Share your .327 Federal Mag load data

[Low Friction]

The latest Hand Loader #312 has some interesting comments from Brian Pearce about 327 load velocity spread and accuracy. Worth reading.

[jimbob86]

Question for ss(bunchanumbers) .... what is your data sample size ...... how many rounds are you getting "Extreme Spread off of"?

[jimbob86]

The latest Hand Loader #312 has some interesting comments from Brian Pearce about 327 load velocity spread and accuracy. Worth reading.

1. Linky?

2. A Gunrag Infomercial Writer? Really?

[ss30378]

Jim,

All averages and ES data was from a full cylinder or Seven rounds.

Sevens,

Thanks for the heads up! No visible damage to the cone but not wanting to risk damage to my gun I'll back these down to where my 75gr cast bullets are. I still plan on turning the expander down to increase neck tension in hopes of getting some consistency from the bullet. I'll try to make a reloadable 22mag load with the rest of my 60s.

Thanks!
Steve

[Sevens]

Steve, when I first began playing with .327 Federal more than six years ago, I had a fat pile of 71gr FMJ Winchester slugs available... obviously bullets meant for the wimpy .32 ACP. I have had success making ultra-cheap plinking ammo with them, but I won't send them at the warp speed their light weight will allow simply because of the warnings from the ATK techs directly to me in e-mail when I have asked for their assistance.

I would bet the 60gr XTP is a more robustly-constructed slug than a cheap 71gr FMJ, but it remains a bullet designed for sub-1,000fps ammo.

[Low Friction]

1. Linky?

2. A Gunrag Infomercial Writer? Really?

Not intended to be an infomercial. Don't want to cut/past the copyrighted content onto the forum.

He talks about primer variability impacts with 327 loads. Powder burn rate with the skinny 327 case. If you get the magazine it's worth reading.

[Green Frog]

First visit here as a registered member... thanks to Sevens for calling this thread (and forum) to my attention on another one I frequent, and I am resurrecting it to see whether there is any new info out there.

I am loading to feed two 327s, a Blackhawk 8-Shooter and a custom-built stainless K-frame S&W I call "Project 616." My preferred 327 load uses Starline brass, a Winchester SP, a moderate load of now-discontinued H108, and a cast bullet from the NOE 314-115-FN mould based on Lyman's 314008. With COWW and a taste of tin they run a near-perfect 125 grains and fill my Smith's chambers almost to the very top. Of course I also have shot a bunch of 32 S&W Long and 32 H&R almost-Magnum rounds through these guns, but this thread is about the manly 327 FM, so I wouldn't dream of taking it off course!

Froggie

[Real Gun]

Green Frog - I am loading to feed two 327s, a Blackhawk 8-Shooter and a custom-built stainless K-frame S&W I call "Project 616." My preferred 327 load uses Starline brass, a Winchester SP, a moderate load of now-discontinued H108, and a cast bullet from the NOE 314-115-FN mould based on Lyman's 314008. With COWW and a taste of tin they run a near-perfect 125 grains

How did you determine that load was safe for you and your guns?

[Green Frog]

By extensive usage and comparison with a variety of calibers, it was determined that H108 was nearly identical to another, canister powder. Since this was all experimental on my part, I refuse to post my exact charges but I started about 5% lower than suggested starting loads on the powder manufacturer's recommended range for that powder and a 115 grain bullet and hoped for the best... of course with the massive, over designed Blackhawk, I had a little extra margin for error, and when my loads showed no signs of excess pressure, I deemed them safe for the K-frame as well. Since the powder I use is no longer available, I posted this just to let folks know about the bullet and how it could possibly be used experimentally by sufficiently experienced reloaders to make a very effective high performance heavy bullet load appropriate for their own 327. Since the caliber is being used for J-frame S&Ws and Single Six sized Rugers, I wouldn't dare suggest my loads were suitable for all 327s.

Froggie

[spawndn72]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

Badman bullets 100 gr RNFP polymer coated over 9.4 grains of AA#7 using federal brass and CCI small magnum pistol primers gave me a velocity of 1300 FPS.

No signs of pressure with easy extraction.

Fired from a 4" Ruger SP101.

[Real Gun]

That is faster than the purchased load you wanted to duplicate. I don't believe you need magnum primers for that.

[spawndn72]

That is faster than the purchased load you wanted to duplicate. I don't believe you need magnum primers for that.

The load is what was suggested by the bullet manufacturer, so that is what I tried. The magnum primers are what I had on hand. Further testing is required for accuracy. I just thought I would share my initial data since there were zero signs of high pressure.

I agree that I need to order some non magnum primers.

[Sevens]

THE .327 Federal Magnum is a 45k PSI Max load and all Federal/Speer factory ammo is built with a small rifle primer. Evidence presented to us in the past greatly suggests that the CCI small pistol magnum primer and the CCI small rifle primer (400) are the same product in two different packages.

Your use of the CCI small pistol magnum primer is appropriate. Using a non-magnum small pistol primer in full-spec (potential 45k PSI Max pressure) .327 Federal Magnum handloads would be an error.

[Real Gun]

That AA#7 load is not likely max pressure. Few, if any, loads really are. I don't use small rifle primers unless really pushing it in the load. I don't use any powder that really calls for it.

I think one might want to read Brian Pearce's Handloader article about loading the 327 Federal before being too dogmatic about what is required for the cartridge.

[Unclenick]

Reading the article is a good idea, but keep in mind that #7, specifically, is a spherical powder that has been around for a while and that like other older spherical formulations, it may depend on magnum primers for the most consistent ignition. A chronograph will tell you if that is so by velocity SD.

As to pressure, the cartridge peak rating is a match to lower pressure medium power rifle cartridges, so the thicker cup may be warranted on that score, particularly if the load was developed by a small bullet maker with no pressure test equipment. You can reduce the load and work up with standard primers while watching for primer pressure signs to see if it looks at all like you might get piercing. But you also want to chronograph to see which primer gives you the lowest ES and you want to see if the magnum primer reduces powder fouling any, which is another sign it is burning the powder better. I have seen magnum primers both make things better and make them worse, so I can only recommend testing to be sure.

Incidentally, we are accustomed to speak of a load as producing a specific pressure and usually give a stated manual pressure, forgetting that those pressures are an average and the individual shot pressures that produced that average are distributed on a bell curve centered on that average, with some having higher and some having lower pressure. The importance of that is the pressure has a standard deviation associated with that curve that reveals just how far above the average an individual shot may be one time in three or one in twenty or one in three hundred and so on. So if the average is at 45,000 psi, then, by SAAMI's standard SD assumption, roughly one in six hundred will be 51,750 psi. So you want to allow that your primer may be subjected to that or even an occasional higher pressure and that you want to consider that possibility when choosing a primer cup.

[spawndn72]

First of all, thanks for all the info. You guys have probably forgotten more than I will ever know.

The load data that the bullet manufacturer provided was from quick load, which I have no experience with. The maximum pressure calculated was just over 25000psi with that 9.4 grain load.

[GeoJelly]

Very belated greetings, Gents - I am a late arrival in this thread. I just picked up a 4-inch GP100 and some Starline .32 HR brass. I'll be using Rainier lead-safe 100-g plated bullets. I had initially thought I would buy some Trail Boss - thinking (foolishly) that it would be safe in .32HR. Sounds like I was dead wrong and I'm glad I found this thread. Have lots of Power Pistol, so I thought I would make a swag on the Alliant data in Post #173 - and reduce it by 30% to 5.9-g PP since the .32HR case is just over a tenth of an inch shorter. This isn't my first rodeo so I understand no one is going to come back and post something like, "... Sounds like a safe load, I'd do it...". But, maybe someone will feel sorry for this senior citizen and say, No Way Jose. Great, great info in this thread - Thanks to all of the posters!!

[Sevens]

Well, I don't see any published data for Power Pistol in .32 H&R Mag in the 2005 Aliiant guide, so I don't know where "published max" might be. On one hand, .32 H&R Mag runs like 25k max PSI on the top end and a .327 Federal chambered GP-100 can eat nearly TWICE that pressure for breakfast.

However on the other hand... the plated Ranier slugs are in no way sturdy enough to handle .327 Federal pressure.

If it were me, I'd look for better slugs if the goal is to get spicy.

[GeoJelly]

Sevens - Thanks for your response sir! Good point - I use an RCBS Lil Dandy measure and just checked 5.2-g (ish) of PP. It doesn't half-fill the case - but it sounds safer than 5.9-g given the absence of data. Sounds dumb but I hate to invest $20+ for AA7 or 2400 given that I'll prolly only load 200-rds over the next year. The comments in the thread about Trail Boss took me by surprise, although, up front I've never loaded with it. It has been billed by many as the 'fill up the case' powder, and fire away. I guess a notable exception to that is for, at least, .327 Fed. I won't be doing any more than punching paper, at an indoor range, with the GP so mild loads will fit the bill. And, I don't relish cleaning it up after cast bullet shooting so I decided to go with plated. I've put a .327 SP101 on the want list for next year. I've seen a couple locally but they've been beater-ish ... The GP100 needed a lot of touching up finish-wise, but it looks near-new now.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Sevens

Well, I don't see any published data for Power Pistol in .32 H&R Mag in the 2005 Aliiant guide, so I don't know where "published max" might be. On one hand, .32 H&R Mag runs like 25k max PSI on the top end and a .327 Federal chambered GP-100 can eat nearly TWICE that pressure for breakfast.

However on the other hand... the plated Ranier slugs are in no way sturdy enough to handle .327 Federal pressure.

If it were me, I'd look for better slugs if the goal is to get spicy.

There's not much out there tho to get hot with .327, Hornady XTP's are it. Speer Gold Dots were available in .32, but I haven't seen any in two years.

There's also Sierra JHP's with an exposed lead nose, but they're not as easy to get as XTP's.

.327 has a lot of potential, but bullet manufacturers don't care about .32 caliber revolvers.

[Sevens]

Hahaha...! Look at how long we've been sharing loads and experience in this thread -- what you just said hasn't been breaking news for years.

The XTP is a sturdy bullet for sure. And if you want another slug that is able to handle 45k PSI and is economical to boot, check post #89/93/94.

[Real Gun]

5.9 gr of Power Pistol is a substantial load in 327 Federal Magnum. Since Brian Pearce in his article about loading the 327 Federal showed all the way down to 4.5 to reach subsonic levels, I would say 5.9 is w-a-a-y overboard on 32 H&R. Why not just go buy a jar of a fast burning powder that actually matches powder company load data?

[GeoJelly]

More good info - Thanks again Gents. I went online to Wolfe Publishing, and attempted to buy the back issue #312 of Handloader mag. They wanted $11 plus $6.95 shipping, so that’s a rip off. I think that is the issue were Brian Pearce had some .32HR data. I am going to a post a WTB in the gun show section for that back issue ... Back to powders, would Universal Clays be fast enough to safely load mild .32HR? I admit that I am OCD about a double charge so low density powders would be best for me ... and that was the reason I initially thought about Trail Boss.

Re-edited: I had time to do more research and found favorable comments about Lil' Gun in this post and elsewhere. Checked my volume density table and it seemed to be what I wanted - low-density. Went onto the Hodgdon site and sure enough they have published data. I was going to visit the LGS anyway, and I struck gold again since they had it in stock for $25. Just need Midway to come thru with the dies, brass and bullets now. I acknowledge comments above, and below, about sticking with published data. That said, I was asking ... nay, sounding dumb ... BEFORE I loaded a single round. I'm heading into my eighth decade, here shortly, using that same idea, seek wisdom before acting ...

[Real Gun]

Any thoughts, if someone has time, on 4.0 of Univ Clays with a 100-g plated bullet?

One thought is that I don't find Hodgdon offering any data for that bullet weight and Universal. 4 grains is still more like a load for 327 Federal. Just do yourself a favor and match your bullets and powder to published data (not the opposite), a copy of which you own. Using the internet for your reloading manual can be risky and so can being too quick to want to extrapolate from data you think might be close enough.

[FrankenMauser]

More good info - Thanks again Gents. I went online to Wolfe Publishing, and attempted to buy the back issue #312 of Handloader mag. They wanted $11 plus $6.95 shipping, so that’s a rip off. I think that is the issue were Brian Pearce had some .32HR data. I am going to a post a WTB in the gun show section for that back issue ... Back to powders, would Universal Clays be fast enough to safely load mild .32HR? I admit that I am OCD about a double charge so low density powders would be best for me ... and that was the reason I initially thought about Trail Boss.

In issue 312, the discussion is about problems with .327 Federal load data. It isn't the one you're looking for. I don't recall which issues had the .32 H&R and .327 Federal (updated) load data dumps. But I believe there was one this year, and one in mid-2017. (I subscribe.)

If you want back issues, the best bang for your buck is the year's worth on DVD:
Handloader Yearly On DVD