.327 Federal Club thread

[PoiDog]

I also received an email, like Frankenmauser did, calling for delivery in the first week of May.

Better that they fix whatever issues came up before release, unlike some computer software companies.

[saleen322]

I see now the Henry website states ships "Late May" 2017

[TruthTellers]

^ That'll turn into "Early June 2017" and eventually "Q3 2017" which will then become Holiday 2018 and finally "Beginning of the 22nd Century."

[Real Gun]

Think positive. The other issue is how long you will have to wait for a review or a chance to shoot one. Blindly jumping on the Lipsey's train with the Single Seven didn't go so well, so more caution will be used on this rifle. I trust Henry though, and if they need a delay to make it right, so be it.

[superspirit]

Blindly jumping on the Lipsey's train with the Single Seven didn't go so well

I feel a little differently about that. The 2 I have are the best I have received from Ruger in the last 5 years.(I've sent 5 new Rugers back in this time period)

Also the success of those did a lot to move the caliber forward. Spawning the 4.2" SP 101 and the LCR. I believe they are also partly responsible for the development of the Henry 327 that we're all waiting on. JMO

[TruthTellers]

^IDK about that. I think given the long history of the .32 H&R Magnum and Marlin's 1894, Henry was eventually going to make a .32 lever gun, especially one that's half the price what those Marlin's go for.

When .327 came out, everyone who made revolvers was making the .327, but then that Hawaiian guy from Chicago/Kenya moonwalked into the Oval Office and had beef with the 2nd Amendment, so everybody panicked and didn't bother with the cartridge.

Now that the panic is behind us, the .327's chance to break out is now.

[Real Gun]

I feel a little differently about that.

Glad you are happy, but that is not the point. The reality is that the issues with the guns in general were a nightmare, and that fact is all over the forums, especially the Ruger discussions.

[FrankenMauser]

That'll turn into "Early June 2017" and eventually "Q3 2017" which will then become Holiday 2018 and finally "Beginning of the 22nd Century."

Henry is not Remington.
When Henry says, Henry does.

There may be delays with Henry, but there is no Remlin vaporware. (**cough** Marlin Model 444 announced every quarter for 5 years ** cough **)

[superspirit]

The reality is that the issues with the guns in general were a nightmare, and that fact is all over the forums, especially the Ruger discussions.

I agree some of the first ones out had problems. I've read most of the threads on the problems including those on Ruger forum. But they were far from a nightmare.

[Real Gun]

I expect the nightmare part was from the perspective of the owners who had problem guns, finding that neither Ruger nor Lipsey's could really do much about it. Those problems cannot be wished away. I agree that later production seemed to have addressed some of the complaints and service issues, but I initially referred here to " blindly jumping on that train" as a leap of faith. Some will be more fortunate than others.

Let's not parse words here and quarrel with points we don't like. There were lots of problem guns, and that's just a fact.

[dgludwig]

The reality is that the issues with the guns in general were a nightmare,

For the uninformed like myself, what were/are these "issues"? Just curious.

[Real Gun]

Loading gate misalignment was the primary gripe. Irregular chamber size was another major one. One of my two guns also threw its base pin, and the extractor tube was poorly fitted and came off twice. My gunsmith refitted the extractor tube and installed a Belt Mountain base pin. Both guns are patched up (professionally at my expense) to the point of being out of warranty most likely. I had to buy my own chamber finishing reamer for well over a hundred bucks. Ruger couldn't help.

[LOLBELL]

"For the uninformed like myself, what were/are these "issues"? Just curious."


Irregular chamber size and base pin jump was a problem, but loading gate alignment is not the problem people made it out to be. A Ruger is not a SAA. Nearly all New Model Ruger single actions load the same way, but no one complains about the .22, .357, .41, .44, and .45's. They all load the same way.
Align the hole up with the loading chute, punch the empty out, load a fresh one, move on to the next. None of this happens at a "click" (when the cylinder bolt locks the cylinder from a reverse direction).



The vast majority have been well pleased with the Single Sevens. You don't here much from the satisfied. I have a 4 5/8 and a 5 1/2 SS and have had no problems with either other than a base pin jump with the short one while trying to run a 130 bullet to hard.

[Real Gun]

but loading gate alignment is not the problem people made it out to be.

That can only be said by someone who didn't experience the problem. My second length S7 does in fact index on the loading gate. Regardless, there is only one critical point where the case can escape the chamber, and some guns missed the mark.

[LOLBELL]

I am curious, could you not align the loading chute with the chamber? Or did this just not happen where you wanted it to in the rotation of the cylinder?

[Real Gun]

That is an astute question. The indexing was only a few thousandths off of being aligned with the loading gate, and the gate was not shaped right to allow much leeway in manually aligning. It was a pain to operate. I had that first gun machined, because Ruger didn't offer to fix it, and it wasn't Lipsey's place to replace it. Part of the problem was that the guns were exclusives in a caliber that was not in Ruger's regular line. The second, later production gun aligned perfectly, right at the click. Remember, this is a 22 converted to a 32. Space is tight.

[FrankenMauser]

That can only be said by someone who didn't experience the problem. My second length S7 does in fact index on the loading gate. Regardless, there is only one critical point where the case can escape the chamber, and some guns missed the mark.

In no way am I attempting to diminish your experience or negate your comments; but...
I spent about an hour searching the interwebs for Single Seven complaints, while waiting on some women...

The overwhelming complaints are that the cylinder cannot be loaded or unloaded when indexed to the 'click' or 'detent' that aligns with the loading gate.
Since that is absolutely par for the course with Ruger SAs, I must assume that these folks simply don't understand Rugers and were expecting a Colt.

There are plenty of complaints about base pin jump.

A few complaints about the recoil shield (rear portion of the frame) not being clearanced enough to allow loading/unloading through the loading gate are out there.
That's a legitimate complaint, and a big screw-up by Ruger.

And, then the usual random spattering of QA/QC fails (crooked barrel, improperly machined hammer, etc.).


Overall, however, the base pin jump and recoil shield complaints seem to all come back to the same small group of people that are members on multiple forums (some one that goes by "Fergie", for example, seems to be all over the place, making the situation sound much worse than it really is).

[superspirit]

^^^THIS^^^
I have noticed the same thing!

Actually one person whined so much over there I had to find out how to use the ignore button just to read the forum. might have to do that here too!

[Dain Bramage]

The overwhelming complaints are that the cylinder cannot be loaded or unloaded when indexed to the 'click' or 'detent' that aligns with the loading gate.

You make it sound frivolous. The detent or "click" was very close to the loading position. So if you were loading it like, you know, a gun, and not a game of "Operation", you could easily move past the detent while pushing in the cartridge, and the rim would jam on the loading cutout. You would then be put in the unenviable task of having to beat out a live cartridge. Do it a few times while having fun at the range, and you realize it renders the gun totally unfit for any serious endeavors like hunting or self defense.

Ruger relieved the cutout for me. You can't tell it was done by looking at it, and the gate still fits perfectly. It makes the gun effectively a reverse index pawl gun. I don't know why Ruger didn't do that to begin with.

I also had issues with base pin jump and an incorrectly reamed chamber. If my 5-1/2" Single Seven wasn't a really nice, accurate gun with a beautiful trigger now that it's been gone over, I might be more sore about it.

[Dain Bramage]

I must assume that these folks simply don't understand Rugers and were expecting a Colt.

I'll try to better explain the loading cutout defect. My only other non-reverse index Ruger is a Lipsey's Bisley Super Blackhawk. If you partially insert a cartridge into a chamber, there is no way to wiggle the cylinder enough to trigger the detent. The detent in the six-shot SB is sufficiently offset from the loading position. Loading the SB is relatively easy, although not as intuitive as a reverse index gun.

In my Single Seven, you could insert a cartridge part way, and then rotate the cylinder enough to go past the detent. It was an easy mistake to make during the loading stroke. At that point, the cartridge was unloadable and would jam the rim on the cutout if you continued pushing. The only recourse was to remove the cartridge and roll the cylinder to a new chamber.

It was an unlucky coincidence of an odd seven shot detent location and a cutout loose enough to find the detent but too tight to let the cartridge load. Ruger should have found it out during development, but they were too twitterpated with the idea of shoehorning the .327 cartridge seven times into a Single Six frame. I've been on projects before where the reaching the goal blinds you to other problems.

So, in conclusion, I wasn't expecting a Colt. I just wanted the SS to be like other Rugers.

[Real Gun]

A few complaints about the recoil shield (rear portion of the frame) not being clearanced enough to allow loading/unloading through the loading gate are out there.

The recoil shield is an element of the loading gate opening. The machining I had done took a bite out of both sides of the gate, mostly the recoil shield. I will adjust my complaint to be more pedantic in terminology.

[LOLBELL]

That can only be said by someone who didn't experience the problem. My second length S7 does in fact index on the loading gate. Regardless, there is only one critical point where the case can escape the chamber, and some guns missed the mark.

I will admit I've never experienced a problem loading or unloading my Single Sevens. I have been shooting New Model Rugers for 35 years so loading between "clicks" is a non issue for me. Although if you rotate past alignment to a click on either of my Single Sevens you'll neither punch out a spent case nor load a fresh one. Just like all of my other New Models. Now the 3 screws are a different story- Half cock, rotate to a click, punch out and recharge, move on to the next click and repeat. But that's a whole nuther critter.

[Real Gun]

I have two NMBHs that do not index, so trust me, I know what the variations are. I also have a Vaquero and three Flat Tops that index like a revolver should. Fortunatley I also have 4 5/8" Single Seven that indexes perfectly. It also threw the base pin until I installed a Belt Mountain pin. I also had the ejector housing refitted, because it was forced in place so hard it would loosen and throw the screw. It doesn't shoot worth a darn compared to my ability with other guns. The 5 1/2 gun with the modify gate opening shoots better of the two. I could easily part with those guns, but they are both patched up and would probably not bring much of a return on investment. I really like that 4 5/8 but I am about done with wasting ammo on it. I would be afraid to buy a replacement. I no longer buy dealer exclusives because of these guns and Ruger's attitude toward them.

[deserted]

Just brought home my new 4 5/8" S7 from the gun shop. They called yesterday, said it was in, so I said I'd be in to town next Friday doing other stuff (it's a 250 mile RT drive) and pick it up then. She said fine.
Barely slept all night. Finally got up and drove to town, got there right after opening, back home by noon. I think it looks even better than the 7.5". Together with the stainless Bearcat with adjustable sights, (Lipsy's has done well by me) and the old 8 3/8" Virginian Dragoon, they make quite the Stainless family. Haven't fired the new one yet, as I've been hanging new steel plates between thunderstorms. Loading and unloading is so far totally unremarkable. Other than the Bearcat, I've never had a single action with less than a six and a half inch barrel. Hunting was always the primary purpose. My lifestyle has changed over the years, though, and this shorter barrel feels pretty good. My new favorite gun
Oboyoboyoboyoboyoboyoboy. Now I get to make a new gun belt and holster, too.

[LOLBELL]

I think you will be very well pleased with that Single Seven