[gak]

Sevens wrote:

"I think the use of the word is fine... they NEVER should have used it for the .32 H&R round. Neither the pressure nor performance of that round deserved the term "magnum." I don't think there is anything wrong with the use of the term "magnum", but for the good of everyone, it should be used with discretion. If anything, I'd argue instead of ".327 Federal Mag" it should be the ".32 Federal Magnum" but obviously... that would have been easier to do had the .32 H&R been called what it really was-- the .32 H&R Special."

I would agree against the use of the .327 nomenclature, and that it was largely a marketing ploy to play with the .357--sounding similar and "better" than .328 or .326! However, whether they knew it or not--and my guess is they did--it was probably good that they did not call it just .32 Federal Magnum, as many folks would just shorten it in daily-speak to .32 Mag, and that's already what many folks (including myself) were shortening the H&R term to. I agree, in hindsight, the H&R should have been the .32 Special or .32 H&R Special. I've shot the H&R Mag--in Ruger Single Sixes for 25 or so years since its inception (at least in Rugers), and the Smith Airweight for six or so years. They are a hoot to shoot, definitely know you're shooting more than a .22-anything, and even in mild factory form, they are "magnum" compared to most S&W Longs...And, maybe they didn't anticipate there'd be a "true" (Federal) magnum down the line.
...Yeah, I know, giving them too much credit!

I've shot a friend's .327 SP101 and really liked it, and I'd love to also see a 3" 7 shot K frame in it and a Ruger midframe SA (flat top and New Vaquero) in a .32-20/.327 convertible. A Single Six .327 is a no-brainer, and I'd like to convert my H&R Mags if Ruger doesn't do the right thing there.