I'm already, all set up to load the full spectrum of .38/.357 loads mentioned above.

I'm just not willing to sacrifice any facet of the .357's versatility for one more round of something smaller. If I were worried about capacity, I'd just get another 357 to drop in the other pocket;)

I think this is yet another effort to 'sell me something' as opposed to building a better mouse-trap. Besides, I had a 327 in a '63 hardtop once...damn thing leaked oil and the lifters made noise, so this new cartridge is doomed from th outset.:D

[44 AMP]

The .357.

My carry gun is usually my Browning BDA .45. 3am dark parking garage situations don't really apply to me, and haven't for decades.

You should, by all means carry and use what interests you, what you have confidence in, and what is best applicable for your personal situation.

I have never had any interest in .32 cal handguns, and have never felt any sense of loss because of it. I'm not bad mouthing the idea, I'm sure it will be useful for something, but I have decades of experience with the .38/.357 and load them from light to foolishly heavy, so I see no reason to go to anything smaller, even if it does get nearly the same speed.

Getting another round in the gun, or even getting a slightly smaller gun with standard round capacity doesn't interest me either. In fact, I don't really care for small handguns. They have their uses, but they aren't my favorites. I am an opinionated old cuss, and what works for me has worked for a long time already, so I don't see it failing in the future. I am not completely closed to new ideas, but they have to have some clear benefit to me over what I currently use, to convince me to spend my time (and money) on them.

Go ahead, check it out, and let us know how it works, maybe we could change out mind, but until I see some clear advantage to me personally, I'll wait.

[pesta2]

I will say one thing Bill Sr. died then later Bills Jr stepped down as pres. they really seemed to start getting innovated and trying new things. .327 Federal Mag. .375 Ruger, and the .300 and .338 RCM. New rifle desigs and new pistol designs. Now all they need to do is get their single action butts in gear and put a 5 shot cylinder in their Blackhawks, .454. .480, .500 Special…. Then some compact autos for CCW… One thing though Ruger give up on the Mini-14 already!

[CraigC]

I like the idea, though not for self defense. It will make a great small game and varmint cartridge. It will essentially duplicate what we've been doing for years with heavy .32-20 loads. Only with more robust brass and carbide dies. Can't wait to see if they chamber it in a Single Six, K-frame or levergun. I'm also interested in trying the new 115gr Gold Dot in my .32H&R's and .32-20's. Should be an excellent field bullet.

Don't think we'll see more than six shots on the K-frame, seven on the L-frame or eight on the N-frames. It's still a high pressure cartridge and not 'that' much smaller than a .357Mag.

[Tom2]

Sounds like 30 M1 Carbine to me.....Ruger did make revolvers in that load but of course it is rimless. Oh maybe it looks like a rimmed carbine round? Guess I would have to see them side by side to get a feel for it. Not much difference between a 110 grain carbine bullet and a 32 cal. 110 grain bullet though, I would think. Maybe they should have just made a carbine cal revolver with the capability of loading it with C clips like a 45 ACP revolver?

[pistolet1]

I realize that it sounds intriguing enough (I've always had a certain fondness for the .32 SA); but I think the high cost (and possibly limited quantity), of factory ammo will keep the majority of shooters away. This sounds more like a small niche appeal sort of concept, and nothing that will ever have any sort of widespread acceptance. And if any of the remaining wheelgun manufacturers don't make any new product for it, possibly because of additional R&D and production costs; I'm afraid it will end up being another unusual pistol/ammo combination that will quietly fade off into obscurity.
Maybe I'm being a little too pessimistic as I would like to see something like this succeed; it's just that you're up against some pretty overwhelming competition, going up against the likes of the .38Special/.357 Magnum establishment. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this one plays out.

[Guntalk]

News Release from Federal:
==========================
ANOKA, Minn. – November 9, 2007 – Federal Premium® has partnered with Ruger® to introduce a new personal defense revolver cartridge designed to deliver 357 Magnum ballistics out of a 32-caliber diameter platform—and with 20-percent less recoil. The 327 Federal Magnum is designed for use in lightweight, small frame revolvers like the proven Ruger SP101 platform. The gun and ammunition will be available on shelf by January 2008.



The advent of advanced powder blends and more robust, high quality bullets has paved the way for more advancement in cartridge design. Federal Premium Ammunition has taken the often underpowered 32-caliber platform and beefed it up to achieve 357 Magnum velocity and energy out of a smaller package. This allows shooters to chamber an additional round in their wheelgun—six shots as opposed to the traditional five-shot cylinder offered in 38-Special and 357 Magnum guns. 



According to lead design engineer Larry Head, “The 327 Federal Magnum is ideal for personal defense and has the potential for future application in field use. Using a slightly longer 32 H&R Magnum case and our advanced powder and bullet technology, we’re able to offer more performance out of a smaller platform. And its recoil is milder than the 357 Magnum. We’re excited to partner with Ruger and bring this product to market in the SP101 firearm.”



On top of the advanced ballistics and additional round offered in this shooting platform, the Ruger SP101 will shoot 32 H&R Magnum, 32 S&W and 32 S&W Long ammunition—giving shooters four caliber offerings and a great, versatile product for target shooting and personal defense applications. 



The ammunition will be available in three loads:
• PD327HS1 H: Federal Premium 85-gr Hydra-Shok™ JHP 
(1330 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)
• AE327: American Eagle® 100-gr SP 
(1400 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)
• 23914 : Speer 115-gr Gold Dot® HP 
(1300 fps muzzle velocity in 3-1/16” barrel)



Ruger will offer the 327 Federal Magnum SP101 in a 3-1/16-inch barrel length and six-shot cylinder. It will feature an adjustable rear site and satin stainless finish.



This exciting new shooting platform will be available beginning in January of 2008. 


[s4s4u]

I don't know about the "power of the 357" claim, especially with hot 180's, but I like it. And, will have one when it comes out. I'll let y'all know.

[chris in va]

A little more info here.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/video/GATV_Federal327/

[JohnKSa]

Very interesting. I too thought the thread title was a typo...

A "hi-cap" full sized revolver in this chambering would be very interesting as a kit gun.

BTW, we had two threads running on this topic so I merged them.

[Wildalaska]

S&W J Frame airlite hmmm

I've fired 32 H&R mag out of my 1937 nagant....dare me?

WilditwillbeayearbeforewegetammoAlaska TM

[gak]

Great idea. I have several .32 Magnums (Airweights and Vaqueritos....as well as various .38s/.357s and .44s) - great round and guns. This one sounds like a real winner. I'm with those that say "finally a reason for me to buy an SP101"...which I always thought was a bit heavier platform for the .32 H&R than (really) needed or justified--for a carry type gun (still applaud they're making the gun though), and shy one round in the .38/.357 configurations--again especially for the weight. I hope that the Single Six is also made available in this (actually a .327 cylinder - if it'll fit - for my current .32Ms)...and if not perhaps a .327/.32-20 New Vaquero convertible!

[Guntalk]

Hmmm. I'm thinking that a lever-action rifle in this cartridge would be pretty slick.

[gak]

Hmmm. I'm thinking that a lever-action rifle in this cartridge would be pretty slick.
I'll second that -- Rossi, Marlin and (the new) Winchester -- are you listening?

[Hobie]

I think it will make a great Contender carbine round. If you load with .32 S&Ws you'll have a nearly silent load in a 21" barreled .327 Federal. Pretty cool.

[Wildalaska]

Easy enough to convert a 32-20 Marlin I reckon


WildreamerreamerAlaska TM

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So I'm confused. It doesn't chamber in existed 32 HR Mag guns? That would mean that the only platform is the SP101 frame.

The beauty of CCW revolvers is the J frame size. Ruger was remiss IMO for not putting out a J frame size gun like SW, Taurus or Charter.

That was due to Patriarch Ruger being not a fan of concealable guns. I recall an article in a G&A annual about the development of the 22 LR semis that showed a neat small semi that he wouldn't produce as it was stated to be too concealable.

So to capture the really small market which is central to CCW - the three above would have to rechamber?

What am I missing? Since I have SW 432 if it did chamber this round, I might give it a look.

[Guntalk]

It's exactly like the .357 Magnum is longer than the .38 Special, to prevent someone putting the magnum cartridge (more PRESSURE) into a firearm which was not designed to handle it.

[Wildalaska]

It's exactly like the .357 Magnum is longer than the .38 Special, to prevent someone putting the magnum cartridge (more PRESSURE) into a firearm which was not designed to handle it.

Im sitting here laughing hysterically in my small mind thinking of me stuffin one in a Nagant....I gots to try! (I will use string to touch it off)

My usual load is 2.3 grains of Unique.....:D

WildpowpowtakethatyouexploiteroftheworkersandpeasantsAlaska ™

[Webleymkv]

I think it's a good idea. Do I see it as a replacement for a .357 Magnum? No,as I feel that that caliber really shines with the heavier 140-158grn bullets that are out of the weight range of the .327 Federal. I do think, however that it would be an excellent option for those who have trouble with the recoil and muzzle flip of a .357 snub. Personally, I'd go for the 115grn Gold Dot, it should have pretty good penetration due to its sectional density. I don't think that the performance would be all that spectacular out of a lever gun though. I suspect that they use rather fast burning powders to get those velocities out of a shorter barrel so i suspect that all the powder would be burned up long before the bullet reaches the end of a 16" rifle barrel and it might actually be a bit slower than it would out of a long barreled revolver (of course a resourceful handloader could rectify this by using slower powders). I do think that this would make an excellent trail gun for a handloader if used with something like Montana Bullet Works 135grn 32-20 cast bullet. Also, the "within 35 ft/lbs of a 125grn .357 Magnum" claim made in the video and the Shooting Times link below is a bit exaggerated if we're talking about a 4" .357 Revolver (which is specifically stated in the Shooting Times link) with the classic 125grn @ 1450fps load (583 ft/lbs energy). Using the weights and velocities shown in the Federal link below we get the following:

85grn Hydra-Shok @ 1330fps- 334 ft/lbs energy
100grn Soft Point @ 1400fps- 435 ft/lbs energy
115grn Speer Gold Dot @ 1300fps- 432 ft/lbs energy

http://www.federalcartridge.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=4&s2=6&id=171&brand=5&year=2007

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st327_110707/

So, we've actually got 150-250 ft/lbs less energy than a 125grn .357 from a 4" barrel. Now, a 125grn bullet @ 1300fps gives us 469 ft/lbs. This type of velocity is about what could be expected from a 3 1/16" .357 SP101 so I suppose the claim is accurate if fired from the same type of revolver. My guess is that the actual production loads will be different than those discussed in the video and Shooting Times article since Shooting Times also states that the 100grn Softpoint goes 100fps faster than a 125grn .357 from a 4" barrel.

[oldironman]

Quote:
Hmmm. I'm thinking that a lever-action rifle in this cartridge would be pretty slick.
I'll second that -- Rossi, Marlin and (the new) Winchester -- are you listening?
Yeah, I think Ruger missed a perfectly good chance to break out with a lever-action.

[Sarge]

Webley,

My 2 1/4" SP101 will break 1295-1310 fps with several 125 grain Mag HP's. I would expect the 3" model to shade that by a fair margin, by virtue of nearly 50% more barrel length.

[SpookBoy]

Yeah, I think Ruger missed a perfectly good chance to break out with a lever-action.

They already tried that, its the 96 seires, 96/22, 96/44 and such it was kinda a flop to my understanding.

pic
http://www.ssaa.org.au/OFFICIALREVIEWS/22leveraction/RUGER-9622.jpg

Also speaking of ruger rifles, if they(or someone) made a larger mag for the 96/44 or the .44 deerfield carbine maybe a 15 rounder.Then i would have purchased one by now.

[CraigC]

I don't think that the performance would be all that spectacular out of a lever gun though.

Don't be so sure. Slower burning powders still yield the highest velocities. They wouldn't get 1300fps with the 115gr Gold Dot with fast burning powders. Should be able to get 1500fps out of a 7½" sixgun and probably 2000fps from a rifle.

Even fast burning powders like Unique gain velocity in rifle length barrels. I clock my .44Mag load of a 240gr SWC over 10.0gr Unique at 1150fps out of a single action and over 1400fps out of a 20" rifle.

[Webleymkv]

My 2 1/4" SP101 will break 1295-1310 fps with several 125 grain Mag HP's. I would expect the 3" model to shade that by a fair margin, by virtue of nearly 50% more barrel length.


I have actually seen a test where a 2 1/4" SP101 was averaging 1357fps with 125grn loads, all guns will, however, lose differing amounts of velocity with short barrels so I kept my numbers on the conservative side. Also, the gained velocity of the 3 1/16" barrel may not be as much as you'd think. In various tests that I've seen, .357 Magnums usually lose quite a bit more velocity going from a 4 to 3" barrel than they do going from 3 to 2".

Don't be so sure. Slower burning powders still yield the highest velocities. They wouldn't get 1300fps with the 115gr Gold Dot with fast burning powders. Should be able to get 1500fps out of a 7½" sixgun and probably 2000fps from a rifle.

Even fast burning powders like Unique gain velocity in rifle length barrels. I clock my .44Mag load of a 240gr SWC over 10.0gr Unique at 1150fps out of a single action and over 1400fps out of a 20" rifle.

Well, my guess would be that the burn rate on their powder is more suited to the 3 1/16" barrel since they're marketing this as a small carry gun which would make it relatively fast burning. The .357 and .44 Magnums on the other hand were originally designed to be used in 6 1/2 to 8 3/4" barrels that take better advantage of the slower powders. This is why, in many loadings, they have such tremendous flash and blast when fired from 4" or shorter barrels. The fact that this caliber is supposed to have significantly less flash and blast further indicates that they're using faster powders than most of the other magnums. To be sure there would be some velocity gain from a rifle barrel, I just don't think it'd be much more than a couple hundred feet per second with factory ammo. As I stated earlier, however, a hadloader using a slower powder could probably get better results.

[Tom2]

So still, how is this anything but a rimmed 30 carbine, for practical purposes? Few thousandths larger bullet I know, but I can get that kind of performace out of my carbine and there were handguns created that could shoot the carbine round, if you could stand the sharp muzzle blast.

[Webleymkv]

The .30 carbine is just a hair longer than the .327 Mag and Factory ammunition for the new cartridge will more than likely have powders more suited to the shorter barrel to help eliminate some of the sharp muzzle blast. But more importantly, the new cartridge is rimmed which will give it more positive purchase for the ejector star on a DA revolver. Now, a small frame .30 Carbine revolver that uses moon clips like most other DA revolvers using rimless cartridges would be very interesting. The only concern here is that the .30 Carbine is higher pressure than even the .357 Magnum (SAAMI maximum is 40,000 psi as opposed to 35,000 psi for the .357 Magnum to give an idea the .357 Maximum and .45 Winchester Magnum are also a 40,000psi maximum).

[22-rimfire]

If it's new, it must be exciting? I'm still fuming over Ruger dropping production of the 480 Ruger guns. I doubt I'll be giving Mr. Ruger any business with regard to this cartridge. It doesn't offer anything that is already done. I know, it's new.... If I want a revolver cartridge in a lever rifle, I'll take either a 357 or 41 mag in the 1894. What would make this new cartridge particularly appealing?

[CraigC]

What would make this new cartridge particularly appealing?

It will essentially match what we've been doing with heavy loads in the .32-20 for years. Only with stronger brass and in smaller guns. If a .32 caliber, 100-115gr bullet at 1400-1600fps in a sixgun or 1800-2000fps in a rifle does not interest you, then I guess you don't need one. It will more effectively bridge the gap between the .22Mag and the .357Mag. The .32H&R has always been loaded conservatively in deference to their weaker top break guns. Its full potential has never been realized and never will with factory loads. At 1/8" longer and double the working pressure the .327 will be a hotrod. Small game and varmint mashing supreme.

I don't understand why so many can't look past the SP snubby and see the possibilities.

[Crosshair]

The .32H&R has always been loaded conservatively in deference to their weaker top break guns.

Since when has the 32 H&R been chambered in top-break guns? It's pressure spec is above the 38 Special +P. The whole point of the 32 H&R was to have something that recoiled like a 38 special, but shot as flat as a .357.

The muzzle blast on this cartridge is going to be horrendous, especially out of a snub. I still think they would have been better off reintroducing the 32 H&R.

[22-rimfire]

If a .32 caliber, 100-115gr bullet at 1400-1600fps in a sixgun or 1800-2000fps in a rifle does not interest you, then I guess you don't need one.

Lord knows I don't need one. I have too many guns already at least to my wife. Frankly, the 32 mag always interested me for a light carry caliber that was smaller than a 38spl in power, but would have more knockdown power than a 22LR or 25ACP. As mentioned, the muzzle blast may be substantial. The SP101 never really interested me because of the triggers. I am going to wait and see how they sell and tune in here for reviews of the guns and caliber.

[CraigC]

Since when has the 32 H&R been chambered in top-break guns?

My mistake, I'm all but completely unfamiliar with H&R's handguns. Either way, it was the weaker H&R design that dictated the pressure limits. The Single Six, K-32, T/C and Dan Wesson guns can all handle more pressure.

[gak]

I don't understand why so many can't look past the SP snubby and see the possibilities.
I ditto that...lots of possibilities (including a rifle-specific load like they used to differentiate in the old days...but probably shouldn't hold our breaths on that)....but here's hoping it won't be too much of a "blast" in the snubbies as well.

[Jim March]

If I understand the thinking here...a LOT of people use 357Mag SP101s as CCW guns but don't carry full-tilt-boogie ammo - 125gr. at 1,400+, 158s at 1,250, 180s at 1,150+ (numbers from 2" barrels).

So, if they're not going to go whole-hog on power, and are now carrying Golden Saber 125s @ 1,150, Gold Dot 135s @ 1,100 (if that) or even the Cor-Bon 125DPX at 1,200, then why not go down a bore size, get six shots instead of five and max it out to the horsepower levels people seem to want to carry?

It actually makes some sense.

Consider that speedloaders from the 32H&RMag small sixguns will work, as will reloading parts (bullets, dies). So the "accessory support" is there. We also have down-rated loads in the 32Mag, 32S&W/Long family so there's mild practice fodder around - something that was lacking in the 480 and was likely a factor in it's demise.

The gurus at the Single Action forum are claiming that a Single Six with a custom cylinder and shaved frame window could be set up for 327 as a sixgun.

THAT would be sweet!

The New Vaquero-size SA platform (or any SAA clone/near-clone) could be chambered in this no problem.

[Webleymkv]

Also, if the caliber turns out to be a fad (as some may fear) and ammo is no longer available, .32 S&W Long and H&R Magnum ammo will still be available.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I still don't think it will take off unless J frame guns are made for it. The Js are guns of choice for pocket carry and lots of civilians.

While the SP101 is a nice gun, it is a belt gun and if I go belt - then it is one of my semiautos.

[BillCA]

The gurus at the Single Action forum are claiming that a Single Six with a custom cylinder and shaved frame window could be set up for 327 as a sixgun.

Hi Jim - I'm not sure that any changes would be needed to the cylinder window. I checked yesterday and the .32 H&R Magnum cartridge - with a projectile - is the same length as an empty .357 Mag case. Add an extra 0.125" (1/8") and they should be about the same OAL. I have to think Federal kept this in mind during the design phase to keep production costs down.

Glenn - Earlier I posted estimated recoil energies for a 28oz Ruger SP-101. I'm looking at the recoil in the small guns and it's reasonable, but significantly more than the .32 H&R Mag. The .327 probably won't win any fans when put into the Airweight guns as the recoil will range from "stout" to feeling like one is holding onto dynamite. :eek:

23oz (Steel 649/640 serie)s -
1. PD327HS1H: 85gr @1330 = 334 ft-lbs (5.65 ftlbs recoil)
2. AE327: 100-grain @1400 = 435 ft-lbs (7.72 ftlbs recoil)
3. 23914: 115-grain @1300 = 432 ft-lbs (8.52 ftlbs recoil)

Equivalents:
1. Model 66 4" firing a .357 125-gr @ 1450 fps -minus 1/2 ft-lb
2. Model 66 4" firing a .357 180-gr @ 1180 fps + 1/2 ft-lb
3. Model 686 4" firing .357 180-gr @ 1180 fps

15oz (Airweight 432/432/360 etc.)
1. PD327HS1H: 85gr @1330 = 334 ft-lbs (8.67 ftlbs recoil)
2. AE327: 100-grain @1400 = 435 ft-lbs (11.83 ftlbs recoil)
3. 23914: 115-grain @1300 = 432 ft-lbs (13.06 ftlbs recoil)

Equivalents:
1. Model 686 4" firing .357 180-gr @ 1180 fps
2. Model 629 4" firing .44M 210-gr @ 1250 fps
3. Model 629 4" firing .44M 240-gr @ 1180 fps

For reference, loads up to about a 6~7 ft-lb range are fairly comfortable to shoot. Think of a .38 +P in a 34 oz 4" K-frame.

Between the 7~9 ft-lb range, I describe the recoil as "brisk" but not overly abusive. This would be like the 2.5" K-frame launching a 180-gr .357 Mag.

From 9~12 ft-lbs we get into the .41 & .44 Magnum territory or equivalent to firing 125-gr to 180-gr .357's out of a steel 640/649. Here I describe the recoil as "ouch"!

[Colt46]

I remember being disappointed when I first heard about the actual ballistics on the .32 magnum.

.327 magnum actually sounds like something that was offered standard on Camaro's about thirty years ago.

[Tom2]

Frankly I don't expect it to be that much more successful than the H&R magnum round. First you are introducing a new cartridge for a platform that is seen by many as obolescent, or even obsolete, the revolver, and it is not some big whammo large bore knockem down hunting round, like the 480's or the 50's etc. Nothing to brag about and no good for taking large deer or the fictitious charging grizzly bear that is always the buzz on the forums. I suspect it will go the way of the 480, sadly, due to the high cost of ammo these days, especially smaller demand rounds, and no clear niche to fill. Maybe it will still survive as a handloading proposition for a few people that want something different.

[Mike Irwin]

Seems like an interesting concept, but I'm not going to rush out and get one just yet.

And I like the .32 caliber....

Somehow this makes me think of the old .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge...

It's what Winchester used as the basis for the .30 Carbine

[tn gun runner]

I See No Good Reason For The 327 Fed ... Putting A Rim On A 30 Carbine Case And Stuff A .312 Bullet It Just To Make A Straight Wall 32-20 Case Seem Like Alot Of Trouble... The New Powder When It Become Avaible To Reloads Will Give New Life To 32hr, 32-20 And 30 Carbine In A Pistol.. 32-20 Been Around For 100 Yrs And Never Made It As Self Defensive Round And It Will Out Class The 327 By A Long Shot That Why I'm Not Getting Excited Over The New Round

[Joe the Redneck]

First, I want to say I plan to buy one. (Santa, can you hear me?)

Second, I think it is a horriable idea. The 85 grn load is a duplicate of the 7.62 x 25. That round is spooky to fire in my CZ. Firing something like that in a 2 inch snubbie sounds like a great big pile of no-fun. Lever action or single shot rifle, no problem. Pocket gun, no thanks. I see the 327 heading off into the sunset where it belongs.

I like the idea of having a modern gun to fire the old 32 caliber rounds in. The only guns I have are old H&R and Iver Johnsons that have awful trigger and terriable sights. I'd love to have something decent like a Ruger to play with.

Now if only they would make a 5 shot cylinder to reduce "pocket bulge", but that won't happen.

[CraigC]

no clear niche to fill.

Is there not a rather significant gap between the .22Mag and .357?

Firstly, the H&R has been reigned back in deference to the weaker H&R guns. Held to only 21,000CUP. We know the Single Six is stronger than that but it won't change industry standards. We also know that great performance is available out of the .32-20 with handloads. Well, we won't be seeing them factory loaded to over 40,000psi nor will we be seeing new guns chambering it for that reason. So, if what you want is a 115gr .32 at velocities over that of the .32H&R, a brand new cartridge is the only way.

What continues to baffle me is how negative so many shooters are. Maybe just as a group we tend to be set in our ways and resistant to change. What people don't realize is that all that negativity, that predicting it will fail and not giving it a snowball's chance in hell, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If it fails, it will be because of 'that'. Just like what happened to the .480 Ruger. A great cartridge that fell victim to poor marketing and Clint Smith's infamous "**** Suckers". The .17HMR is very lucky in that enough people found they liked it that the **** Suckers soon found themselves outnumbered. Doesn't happen too often.

[Sarge]

Is there not a rather significant gap between the .22Mag and .357?

None at all; and the .22 Mag is optional in my book. The space between the .22 LR and .357 is filled quite handily by the .38 Special- AKA 'low gear' for the .357 Mag.

If the .32 Magnum & A Half turn your crank, by all means buy one. BTW all Clint Smith accomplished with his **** sucker comment was to move from my 'Good Guy' category over into the 'Bite My Azz' box- and insure that I'll never buy anything with his name on it. Some of us just won't line up to praise the Emperor's New Clothes, regardless of who's in his cheer-leading section.

[azredhawk44]

I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem.

.22's are for bunnies, squirrels, deer poaching and target plinking.

.357 is for defensive use, or pistol hunting thin skinned game (deer, javelina, small hogs, etc). If you can't handle .357, you've got .38's. .22's are about 100ft/lbs, and light .38 loads are about 200 ft/lbs and up.

What are you going to do with a .32magnum-magnum? I don't see a hollowpoint opening up well in such a small cavity. So you've got a smaller hole.

The few (fairly knowledgeable and certainly "advanced") handgunners that want a fast .32 have reloading presses, and can cook up what they need with .32-20 and .32 H&R. They are mostly cowboy game players and bunny chasers, so give them a single six or little vaq. Not a snub DA revolver.

Silly development. I was saving for a SRH in .480 before they yanked that product, and I am very sore over that.

[Crosshair]

None at all; and the .22 Mag is optional in my book. The space between the .22 LR and .357 is filled quite handily by the .38 Special- AKA 'low gear' for the .357 Mag.

The problem is that the 38 Special doesn't shoot flat enough for small game hunting. The 32 H&R had the same power of the 38 Special, but shot much flatter than the 38.

[Mike Irwin]

"The problem is that the 38 Special doesn't shoot flat enough for small game hunting."

Huh.

I wish someone had told me that before I used a .38 Spl. to take nearly 200 rabbits, groundhogs, squirrels, and raccoons during the 1980s and early 1990s...

[Sarge]

"The problem is that the 38 Special doesn't shoot flat enough for small game hunting."

Huh.

I wish someone had told me that before I used a .38 Spl. to take nearly 200 rabbits, groundhogs, squirrels, and raccoons during the 1980s and early 1990s...

I got a laugh out of that one too, Mike. My experience mimics yours.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x187/SargeMO/SPat25w38HBWC.jpg

[CraigC]

The problem is that the 38 Special doesn't shoot flat enough for small game hunting. The 32 H&R had the same power of the 38 Special, but shot much flatter than the 38.

Exactly! Finally, somebody gets it. The .38Spl is great within its effective range but with its relatively low velocity it starts falling fast past 50yds. The .327 with its much higher velocity and the excellent Gold Dot bullet will hit with much more authority and shoot much flatter. The .22LR isn't much good for game larger than rabbits out of a sixgun, although I have killed foxes with the Single Six. There are those who will always complain about ammo cost with the .22Mag. At present, the only handguns suitable for heavy .32-20 loads are the Colt SAA at its many replicas, the T/C Contender and custom Rugers built on the Old Model .357Mag Blackhawk or five shot Single Sixes. Except for the Single Six, those guns are very heavy for the cartridge. The .327 'should' be able to be utilized in the Single Six, at least as a custom job if not a factory gun. Would make a for a very nice daily carry beltgun capable of putting down small game and varmints up to coyotes out to 100yds.

In a rifle, with its extra 300-400fps, it will be varmint zapper supreme. I would expect to get an easy 150yds out of it and cleanly take coyotes with aplomb. Marlin already makes one in .32H&R, the .327 will be a snap!

[CraigC]

BTW all Clint Smith accomplished with his **** sucker comment was to move from my 'Good Guy' category over into the 'Bite My Azz' box- and insure that I'll never buy anything with his name on it.

I'm quite sure that Clint Smith never intended that to mean you surrender your own judgement. It's best to meet all things with at least a touch of skepticism. However, what seems to happen is that a great many shooters instantly reject all things new, as if by policy. As if everything we now hold dear was not brand new at some point in time. I would not tell you to greet every new thing with open arms like a braindead true believer. Quite the contrary. Just give it a chance to lift off before you doom it to disaster. It may just take off and fly and in the process you won't have peed in somebody's corn flakes.

There's not much new under the sun but developing new and exciting things is part of how gun companies stay in business. You either grow your business or you go out of business. Cut them some slack, they catch enough from our enemies. Nobody requires you to buy them anyway, so don't act like it's a new tax.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

Been watching this for a few days... if they make it, I'll buy one... I absolutely love my 6 shot air weight J frame in 32 H&R Magnum, love the GP-100 I have in 357 Magnum, & I've been looking for a reason to buy an SP-100 ( currently IMO, they are too heavy for a pocket gun, but I could see buying one as a lighter belt gun for the woods or for CC use, & the 327 is just what I need in a cartridge to nudge me in that direction )

the platform is obsolite ??? I don't think so... of my buds that took the same CCW class as I did, we are nearly 50 / 50 between compact revolvers & compact autos, since we graduated class... I have any number of quality compact & full sized autos available to carry, any time I choose, but a 2" barreled revolver is with me about 99% of the time that I carry...

my only problem with the format is the weight of the Ruger... if S&W were to remove the lock ( I know that'll never happen, just a minor rant ), & offer an ar weight J Frame in the 327, with a TI cylinder... I'd have to have one for my new primary carry gun... but as I said, this is the nudge I needed to put an SP in my gun locker...

[Crosshair]

Mike Irwin I wish someone had told me that before I used a .38 Spl. to take nearly 200 rabbits, groundhogs, squirrels, and raccoons during the 1980s and early 1990s...

At what range were you shooting? I'm not talking about 25 yard ranges, I'm talking about 50-75+ yard handgun shooting. The 32 H&R gives one more leeway in terms of estimating range.

[Mike Irwin]

"At what range were you shooting?"

Anywhere from 10 feet to the longest shot of about 120 yards on a very fat, very happy groundhog that decided to sit still and eat a dinner of beans rather than run.

More than a couple of my groundhogs were taken at 50+ yards.

If you know what you and your gun are about, it's not hard to do.

[gak]

Everything CraigC and Magnum Wheel Man so eloquently said. Another thing about negativity this early (over this type of thing), it's not just about expressing one's opinions (though you have every right to)...those opinions as we have found with other fine platforms gone by the wayside - often can precede--and bias folks' views well ahead of objective range and field tests which would prove or disprove a new round or gun...and therefore and ruin any chance for them ahead of their time.

Let's wait for those tests to come and and see...and then wait a little longer yetas subsequent new testers always have a little different spin (meant technically) to put on things...before blowing it down. And before you say for us supporters of the .327 (and .32 H&R) concept to do the same thing (that is wait) to extol the virtues, that's different (of course :)): positive is positive....nothing ever wrong with getting excited about something new and stirring some interest--even if later that excitement is proven to be premature or ultimately unfounded. At least that doesn't have the (sometimes permanent) effect of killing a neat thing--at least to some folks. Like someone said, don't act like it's a new tax...just don't buy it (but don't slam it prematurely either...even if you end up proven right later). You will always have your .357s and .38s (and I hope I do too...am a big fan of both those rounds as well).

And whoever responded there wasn't a big gap between the .22s and .357, you know darn well they (original poster) also meant .38s (functionally) as part of that statement. Even considering "light" .38s (that are worth anything), you're smoking something other than tobacco. The .327 as a modern day .32-20...certainly can't be a bad thing--and might be a great thing!

[Mike Irwin]

I already have a .32-20 revolver...

I think I'll stick with it.

[gak]

I already have a .32-20 revolver...
I think I'll stick with it.

Have had my eyes out for awhile for a 1st Gen SAA in .32-20--especially a Bisley, just because--for reasonable $...Think it'll be awhile longer--ha--or I'll have to bite the bullet on a new one, which is hardly a bad thing either...the "4th" (late 3rd) gens are very nice...or a nice clone. Have a .44 Sp Cimarron P ("SAA") that needs a companion.

[Mike Irwin]

Mine's a 1920s era S&W Military & Police Hand Ejector.

[gak]

Mine's a 1920s era S&W Military & Police Hand Ejector.
Nice!

[jrothWA]

to have a "HS" style derringer chambered for this cartridge.
And be able to slip it in a pocket and not have it SCREAM PACKING?

I think the opening scene of "The Shootist" has something to do with my idea. :)

[CraigC]

I already have a .32-20 revolver...

I think I'll stick with it.

You drive 115gr jacketed bullets to 1500fps in that little K-frame?

[Sarge]

To the folks complaining about 'negative comments' (which evidently includes 'questioning the need for the .327 Whatever') I'd like to point out the following:

Any comments on the...
new Federal .327 Mag cartridge and the Ruger SP101?

I wonder how it would be in a properly scaled-up High Standard type derringer?
Would be extremely interesting???

That's the original post by jrothWA and I believe "Any comments" can be interpreted to include "Might not be so hot" and variations thereof.

It's a discussion board folks, and those weighing the not-inconsiderable investment for guns, ammo and reloading components/equipment just might be interested in hearing pros AND cons. The purveyors of these items will not end up begging in the streets and eating out of trash-cans because some of aren't all worked up about it.

Buy it. Test it. Tell us what you discover. Personally I am reserving my not-unlimited disposable income for firearms, etc. that serve a clear purpose- according to my needs and wants.

Your mileage may vary. It is, after all, a great big world out there.

[Jamie C.]

Eh, I think I might have to have one. Or maybe even two, so the wife will leave me one. :D

I just can't see a gun that'll use, what, four? different flavors of .32 ammo as being a bad or useless thing.

And if .327 mag goes the way of the Dodo bird, then maybe I'll have a reason/excuse to start reloading again.

Besides, I'm rather fond of smallish revolvers with 3 inch barrels, and one that carries 6 rounds of something fairly potent sounds pretty good to me. Certainly no worse than carrying a plastic auto-loader in .32 auto...


J.C.

[saltydog452]

Before it was dumbed down, about 40 years ago 32.20 ammunition was available at velocities at, or greater than the 'new' Magnum.

Granted, use of the 'rifle' ammunition in some revolvers could cause an un-intentinal dis-assembly.

salty.

[jhgreasemonkey]

It sounds pretty cool for a carry revolver. Another thought I had is how long untill some ding dong buys ammo in a hurry, just glances at the box and loads a .357 with .327 rounds. And hopefully you cant jam the .357 into the .327 cylinder figuring .38 cal compared to .32 cal. That would be a hand grenade.

[Mike Irwin]

"You drive 115gr jacketed bullets to 1500fps in that little K-frame?"

Nope. I have a .357 Magnum (actually 7 of them) for that.


"Before it was dumbed down, about 40 years ago 32.20 ammunition was available at velocities at, or greater than the 'new' Magnum."

Winchester introduced their "Hi Speed" ammunition in .32-20, .38-40, .44-40, and .45-70 around the turn of the 19th century.

The .32, .38, and .44s were designed for use only in the Model 92 Winchester, while the .45-70 was for use only in the 1886.

Lots of people either couldn't, or wouldn't, read, and a lot of 1873 Winchesters and Colts and probably a lot of .45-70 Trapdoors retired prematurely.

Winchester dropped the Hi Speed loads just before World War II and as far as I know never brought any of them back.

[Mike Irwin]

"Before it was dumbed down, about 40 years ago 32.20 ammunition was available at velocities at, or greater than the 'new' Magnum."

It would be annoying, but not that much of a problem.

First, I'm not sure that the firing pin would hit the primer on the smaller cartridge, and second, even if it did, the pressure wouldn't be contained. The bullet would pop out and it would likely tie the gun up, but there wouldn't be any kind of catastrophe.

[BillCA]

It sounds pretty cool for a carry revolver. Another thought I had is how long untill some ding dong buys ammo in a hurry, just glances at the box and loads a .357 with .327 rounds. And hopefully you cant jam the .357 into the .327 cylinder figuring .38 cal compared to .32 cal. That would be a hand grenade.

Not much chance of that. The diameter of the cartridges precludes chambering a .38/.357 round in the .327. And if you drop a .327 round into a .357 chamber, you'll know right away you did something stupid as the cartridge either falls through or hangs out the front of the cylinder.

[CraigC]

I have a .357 Magnum (actually 7 of them) for that.

Good for you. I have no use for the .357 but I can put a handy-dandy little Single Six in .327Federal to work! Probably save me about $1000 on having a custom .32-20 built. Not to mention stronger brass.

[cold dead hands]

As a custom pet project I think the round has potential for some neat guns.

The revolver/lever action combo is good to me any day of the week. So you end up with a revolver and a rifle that shoot four lengths and powers of ammo. I see it as a great way to start the kids with the weak stuff and move on up to the full power of the round without having to cook up your own loads, especially if you do not reload.

What I want to see is that 8 shot S&W .357 mag turned into at least a ten shot .327 mag. How many rounds could they squeeze into a cylinder that big?
I carry my .357 daily, but I would start carrying a .327 in a light frame provided the recoil wasn't brutal.

[mfree]

Well, if the "new powder" gives new life to .32 H&R Magnum, then just toss the H&R into your .327 fedmag revolvers.

It's a win-win, folks... the revolvers still use the older cartridges, so if fedmag flops you've got fallback. Conversely, if it takes off, hey, you can shoot it.

[CraigC]

How many rounds could they squeeze into a cylinder that big?

Don't know, what you have to remember is that the .327 is running double the H&R's pressure at over 40,000CUP. They will still need plenty of meat between the chambers.

[BAGTIC]

The pressure limit for the .327 cartridge is 45,000 p.s.i..

It would be a good fit for a six shot M60 S&W. Also, for carbines.

All H&R guns were not topbreak but some of the side ejector models were made with iron frames. It is the same difference as the SB-1 vs. SB-2 singleshot rifle/shotgun frames.

[BAGTIC]

tn gun runner,

It will make a difference. HV 32-20 loads are a thing of the past and they are not coming back except for reloaders.

The .327 will give us a modern strong cases capable of duplicating .32-20 HV with factory ammo. If the general public had access to modern .32-20 HV equivalent factory loads ity could do a lot to stimulate interest in the smaller 'small game' calibers again instead of the current obsession with the high velocity varmint calibers where the emphasis is almost entirely on the visual 'red spray' with no regard for what, if anything, is left.

[BillCA]

Don't know, what you have to remember is that the .327 is running double the H&R's pressure at over 40,000CUP. They will still need plenty of meat between the chambers.

The pressure limit for the .327 cartridge is 45,000 p.s.i..

Either of you have a reference link or source for those claims?

40,000 seems pretty high to me, considering the .357 Mag runs only about 36,000 psi.

[BAGTIC]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagtic
The pressure limit for the .327 cartridge is 45,000 p.s.i..

Either of you have a reference link or source for those claims? "

I have an email from Federal. Is that good enough?

[BillCA]

Bagtic,

The email is "good enough", though I'm surprised by the high pressure limit.

I figured since they had carefully kept the OAL of the cartridge within the length of a .357 magnum that they would probably keep the pressures within the .357's limits.

This means a .327 Mag will have to be given a different heat treating process than .357's unless that treatment is sufficient to include 45,000 psi.

[CraigC]

BAGTIC is right on the pressure, it's 45,000psi, not the 40,000CUP I posted. Straight from Federal has stated.

[kgpcr]

Not for me! I will keep my .357mag!

[BAGTIC]

"This means a .327 Mag will have to be given a different heat treating process than .357's unless that treatment is sufficient to include 45,000 psi."

Not necessarily. It is not pressure per se that is deteminant. For frame strength it is case thrust, pressure x area. The smaller diameter of the .327 case more than offsets the slight increase in pressure. For cylinders it is the cylinder wall thickness that matters. Again the smaller diameter wall should result it thicker walls, not thinner.

[dchi]

Thank you Federal. :DI was given a 28 year old 2" Colt detective special in .32 long. I've always considered it worthless and can't sell it since it was my mother's, but it's getting re chambered now. BTW it is in great mechanical condition (only had 2 boxes of ammo thru it) and the cylinders are thick as fort Knox.

I doubt that this cartridge or any gun in it will take off but it is a good alternative to the .38 snub. Those guns kick allot. 32 mags don't hardly kick at all. I can't see this new cartridge being that much worse.

[CraigC]

I was given a 28 year old 2" Colt detective special in .32 long.

I seriously doubt that's a good idea.

[Mal H]

Let me be sure I understand you, dchi. You're having a Colt DS in .32 Long rechambered for the .327 Magnum - and you might shoot it with those rounds after the work is completed?

Let me know when you've done all that. I'm prepared to change your screen name to "stubby" at that time.

[BillCA]

I agree with Mal here... I could see boring it for .32 H&R Magnum at most, depending on the year of manufacture.

Personally, I'd leave the Colt as-is and find a S&W 432PD Airweight and know that I have something that won't turn into a grenade.

[CraigC]

I agree, a reputable gunsmith will be able to determine if the 21,000CUP of the H&R would be safe, in all probability it would be. But if he 'is' willing to rechamber for the .327 (45,000psi!), find another gunsmith.

[lastchancebaby]

I am a little worried about the longevity of a firearm of this niche (compact), operating at these pressures. Maybe wear issues? Have a great day!

When they get your guns, they control your future!:confused:

[sthomper]

http://dealerease.net/catalog/product.asp?pid=70224&ret_id=945293

Taurus M327 .327 Federal Magnum 2" Matte Stainless Steel, Concealed Carry, DA Only

is this an existing weapon???

if 1400fps or so with 435 ftlbs of engery is occurring from a ruger weapon (is that true??) would a 2" barreld weapon linked to above give ~1350 fps and ~400 ftlbs of energy....V and E, well in excess of many 38spl+ rounds and an additional round in the cylinder??? is the taurus weapon above true???

if so would an expanding high energy 32 cal bullet expand to about what??? about .4 inch or so???

[sthomper]

--------------Taurus 327 2"
Calibers .327 Federal Magnum
Barrel Length 2 inches
Overall Length 6.5 inches
Weight 22.2 ounces------------
http://gunup.com/revolver/taurus/327/2

"I am a little worried about the longevity of a firearm of this niche (compact), operating at these pressures."

are you really??? 22.2 ounces sounds like all steel if the info is above is true.
are their 357 rounds with more energy made entirely of steel???? does pressure as you say mean something other than energy from a cartridge?? the projecitle is still only moving at the same speed as existing 357 rounds, right???
is there less powder in the 327 cartridge than most 357's???

[sthomper]

"This means a .327 Mag will have to be given a different heat treating process than .357's....."

are there 357 revolvers that can take the heat of hundreds of rounds in a day...and still fire properly??? how much more heat could occur in a 327 to affect the same steel??? are rifle parts and barrels significantly different???

[sthomper]

I suppose if you have a thing for .32 cal this is neat, but I never did, so to me...Ho Hum...

does it have to be a thing for a 32 cal? do the snubolvers chambered for the 327 fedmag fire one more round than current snub 38s?? with equal or superior ballistics?? ie energy???

can that be reason enough??

[Mike Irwin]

sthomper,

You do realize that you're participating in a conversation that ended over 3 years ago?