The New 327 Magnum

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ha - I said obsolescent, not obsolete - a small but significant difference. The SP101 is a fine revolver and I wouldn't feel at a large disadvantage with one on my belt. I was just commenting on the market which seems to emphasize pocket revolvers for SD.

[Dave85]

I stand corrected on the semantic point.

Based on my new and corrected understanding of your meaning, I think you might be correct. The power to size ratio of pocket autos has at least reached the small revolvers at a time where greater familiarity has bred more confidence in them.

Although I will note that I recently watched a G&A TV clip in which Roy Jinks of S&W tells Dick Metcalf that the pocket revolvers are still their best sellers; and I'd guess that Taurus moves a lot of them, too, based on the incredible variety that they catalog.

[tplumeri]

"I will have a new .327 cylinder fitted to my Bisley Single Six .32H&R."



I have a factory vaquero with 32-20 and 32mag cylinders.
Local shop charges $32.25 for 50 32-20's. cant remember what i paid for 32 mag but it wasnt cheap.
whats the price on 327mag? what would the advantage be over the 32mag?
thanks
tom

[CraigC]

I have a factory vaquero with 32-20 and 32mag cylinders.
Local shop charges $32.25 for 50 32-20's. cant remember what i paid for 32 mag but it wasnt cheap.
whats the price on 327mag? what would the advantage be over the 32mag?

The large frame Vaquero is way too much meat for those chamberings, for starters, and the fixed sights don't lend themselves to getting the most out of such a long-legged cartridge. Even the Colt SAA is a little heavy. The Single Six is much more suited to the caliber.

I handload so the cost of factory ammo is not a deciding factor for me. Brass should only be slightly more expensive than .32H&R but I can use all the other components I already have.

The advantage the .327 has over the .32H&R is double the working pressure for another 400-500fps. The same performance we've been getting through handloading the .32-20 in strong guns with more robust brass and carbide dies.

[Crosshair]

I don't think the 327 Federal will fit into the Single Six frame. I have a 32 H&R Single-Six. Someone give me the max COL spec for the 327 Federal and I will measure the cylinder. It would be great if I was wrong on this.

[Handyman]

I think it has a place . I Looked at the new SP101 327 online . 3" barell , adjustable sights , 6 shots . I hope it sticks around because I want one .

[paknheat]

I think if it get chambered in a more ccw friendly revolver, it will stick around.

[100W_Warlock]

Well, I can't quite figure out what problem was solved with the 327 fed.

Its not REALLY a .327 bullet, but, a .315" at best. (so, why not call it the 315 fed?)

As far as performance, having 6 rounds of heavier 125gr going 1300fps is gonna hurt. But, its nice to know it can be done. (I suppose)

The 32 H&R mag was and is a pretty decent cartridge with nothing to sneeze at.

the SP101 is a fantastic wheel gun for backup work.

I guess I don't see what was "wrong" with the 32 H&R chambered SP101 guns in the first place. MUCH better choice than 32acp or a 380.

Anyhow, I doubt we will see the 32H&R disappear as a result of the 327 fed.

[tplumeri]

The large frame Vaquero is way too much meat for those chamberings

Ive heard of guns being too lite for a particular round, but this is the first ive heard of a gun being too heavy.
please explain
thanks
tom

[Hammer It]

The reason the 32 H&R tanked is because H&R went out of business and their line of easily concealed revolvers went with them. Nobody other than Ruger made guns in that caliber and it never really got to take off.

It doesn't matter how good your satellite is when the booster rocket cuts out 30 seconds into the launch. The 32 H&R was the satellite, and H&R was the booster rocket

Hello
That is not true at all. The Big Picture was, that these Ragazine article Gu-Ru's stepped on this new cartridge from the very begining. It was doomed from the start as it was Intended for a weak gun, Being the H&R and Pressures were kept to a Minimum. If hand loaded correctly using Powders like Hodgens H-110 this round will be very close in velocity to a .357 Magnum, and blow the .38 Special pus-P velocity out of the Water. I have done it in a S&W model 16-4 and the Harder it was Pushed the tighter it grouped. Here is that revolver that I spoke of and the group it fired at 25 Yards stoaked to the max with H-110. I hope the .327 stays around and S&W comes out with it in a -J-frame and K-Frame as I would Buy Both if they did. Regards, Hammer It

[CraigC]

Gorgeous M16!!! Wish I had snagged one when they were in production.

I don't think the 327 Federal will fit into the Single Six frame.

The .327 is 1/8" longer than the .32H&R. It will fit. A new custom (long) cylinder must be built and the barrel shank shortened. Not sure yet if the window must be opened up to increase the cylinder diameter but Alan Harton is working on a couple now and they will be six shots.

Ive heard of guns being too lite for a particular round, but this is the first ive heard of a gun being too heavy.

A lot of people are just plain accustomed to big heavy Rugers. However, if it's big enough to house the .44Mag, it's just too much sixgun and too much unnecessary weight for cartridges like the .357 and definitely anything smaller like the .32's. The Colt SAA and Ruger New Vaquero are much more appropriately sized for the .357 and acceptable for the .32-20. Safety is not an issue with these two chamberings. The Old Model .357 Blackhawk and 50th Anniversary model are also of similar size, significantly smaller than the New Models. The large frame guns in these calibers handle more like a concrete block compared to the much more nimble smaller framed guns. Hold one in each hand and you will instantly see what I mean.

[Elvishead]

I didn't vote because I have no idea, and I'm not going to speculate. But I'd like to see it in a 13oz revolver for carry.

I like, and I own the SP101. But since I have it in .357/38, I wouldn't buy one.

[Crosshair]

The .327 is 1/8" longer than the .32H&R.

OK, that's all I needed to know. (a few minutes later) Yea, your right. It will JUST fit with a longer cylinder and shorter shank. Sometimes it's nice when I am wrong.

/No way you could fit a 32-20 in there though.

[BillCA]

The .327 Magnum looks to be what the .32 H&R should have been. With it's 85-gr to 115-gr ammo flitting to the target at 1300 fps and energy running in the 400-450 ft-lbs range, it sits squarely between .38 +P and the .357 Magnum.

Energy wise, it out performs the .32 H&R, .38 Special +P and 9mm cartridges. If expanding point bullets work well, it is likely to be a hard-hitting load.

Comparisons:
.327 Federal Magnum
115gr GDHP @ 1300 fps = 427 ft-lbs
100gr JSP @ 1400 fps = 435 ft.lbs
85 gr HSHP @ 1330 fps = 334 ft-lbs

.38 Special
110gr HSHP @ 980 fps = 235 ft-lbs
129gr HSHP @ 950 fps = 258 ft-lbs

9mm Parabellum
115gr FMJ @ 1180 fps = 356 ft-lbs
124gr FMJ @ 1150 fps = 364 ft-lbs
124gr HSHP @ 1120 fps = 345 ft-lbs

.357 Magnum
125gr JHP @ 1440 fps = 575 ft-lbs
158gr JSP @ 1240 fps = 539 ft-lbs

I think it'll have a place if they get the ammo price down to something reasonable. If it's always going to cost twice as much to shoot as a .38 or .357 though, it's a gone goose.

Personally, I just don't see why it should be much more than the average price of, say... 9mm. It's just not a huge cartridge requiring a large amount of materials to make.

The size of the cartridge and it's powder load have only a tiny impact on the cost of manufacturing ammo. Demand is far and away the biggest factor.

Ammo like the .32 H&R, .327 Mag, 10mm, .41 Mag, etc. are produced in batches of a few hundred thousand at a time and more is made when stocks dwindle. But rounds like .38 Special, .357 Mag and 9mm are so popular that they can run dedicated lines producing millions of rounds.

It's the set-up time (downtime) for the machines that cost money. Each time you change the caliber you incur downtime & labor costs. Initial startup is slower to inspect the first 1000 or so rounds produced carefully to make sure it's right before running full-tilt. If your set-up costs are $5000 and you run off 100,000 rounds, that's an extra 5-cents per round. But if you run off 1 million rounds, it's less than 1/2 cent per round.

If the .327 Mag takes off tremendously, it will probably take a decade, at least, to create enough demand to make it price-competitive with the .357 Magnum.

Perfect Guns for the .327 Mag?
In the Self-Defense lineup:

• A 15oz to 19oz J-frame sized six-shooter with fixed sights and a 2.5" to 3" barrel. Think of a scandium J-Frame with steel barrel & cylinder.
• A 20oz - 21oz "Airweight" 4-inch six-shooter with fixed sights, square butt grips for business and home defense.
• A stainless steel 4" J-Frame six-shooter with adj. sights as a combination home-defense and "kit" gun for outdoorsmen. Think of the stainless S&W Model 53 on steroids.

Small Game/Outdoorsman guns

• A small frame Ruger SA (Single-six?) with 4" or 6" barrel.
• A seven-shot K-Frame with a 4" barrel - like an S&W Model 16 or Ruger GP-100.
• A seven-shot 4" K-Frame Airweight model for lightweight packing in the outdoors.

Target & Varmint Gun

• A medium frame Ruger SA with a 5" to 7" barrel, adj. sights.
• The same 7-shot K-Frame sized gun with a 6" barrel, adj.sights.
• A specialized long-range revolver with a 7" to 8" ported barrel, adj. sights, set up to accept a scope.

[CraigC]

No way you could fit a 32-20 in there though.

Single Sixes have been built in .32-20 as well but the cylinder window was definitely opened up on those conversions with absolutely no exposed barrel shank. Think those are strictly five shooters. Sorry.

The .327 Magnum looks to be what the .32 H&R should have been.

That's how I see it.

[Mannlicher]

its a solution in search of a problem

[tplumeri]

if it's big enough to house the .44Mag, it's just too much sixgun and too much unnecessary weight for cartridges like the .357 and definitely anything smaller like the .32's.

So its more of a preference thing. If I'm comfortable with the size and weight of the gun it really doesnt matter what the round is, right?
Other than too big, too heavy for some folks theres no REAL negative to having a full size cowboy gun with a pint sized cartridge, right?
I wouldnt want to shoot 357 in anything smaller than my original blackhawk in a cowboy gun. I like the extra weight.
JMHO
tom

[38splfan]

Keep in mind this is pure dream and probably could never happen

What about a .327 Mag 5 shot in a single action the approximate size of the Ruger Bearcat?

That would just be a blast I bet.

[Dave85]

its a solution in search of a problem

This phrase seems to find it's way into every discussion about a new cartridge. While I understand the sentiment, I do not agree with it philosophically. While we may like the configuration a thing just fine (in this case we're primarily looking to the .327 Mag. for use in a compact, short barreled revolver), everything has shortcomings and can be improved. Experimentation is how those improvements are made, and one advanced step in that process is putting a promising product into the marketplace to see if people like the way it attacks the problem.

The prime shortcoming of this type of weapon is it's ammunition (most commonly .38 Spl. and/or .357 Mag.), and it is natural to work on a improving that factor. The .38 Spl. is on the weak side out of a 4" barrel, much less a 2" or 3" pipe; and the .357 Mag. is generally particularly obnoxious to shoot in these guns. On paper and in ballistics gelatin the .327 Mag. seems to do a nice job of finding a middle ground between the two. That it provides another round to work with is an another plus.

Strictly in terms of mechanics, these little revolvers have a lot going for them as pocket guns. These revolvers have been chambered in a vast array array of calibers that have made them too large or too underpowered or too something else. This extensive fiddling tells us that there is a lingering dissatisfaction with the .38/.357 configuration. The fact that the manufacturers keep returning to these cartridges tells us that it is a tough nut to crack. The popularity and utility of these guns makes it worthy of cracking.

[OJ]

It's evidence we need to extend our sympathy to the industry - I'm sure it's not all that easy to think up new calibers and other gun related things when we already have such a wide selection. In rifles, the've come up with - not only Short Magnums but, Super Short Magnums.

If they didn't come up with such things as the .327 magnum, we wouldn't be deprived - but they would.

As long as such activity keeps them in business, it's OK with me.

What ever happened to this obviously useful .30 caliber rimfire pepperbox (Sharps 1859) - an obvious answer for anyone wanting a very concealable weapon.





The .308 cartridge in the picture is for size reference.

[tplumeri]

What ever happened to this obviously useful .30 caliber rimfire pepperbox (Sharps 1859)

WOW, a long rang pocket assasin! very cool.

[CraigC]

Here's a link to a discussion with pictures of what is probably the first .327/.32-20 convertible. A six shot Single Six by pistolsmith Alan Harton.

http://single-actions.phpbb3now.com/....php?f=5&t=861

So its more of a preference thing.

Basically.

[tplumeri]

Craig c,
great reference, i had no idea what a big difference there was in cartridges!
do you think ruger would give me a 3rd cylinder for 327?
thanks
tom

[hpg]

I say that the Ruger collectors need to get their hands on a few of these SP101's chambered for this new 327 Magnum. They will not be made very long and may be worth something in a few years. I don't see this caliber lasting long at all.................hpg

[mballai]

I'm waiting to see what happens with this cartridge. A J-frame and something with a long barrel(K/L/GP100) would make me want in on it. The J frame would score big with women and the boomer market.