.327 Federal Club thread

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Sevens

If nearly every dimension of the round is so much the same... but the .30 Carb runs a lower max pressure... how is it that the .327 isn't going to be LOUDER, with MORE of a fireball?! And how is the .327 going to blister past the performance of the .30 Carb in a 3-inch barrel simply because the .30 Carb was designed for a rifle?

The .327 round is somewhat less noisy that the .357 Magnum but not as loud and sharp as the .30 Carbine. It's certainly not going to classed as a "stealth" round, even with a suppressor.

Flash When Ruger and Federal developed the .327 Mag, the factory blended a special powder mix that included flash suppressants because the 3-inch barrel was part of the initial design parameters. A look at reloading data for the M1 Carbine shows powders like IMR-4227, Alliant 2400, Win-296/H-110/VV N-110, AA-9 and AA-1680, all slower burning powders (index 56-68).

For the .327 Magnum, reloading data shows canister powder using the "slow" powders as Alliant 2400, Ramshot Enforcer and Hodgon's Longshot. The other loads use powders like Clay's, Bullseye, Unique, Win-231 and Power Pistol which are all much faster burning powders.

In short, the .30 carbine commercial loads are geared towards an 18" barrel to burn up the powder. At 3" to 7" there is still a lot of unburned powder being consumed outside the muzzle that leads to flash and a concussion wave from both the powder and supersonic bullet. And the M1 Carbine doesn't call for flash suppressants in the powder either.

The .327 uses faster burning pistol powders, the majority of which get consumed inside the barrel. Add flash suppressants and you get reduced flash, which reduces the muzzle blast noise by vaporizing less air (less vacuum to cause concussion). You get less muzzle blast but still have the crack of the supersonic bullet.

The short barrel performance is simply a matter of the speed of the powder. In the M1 Carbine, not all of the powder is used to accelerate the projectile whereas almost all of the .327's powder turns to energy to get the bullet moving.

Think of a pair of drag racers with similar engines -- say a Chevy 327 vs. a Ford 302. Suppose both cars are close in weight (10% difference) and both are using the same high-octane fuel. But the heavier car is configured to consume 20% less fuel per second than the lighter car. Which one will accelerate faster and be ahead at mid track? The one that turns energy into work the fastest.

[shurshot]

WHY NOT the Dardick or Gyrojet pistols, .327 or the .41AE? Or .307 Winchester, .401 Powermag or the S&W .22 JET? Or a 9 MM Revolver? Why don't these products catch on? Why didn't another Manufacturer buy the design rights and create an updated version, if the original had cash flow issues, or entered the market at the wrong time? No matter how bad the economy is, or tight the budget is, most of us, if we want a gun bad enough, find a way to get it, via trade, saving or credit. Why don't certain new calibers and weapons catch on? We could ask that question pertaining to a number of products...

When ever I see a new caliber or product, I ask myself, does it fill an existing void, or are they creating a void to fill? Is the design and or quality sound? Does it offer that much of an imporovement over an existing product, that I feel compelled to upgrade? As an old Yankee who was brought up to believe [B]"IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON"T FIX IT". [/B],
since I already have .22 Mags, .38's, .357's, .44's and a .41 Mag revolver, amoung others, WHY would I even consider a .327? I wouldn't. Nor a .32 H&R mag. Or the "new .347x56.2 MM TallywackerHolyBeJesume round" that will be featured in "Next months" gun magazine or reviewed by some Internet wizard who is a self proclaimed self defense expert. They often show a photo of the new round and weapon posed next to a dead goat (shot at a feeder) at the J/O Ranch, or a block of that magical, yellow jello stuff that looks so cool when the bullet strikes.

Those guns/calibers that I already have cover any use I might want them for. It seems these days as if too many ignore shot placement and get hung up on marketing, numbers and yellow jello. And I am not alone, hence the failure of many new calibers and guns over the past few decades. Most of us don't buy into all the hype.

Then again, it's your money. To each their own. My buddy thinks I'm cracked because I bought a .41 Magnum Ruger a few years back, instead of another .44. To me, as a hunter, the .41 Mag fills a void, unlike the .327, and a few others, as pertaining to self defense calibers in a revolver, either a snub .38 or .357 works just fine.

[Sevens]

Your buddy is either dead wrong, or absolutely correct.

If we go by your extended diatribe, your buddy has you pegged brilliantly. You got suckered in to .41 Magnum and forever pigeon-holed yourself as "trying to be different" by using the oddball .41 Magnum when we all know that the .44 Magnum would not only have worked perfectly well for everything you use the .41 Magnum for, but it would be cheaper, more available, more mainstream, so many more platform and factory ammunition choices, so many more component bullet choices, so much easier to find brass for, so much easier to find other enthusiasts for to exchange load data and ideas with, ad nauseum.

It's comical that you feel completely secure and happy with .41 Magnum (as well you should) but that the .327 Magnum is just another gimmick with no real tangible reason for anyone to want to add it to their lineup other than... hype or marketing?!

Just... wow.

[L2R]

I am a part of the proud but small group that loves to shoot my GP in this caliber.

Shurshot and many others have a legitemite view. No matter how you care to phrase it, 'If it ain't broke...", 'an anwer to a question..." or "a void filled..." it surely is wedged between alot of already established and fallen calibers.

I too have become jaded over the years. New products, marketing schemes mostly BS. It comes with gaining experience and spending money over time and later realizing you were dupped.

But once in awhile, something comes along that is good as advertised. In fact, it may be better. As others have stated, there is still much to learn about this caliber that will take time to see just where this goes.

So for those of you who are happy with your current flavor of calibers, enjoy.

But allow us to enjoy our unexpected and pleasant find. It is only in part that these are fun to shoot, it is also, for me, something truly new and interesting (and that doesn't happen often with this hobby) and I want to watch where this goes.

This is somewhat like we are watching a movie and someone opens the back door to announce that this is crap movie with a bad ending. (Forgive us if we get a little crabby as we like the movie, know it is a premier showing and no one yet knows the ending).

Now back to my popcorn.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a 41 magnum. A reasonably powerful handgun - do you feel luckier than if it was a 44 magnum - do you - punk?

This is a 327 magum - it may be as powerful as 357 but maybe not? Do you feel that you are lucky. I'll wait till you use your I-phone and read 628 posts on TFL, punk!

Who knew the 40 would take off - it is reasonable that it wasn't needed between the 9 and 45, certainly no data suggests it has an advantage. It was a panic response to the 10 mm flop which was a panic response to the Miami shootout? And polymer guns?

Market will tell.

[Sevens]

You know what else is worth mentioning... (of course, we may have said it on page 14?!) is that the .32 H&R Mag was/is, IMO anyway, kind of a roadblock to the .327 Federal.

It was a wonderfully conceived idea that was POORLY executed. It wasn't nearly as hot, high pressured or performance oriented as it should have been. It's more like a .32 Special over the .32 S&W Long that it superceded.

.32 H&R Mag at the time was also tied in the market to Harrington & Richardson that failed, and the association is hard to get away from, especially in the '80s before the information age. Certainly, there were some very good guns built for the .32 H&R Mag, but the flagship guns were not very good or strong or well received. So folks with the better guns have been hot-rodding .32 H&R Mag for years, but .32 H&R Mag as issued is pretty limp.

.327 Federal should have been a 1982 release instead of a 2008 or whatever it was.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NAA board is all aflutter about a new 32 from them. That will generate some more posts for this one - if it is a 327 mini. Ouch.

[Sevens]

You know they are discussing SOMETHING but you don't know what it is they are discussing?! That's kinda mean!!

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Shurshot

Those guns/calibers that I already have cover any use I might want them for. It seems these days as if too many ignore shot placement and get hung up on marketing, numbers and yellow jello. And I am not alone, hence the failure of many new calibers and guns over the past few decades. Most of us don't buy into all the hype.

I'm also a happy .41 Magnum owner (5 of 'em)... as well as a fan of .32 caliber revolvers - .32 Long & .32 H&R. As versatile as the .41/.44 Magnums are, they are not suitable for some applications. I've used the .41 Mag on pigs, deer and coyotes (it's what I had at the time). I've used .32 Long on rabbits, raccoon (though it's a bit light for garbage-can-fed raccoon), squirrel and skunk (only once!). The .32 H&R would be better for some of those. Reports I've heard say the .327 Mag is excellent for coyotes and will turn a raccoon inside out at 50 yards.

Just because you don't see a niche it fills, doesn't mean there isn't one or that the .327 Mag doesn't fill a need. The .327 is like the .32-20 my late uncle used in the 1920's to take down fox and coyote on his father's farm, but it's a .32-20 on steroids. Once someone makes a nice lever rifle for the .327 Magnum I expect it to become popular on a lot farms and ranches.

The little .327 is work efficient and much more economical to load than many small rifle or pistol cartridges. Owning a revolver, with a quality lever or pump rifle chambered for the .327 Magnum, I'd think most farmers and ranchers would be quite pleased. More so if they reload their brass as the .32 sips powder and 500 bullets weigh less than eight pounds to ship.

Turning this around to the beginning - self-defense - there are plenty of people out there who would like a cartridge as potent as the .357 Magnum without the severe recoil. As a bonus, in most configurations (J-frame, K-frame) you can get an extra round in the cylinder too. Let's add that tests show it averages 14" of penetration and expands to .46 caliber.

While you say you're not impressed by "yellow Jello" tests, all the information adds up that the .327 is a hot performer in guns from 3" to 18"

[jimbob86]

does it fill an existing void, or are they creating a void to fill?

Both.

There was the void of .357-level power in a six-shot j-frame size production revolver, and they created a void for you to fill, again and again: that of the 6th hole in the cylinder!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Agreed, that's why my 632 SS comp'ed model is so sweet. Nice J, hammer, longer barrel, etc.

[mnhntr]

The only way I would buy a revolver in 327 is if they made a levergun in it as well. I have a need for the rifle but the pistol would be just for kicks.

[FrankenMauser]

The only way I would buy a revolver in 327 is if they made a levergun in it as well. I have a need for the rifle but the pistol would be just for kicks.

That is one of the most common statements I hear/read about .327 Federal. Why we haven't seen one yet, is beyond me...

And, I still think a Ruger 77/327 would be a fantastic carbine.

[kcub]

The reason you haven't seen a lever gun is Marlin is probably waiting to see if it succeeds as a revolver. It's chicken and egg part 2.

Speaking of which I used to have a .32-20 revolver and it was awesome. Another one they could have simply dusted off instead of reinventing the wheel.

[Hammer It]

Agreed, that's why my 632 SS comp'ed model is so sweet. Nice J, hammer, longer barrel, etc.

__________________





Hello Glenn
The stainless Version model's of the 631 & 632's were short lived due to the caliber not getting off the ground or fully accepted. It did not help that a Magazine writter did a Test on the pair with only mediocre result6s on accuracy. He used factory ammo and I feel he did not hand load the round for supreme accuracy. Now that you have the 632, you need a 631 Snub to sit next to it... Here's one for Ya... Hammer It

[Sevens]

Speaking of which I used to have a .32-20 revolver and it was awesome. Another one they could have simply dusted off instead of reinventing the wheel.

Naaaa, I'd rather skip the odd bottle-neck, thin brassed old low pressure round.

You could attempt to hot rod the .32-20 (and many, many have) but the mainstream companies couldn't ever get behind a hot .32-20 because of the scads of 100-year old guns out there that couldn't handle it.

This is a natural progression we've seen.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's pretty, Hammer it!

I have a 432 that I got for $335 a few years ago, when they were discontinued.

I am tempted by the snubby 632 also. Sigh.

[gak]

Kcub said
"Speaking of which I used to have a .32-20 revolver and it was awesome. Another one they could have simply dusted off instead of reinventing the wheel."

Sevens said
"Naaaa, I'd rather skip the odd bottle-neck, thin brassed old low pressure round.You could attempt to hot rod the .32-20 (and many, many have) but the mainstream companies couldn't ever get behind a hot .32-20 because of the scads of 100-year old guns out there that couldn't handle it.This is a natural progression we've seen."

In addition to a no-brainer .327 Single Six, I'd love to see a Ruger midframe (New Vaquero and Flattop) in a .32-20/.327 convertible--to satisfy both old and new "needs." USFA came out with such a gun--in their SAA--in limited production two years ago I drooled over. Several years back, Ruger had a similar combo set up with their Buckeye special and Vaquero (but with .32 H&R then). It was a hefty piece--as is the current .327 BH (to a lesser degree (more holes and the aluminum gf and erh compoments IIRC), but a midframe Sheriff (3.75) and 4-5/8" would be dandy.

[shurshot]

"If we go by your extended diatribe, your buddy has you pegged brilliantly. You got suckered in to .41 Magnum and forever pigeon-holed yourself as "trying to be different" by using the oddball .41 Magnum when we all know that the .44 Magnum would not only have worked perfectly well for everything you use the .41 Magnum for, but it would be cheaper, more available, more mainstream, so many more platform and factory ammunition choices, so many more component bullet choices, so much easier to find brass for, so much easier to find other enthusiasts for to exchange load data and ideas with, ad nauseum."(SEVENS)

Sevens, first off..relax guy, have a gin and tonic You come across as on edge,...?

In response to your "diatribe", I didn't get "suckered into a .41 Magnum" as you stated. I had wanted one for years, and after reading Bob Milek's handgun hunting book (and praise of the .41 Magnum, in his "GUNS & AMMO" articles) in the early 80's and SIXGUNS and GUN NOTES #1 & #2, by Elmer Keith and his praise of the .41 for hunting and law enforcement, decided to buy one, as I wanted the .44 power, with less RECOIL. I got a Ruger Blackhawk 4 5/8". It does kick quite a bit less than the .44's, and hits just as hard. Most folks who spend more time in the field SHOOTING, instead of racking up high post counts and spewing advice online...are aware of that!....

I was not attempting to be "different", as you stated, but if I am considered as such, as a .41 Mag fan, I'm in good company. Old Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan convinced S&W and Remington to bring out the gun / caliber, and although it never caught on with the police to any extent, for many handgun hunters, the .41 Mag DOES fill a gap. You bring up some good points about cost, brass, loads, etc., for newbies or one gun shooters, but you won't convince me or any other real .41 fans otherwise. I have all the .41 cal brass, lead and primers I need.

[Sevens]

QUICK! You missed it: My point, that is.

No, man, I like your .41 Magnum... a lot. I like the odd stuff. That's probably why I've been shooting 10mm since 1992 and I am now enamored with my new Coonan. In fact, I've avoided the .41 Magnum like the plague because I've got my hands full with the somewhat odd stuff that I do right now already and I've got myself spread nicely thin.

It's just a little nuts that you point out the uselessness of the .327 Federal Mag while talking about your love for the .41 Mag. It's ironic... maybe you meant for it to be ironic, I don't know. It's not like I dragged you off the street and shoved buckets of .327 goodness in your face -- you elected to post in a thread with SIX HUNDRED FORTY FOUR POSTS of discussion on the .327 Federal Mag to tell the gathered masses, "Meh, .357 does anything it could do, seems like a waste of time."

Most folks who spend more time in the field SHOOTING, instead of racking up high post counts and spewing advice online...are aware of that!...

That's perfectly adorable, what you've done there.

In the calendar year 2011, my records indicate that I handloaded somewhere in the neighborhood of 22,000 rounds. Couldn't be that I shot it all up, did I? Naaa... I've got at least 1,000 rounds of 9mm here in my stock. Of course, I made that in January.

Hell, I don't know. But I think I've gotten in a little shooting. I'm starting slow this year, only 950 in in 2012. The cold weather has had a large hand in that. Things tend to pick up in the summer. I think I'll do okay.

I guess I better ask the TFL staff if they could possibly reduce my post count lest some schmuck think that I don't shoot enough.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Warning - we don't want to close this because it gets personal.

Wind that stuff down folks!! I'm just whack you if need be.

[BillCA]

Glenn,

The 432 is a sweet little gun, though I do wish the factory load was just a tad hotter. This little jewel needed only one thing out of the box -- front sight paint! To have something this small with six shots of .327 would be a great defensive gun. Has anyone converted an aluminum framed .32 H&R to .327? I'd be afraid to trust it. I'm not even sure a Scandium frame would hold up without it being specifically engineered for the higher pressure of the .327.

S&W 432PD, .32 H&R Magnum

[FrankenMauser]

Has anyone converted an aluminum framed .32 H&R to .327? I'd be afraid to trust it. I'm not even sure a Scandium frame would hold up without it being specifically engineered for the higher pressure of the .327.

I still haven't heard of anyone that has done it. I don't even know of a gunsmith that's willing to gamble their name on it.

[mashaffer]

Nice looking ladysmith Hammer!

Sevens; the .32 special aspect of the .32H&R is what makes it attractive to me. The porridge is neither too hot (.327) or too cold (.32S&W) but just right. Well balanced like the .44 special.

That said there is one advantage to the large case capacity of the .327. It would make a nice black powder round I think.

mike

[BillCA]

There are a lot of folks who bash the .327 as a solution in search of a problem. Another group of folks turn up their noses and say that the .327 doesn't do anything as well as the .38/.357. The cost-benefit types claim that the 6th shot in a J-frame doesn't make up for the round's power.

So here are two charts for you to look at, comparing the .327 Federal Magnum to the .357 Magnum, using various barrel lengths[¹]. One chart compares muzzle velocities[²] and the other compares muzzle energies.


In the graph above, the dotted lines represent the velocities of two selected .357 Magnum loads by barrel length. It shows the 100gr American Eagle .327 has a velocity slightly better than the 125gr .357 Magnum (CorBon). It also shows that the .327's velocities track well alongside the .357. We can safely say that the velocities are very similar to the two most popular .357 loads. In a short barrel, the .327 Federal Magnum has more velocity out of short barrels than the .357 Magnum.


In this graph, the dotted lines represent the muzzle energy of two selected .357 Magnum loads by barrel length. In barrels under 4-inches, the .327 Magnum produces as much or more power than the .357 Magnum. The the 4-inch level, the .357 has ~50 ft-lbs more power than the .327. The .357 does generate more power at the 6-inch length by about 60-90 ft-lbs.[³]

The downsides to the .327 Magnum are that it doesn't produce quite the energy of the .357 Magnum in longer barrels and that the ammo is initially more costly. Ammo costs may decrease if the round becomes more popular. The upsides, however are significant. The .327 Magnum is superior in a short barrel and nearly the same up to a 4-inch barrel. In addition to better than .357 performance you get reduced recoil and flash from the shorter barrels. Plus you have that 6th round (an extra 7th or 8th round in some guns).

So, I can get "better than" .357 Magnum performance plus a 6th shot in a J-Frame with less recoil and flash. Seems like a good choice for a carry gun to me.

Reloading the .327 should be quite economical. The bullets weigh between 1-3 lbs less per 500 (reduced shipping costs) and it uses less powder too.

What's not to like?

¹ Velocity information from http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com
² The BBTI website was missing data for the 85gr Hydrashok in odd barrel lengths from 7 to 17 inches. To obtain the trend line for the 85gr load, missing data was filled by adding half the difference between listed velocities to the previous velocity. This is why the plot is much smoother than for other loads.
³ The .357 does generate more power, but the differences are not hugely significant until we get to 6-inch and longer barrels. In short barrels, the .327 is marginally better by about 20 ft-lbs. This may not seem significant until you consider that with any short-barreled handgun at close range you need all the advantage you can get.