Federals 327 magnum

[philbo]

New cartridge announced by Federal and being marketed as a self defense round... after years of hearing that 32's were marginal in that role. :rolleyes:

How long till it winds up in the same pile as the 45 gap?

Personally, I would like to see this offered in a little lever action rifle for varmints!

http://www.federalpremium.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=4&s2=6&id=171&brand=5&year=2007

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/video/GATV_Federal327/

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st327_110707/

[oldironman]

Well, I cold definitely see it as a slimmer 5-shot 327mag more suited for concealed carry, but it looks like all they did was create a 6-shot 357. Not bad, but I would have prefered a slimmer gun. I would MUCH prefer a SP101 in a 5-shot .44 spl. (Ruger - are you listening!!)

[fastbolt]

Maybe interesting ... conditionally.

Maybe I'll take a look and see how things have gone for the new cartridge in a couple of years ...

Be interesting to see whether anyone else has started producing a reasonable selection of ammunition ... if only to keep pricing competitive.

Whether any other firearms manufacturers will produce revolvers, especially in the lightweight category. Is S&W planning to offer the cartridge as an option in their excellent J-frame lineup, for example?

What kind of 'ballistic performance' has been developed and documented during R&D, anyway? What's their intended objective for 'performance' criteria? Muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are fine for the 'looks good on paper' crowd, but how have the defensive-oriented bullets been redesigned for the increased velocities of this spitzer .32 round?

The advent of advanced powder blends ...
Do these blends, coupled with lightweight bullets, mean the hot gasses will make them unsuitable for use in titanium cylinders, because of potential erosion concerns (like the less-than-120gr Magnum Load prohibition in the Magnum Airlite S&W J-frames with titanium cylinders)?

Less recoil, huh? Does that mean less than .357 Magnum, but more than .38 +P? If so, it still might not attract potential owners/users from that segment of the market that would find the .32 H&R Magnum to be an acceptable compromise in 'power' vs. 'felt recoil'.

In a perfect world, the idea of a 6-shot J-frame size revolver has merit.

Perhaps the idea of incorporating the new cartridge in a steel-frame 5-shot revolver is going to be the best compromise, after all ... felt recoil-wise ... especially in the robust, heavy little Ruger, but will it attract enough purchasers to remain viable?

Dunno.

Somebody apparently thinks so, though, huh? ;)

I guess we'll see ...

Edited to add that while I'll probably look in on this new cartridge from time to time, out of curiosity, I feel absolutely no interest in it for myself. The various .38 Spl/.357 Magnum J-frames and Ruger SP-101 chambered in .357 Magnum fill all of my existing and perceived needs.

It's just that I think there is a segment of the market that could find this interesting ...

[strat81]

I'm thoroughly underwhelmed.

[rcmodel]

Sounds like a great varmint & small game hunting round to replace the old 32-20 WCF.

Exactly what the 32 H&R Magnum should have been in the first place.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

[Car Knocker]

Prior thread here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=314987

[P. Plainsman]

Fun single action sixgun round. Small game & such.

As others have suggested, it'd be like a 32-20 with two advantages: (1) no bottleneck case and (2) factory ammo that's loaded hot.

Could Ruger chamber it in a Single Six-sized frame? Or would they need to move up to the New Vaquero frame for cylinder length reasons?

[The Bushmaster]

Possibly simular ballistics as the .357 magnum with less recoil???

[Walkalong]

I wish they would come out with more guns in .32 Mag. Excellent little cartridge. :)

[lawboy]

Interesting cartridge but likely just a factory version of what can safely be achieved with the 32 H&R Magnum and the SP101 with safe reloading practices. Still, if they put a REAL adjustabel rear sight on a 4-inch sp101, I will buy one. It would make a fine squirrel, rat etc., handgun set up like that. It does not impress me as a great choice for a defensive cartridge though surely it could serve some well in that role.

[Trebor]

This is an interesting little round.

I want to see some gelatin penetration tests to see what kind of penetration and bullet expansion they are getting.

The 115 gr load at 1300 FPS is especially interesting to me. I'm sure it has the stoutest recoil of the three loads.

My personal first choice would still be a .38 Special +P, but I can see a role for this. I have had students who can't shoot hot .38's from smaller guns well and this might be a good alternative.

There aren't any really good defensive load choices in .32 H&R Mag. This seems like it might fill that niche, even though it requires a new gun.

At least the guns will still shoot the other .32 loads if this round dies out in a few years. I pity the guys who are going to be stuck with .45 GAP pistols in other 5 to 7 years or so. (.41 AE anyone?)

[BlkHawk73]

For small game I see no real benefit over the existing .32 H&R Mag, especially from a short bbl. In a loner bbl (lever gun perhaps) it might make a nice little cartridge giving a better plus over the .32 mag. Still...maybe this cartridge in Ruger's medium sized SA frame (50th Ann .357) it would be a decent shooter and still allow the .32 mag, etc for alternate loadings. Make it a Bisley and I'd buy one regardless.

[Jim Keenan]

Isn't all of this what the .32 H&R Magnum was supposed to do? And that cartridge is, if not dead, at least on life support. It seems to me that if you get the energy of the .357 Magnum, you get the noise, blast and recoil of the .357 as well. No free lunches here, folks.

Jim

[Joe the Redneck]

If they put it in a five shot ruger snubbie, I'd buy it. I don't really care for all this "magnum" stuff. I don't expect it to shoot like a 357. I'd be happy with a modern 32 at any speed.

Right now I carry a 32 auto, which blows as a SD round, but it's what I can carry. I'd much rather have a revolver. No mag springs to worry about, no "safety" to get me killed. Greater ranger of bullets. Sound like a win win.

Plue, it's just a fun round to shoot.

But if they are just going to stick it in a gun the same size as the 357, well, what's the point?

Sadly, I bet it is gone in a year.

Joe

[461]

I support it and look forward to it. Any .32 development is good to see as this caliber is sadly underrepresented.

I have a ton of fun with my .32H&R's and look forward to this new one spawning some new .32 caliber guns to play with.

Even if it dies out I'll be able to reload it for the rest of my life and will get the chance to buy a few new .32's.

[Newton]

All it appears to offer over .38 +P is one more round for the same size gun, probably with much more muzzle blast and a prohibitively high ammunition cost.

.32H&R Magnum never took off, so why would this?

[alucard0822]

looks cool. It is just basically a streached 32 mag factory loaded hot. It is not a ballistic twin to the 357, with the ability to load a 115gr to 2000fps, or a 180gr hardcast to 1500fps. I do think 32mag/32fed would be a good intermediate caliber between 357/38sp and 22lr/22mag especially if federal wasn't too stingy with the price. Marketing revolvers and carbines for women, and youths in a soft recoiling, but fast and fun caliber also would be quite nice. I would get a 5 shot birds head mini vaquero in polished stainless with pearl grips chambered in 32 fed for my GF.

[2TransAms]

My first thought is...why? .357 performance from a smaller bullet? Again...why do I want that? Oh,it's new and spiffy and it will have a tiny cut of the market but very rarely does a new cartridge take off and do well. .40 S&W was the last one to do it successfully,10mm and .357 SIG are gaining popularity at glacial speeds,and come to think of it those are all semi-auto rounds.
It seems to me that if you get the energy of the .357 Magnum, you get the noise, blast and recoil of the .357 as well. No free lunches here, folks.I agree. Simple physics. If there's less recoil it's only because it's pushing a lighter projectile.

[cocojo]

Joe the Redneck, why do you only want 5 shots when the Ruger 101 2 inch holds six? The only reason the 101 is five shots is becasue it's a 38 or 357 caliber. In 32 caliber S&W and Rugers are 6 shots. Same size revolver.

[Gun Slinger]

Can't see that it'll offer better performance than the .357 Magnum in any particular area.

Not to mention that the "new" ammo will be more expensive at the outset, brass will be hard to locate for reloading and it appears to offer ballistics that would struggle to match the 9mm as an SD selection except for those who are sensitive to recoil.

Federal's SD load, an 85 gr. JHP at 1330 f.p.s/ 333.8 f.p.e. possesses ballistics similar to the .30 Luger (an 93 gr. bullet at 1220 f.ps./ 307.3 f.p.e.), an anemic load to say the least and the hottest loading doesn't better the premium 9mm offerings in terms of muzzle energy and has a slightly smaller cross-sectional area (.312" vs. .355") than the 9mm. Considering that 9mm will most likely be quite a bit less expensive in both practice and premium loadings, while offering increased bore and a much wider range of selections, I doubt that I'll be racing out to get a .327 Magnum anytime soon.

I'll just stick with my Glock 17 9mm loaded with 147gr. TAP-CQ XTP's.

GS

[Cosmoline]

Call me goofy but this one does interest me. I've always liked the .32 revolver cartridges. This new SP also makes up for the fact that the .357 version is one can short. I may have to get one of these pups. It's been many long years since I was first on the block with a really new toy.

Federal Magnum allows a six-round cylinder compared to five-round capacity for similar-sized .38 Special and .357 Magnum guns, with the added benefit of chambering .32 S&W, .32 Special, and .32 H&R Magnum loads as well.

I wonder if it chambers 7.62 Nagants? ;-)

It might make a real wicked round for an M-1 carbine.

[the naked prophet]

115 grains at 1300 fps? That beats most 9mm that I've seen. Standard loaded 9mm is what, 115 grains at 1100 fps? 9mm +P can get up to 1300 fps at the upper limit.

Seems good to me, especially with 6 shots in a package the size of a 5-shot snub .38 that is so popular. As to the size, I doubt the initial bore diameter will make that much difference between .311 and .357 inches. I'm sure that at those speeds, they'll expand plenty.

I wonder how many shots you could fit in a K-frame? Maybe eight? I'd carry a 4-inch K-frame with 8 shots of .327 magnum.

[kmrcstintn]

no experience with .32 anything, so this is just purely opinion driven...

seems like another solution looking for a problem to justify it on the surface...but there is some good potential...only time will tell

[patentmike]

I'm sure they gave it a lot of thought:

So the .32 H&R magnums aren't selling, What do we do?
Discontinue them?
Too easy.
Sell more .38/.357s?
Been done.
Come up with a new version of the .32 mag?
Good.
Next on the agenda; The Christmas party....

[Jimmy Newman]

Looks like a really good rabbit cartridge :).

[Jim March]

I've been pondering this.

A lot of people are carrying 357 guns with ammo loaded no hotter than this and often milder. A few popular 357 loads don't match these for raw power: these will spank the Gold Dot 135 357 "short barrel" rounds and likely beat the Golden Saber.

So if you're going to run less power, why not get a real sixgun?

Also: there are existing 32H&R SP101s, all of which should be perfectly safe to ream deeper to this caliber.

The Single Six on the other hand will need a custom cylinder and slight opening (lengthening) of the frame window, by just a shave. This per the guys on the Single Actions forum...

[Cosmoline]

My educated guess is that this round will be more noise than impact out of the SP, but will cook off so hot out of longer barrels it will become a very nice carbine and hunting handgun round. It's almost a modern .32-20 with a better case design.

[DWARREN123]

I have a 32 H&R mag and can reload it hot. I doubt I will sell it to buy this new one.
Maybe this is what the 32 mag should have been from the start.

[mpmarty]

I'm certainly underwhelmed.

[lbmii]

I think it is a good idea. A six shot J frame with a 32 caliber 115 grain HP bullet at or near 1200 to 1300 FPS is just about right.

It would be a great round for a modern small light weight four shot pepper box derringer.

As a person who carries a CCW everyday, I would buy a 327.

[nero45acp]

I'll buy one. If the cartridge doesn't make it over the long run, I just shoot .32 H&R Mags out of it. It'll make a nice companion piece for my S&W 432PD.



nero(doesn't need much of an excuse to buy another firearm....)

[novaDAK]

great another sound-alike caliber for new people to confuse...not saying it will be a bad round though.

[patentmike]

I'd buy one too, but that sure is no test of whether it is marketable. I bought a 431 just before S&W discontinued it. I thought the .32 H&R was just right for a 6 shot lightweight j-frame. The SP101 on the other hand is as heavy as a brick.

[dcloudy777@aol.com]

Definitely interesting... especially when available in a Smith instead of the boat-anchor SP101... I'm thinking maybe the 358PD... scandium frame, titanium cylinder, >12oz. weight, 6-shot... hmmm...

DanO

[jaholder1971]

One word: YAWN

[Bezoar]

Strange they try to magnomize a magnum. Thing is power wise, youd do as well or better if you just use a 38spcl +P jhp.. look at numbers. Ive seen fmj .40 s & w that barely put out 100 footpounds more energy then a .38 special +p

Although we can assume well get more da/sa offereings then the .32 hr magnum was given. That at least will make up for extra cost in the longrun.

[MachIVshooter]

Hmmmm............I'm bettin' my current .32 H&R mag SP-101 could be reamed out for this new critter.................

[Fishman777]

... but I would hardly consider a round that generates 435 ft/lbs of muzzle energy a "rabbit" cartridge. There are 40 S&W rounds that don't generate that type of muzzle energy. Couple those energy levels, the 1300 to 1400 muzzle velocities, and sectional densities that are as high as .17 and you have a very nasty round. These bullets should penetrate and expand very well. Just based on these numbers, I would rather have six rounds of.327 magnum in a revolver than five 9mm or five .38 specials rounds.

[Elm Creek Smith]

If you check the numbers, it looks like they've recreated the 7.63x25 Mauser/7.62x25 Tokarev ballistics in a little revolver. Okay. Why?

Maybe a good bullet like a Gold Dot in the 7.62x25 Tokarev in a CZ-52 would be more worthwhile.

ECS

[Diggers]

Yeah rabbits? :uhoh: If you want rabbit bits maybe.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st327_110707/

That link has some ballistic test info for the 115 grain load. Looks pretty good.

As a SD load it will work just fine.

As far as why they made it......well to make money by selling them mostly.

It makes alot of sense.

Im sure they see the interest of the ccw crowd has in small revlovers so they made a new cartrage for that market that has good SD ability.

Its the next .357/ .38 platform, in a small frame with 6 SHOTS.

With the .327/.32 mag. you have a gun that has power but also one that you can shoot milder loads in at the range for fun or for people who don't like recoil. etc.

As I posted before....success of the .327 is all about the gun.

[ugaarguy]

If you check the numbers, it looks like they've recreated the 7.63x25 Mauser/7.62x25 Tokarev ballistics in a little revolver. Okay. Why?

Maybe a good bullet like a Gold Dot in the 7.62x25 Tokarev in a CZ-52 would be more worthwhile.
Because who's making new Tokarevs & CZ-52s again? And which 7.62x25 pistols can be pocket carried? And how available is good leather to belt carry either of the two popular 7.62x25 handguns? And what's the availability of aftermarket grips, factory & aftermarket parts, factory service, etc?

In the SP-101 you get an easy to carry belt gun. If S&W reintroduces the 432, or has to go scandium frame titanium cylinder and call it the 332, in .327 Federal Magnum you add a true pocket gun. Both of these guns have plenty of grips, holsters, and parts already available and in stock at just about every gun shop in the US. Both companies back their products with some of the best factory support in the industry as well. Last, since they're revolvers, you can step down to softer shooting rounds in the same cylinder without any cycling issues like you'd have when an auto is loaded with too light ammo.

The 7.62x25 is neat round, but it just isn't common. I sell more .32 S&W Long and .32 HRM than I do 7.62x25. It's just how things go.

[roscoe]

Here's to hoping it sticks around!

[Clean97GTI]

so basically we've got a bullet that doesn't perform as well as .357 Magnum or .357 Sig.

Whats the point here?

[the naked prophet]

The point is that it fits 6 rounds in a smaller gun, with performance identical to 9mm+P.

[Clean97GTI]

no offense, but if you want a small gun with a wallop, there are things like the Glock 36. This cartridge just seems superfluous; An answer to a question nobody was asking.

[trueblue1776]

Is anybody stocking loaded rounds or brass for the .327 yet? I've got the fever, I need a .327!

[W.E.G.]

A fun development.

Fun is fun however you slice it.

I'll stick with my G22 for a working gun.

[Jimmy Newman]

I was sort of playing when I said I thought it would be good for rabbits.

Obviously it has a lot more juice than is really necessary for rabbits.

But you could load a little soft and it would be great for everything smaller than deer. For a given power level, it'd shoot a little flatter than the .38/.357 loads (I like flat shooting catridges). Then you could load it a little hot and use it for defense or whatever else you wanted.

I think the "but it doesn't perform as well as XXXXX" arguments are a little silly. Maybe you set the bar at .357 mag and .357 sig, and throw away 9mm, .38spl, .32 auto, .380 auto, .22lr, .22 wmr, and some of the other cartridges that don't make the standard. Then maybe I say "but those don't perform as well as .44 mag," and the .357's are out the window. Next comes along someone who says "but .44mag doesn't perform as well as .454 Casull," and .44 mag is gone.

Pretty soon, you get your choice between .500S&W (if you want big and slow) and .460S&W (if you want small and fast), and none of the smaller calibers exist anymore.

I think there's space for a caliber that shoots smaller bullets faster than the other major calibers.

[ugaarguy]

so basically we've got a bullet that doesn't perform as well as .357 Magnum or .357 Sig.

Whats the point here?
Actually if you read above you'll see that this cartridge has nearly identical ballistic specifications to the 7.62x25 Tokarev, but with .327" diameter bullets which are available for wider range of applications in handgun projectile weights. You should also read above about ballistic coefficients and penetration capability. In the initial handgun offering, the Ruger SP101, you're getting near .357 Mag energy levels with lower recoil and an extra chamber in the cylinder. If S&W chambers an AirWeight or AirLite J frame in .327 Federal Mag you get better performance than a 442/642 (.38 Special +P) , more manageable recoil than the 340 (.357 Magnum), and once again an extra round.
no offense, but if you want a small gun with a wallop, there are things like the Glock 36. This cartridge just seems superfluous; An answer to a question nobody was asking.
Some folks just like revolvers. I think Federal has tried to develop a cartridge for the ever growing CCW revolver market which provides a compromise between .357 Mag performance and .38 Special +P shootability. Ruger's co-development role and initial offering of an SP101 chambered for the round looks like an attempt to take market share from S&W's very hot selling J Frame line.

[Clean97GTI]

Jimmy, you need to consider where that cartridge is supposed to fit in. What is it intended to do? I look at it and while I see nice high velocity, I also see a cartridge that flings light bullets at its target. Its performance isn't anything to write home about when you compare it to other established offerings in the weight class. Thats the problem as I see it. It doesn't stand out from the crowd in any appreciable way.

Want a nice compact pistol? You can already have thin single stack guns in .45acp. You can have a similar sized revolver in .357 magnum and while you get one less round, you get a lot more performance.

Maybe it will look better out of a longer barrel but it isn't big enough for deer and is too big for bunnies. In my area of the country, that basically leaves coyotes and maybe a javelina if you're brave.
It doesn't offer anything you can't already have in a burly handgun or from a small varmint round like .204 Ruger.

The biggest benefit I see is that you can shoot 3 other calibers from the SP101 when chambered for .327 mag.

[Diggers]

Many have commented that the .327 is an unneeded cartridge, and .357s or .38s already can do the job as well or better.

Yeah that in its self is true, but whats so wrong with having another choice? :confused:

Some people don't want an compact auto.

Some people just like the idea of small a .32 cal revolver as a defensive gun.

Obviously people were still buying the .32 H&R because Ruger has two versions of it on the website, so bumping up the power to a .327 makes sense there. (And yeah some folks even use the .32 H&R for self defense.:eek:....:))

Sorry I just find the "Why make a .327 when we already have a .357?" point of view really odd.

How many different kinds of cars do people buy and then use them to do the exact same thing....drive to work. That kind of list goes on and on.:rolleyes:

Thats how our world works, people have options of how to do the same thing. I think THAT is pretty nice. :p

Its just a new choice for people who like the idea revolvers and a powerful .32 to use as a SD weapon. So what if there are already calibers that are better or even identical, some people are just going to like the .327 better.

Hey if nothing else its just good FUN. :p

[alucard0822]

Call me crazy, but I think a major manufacturer introducing ANY new cartridge with SD being the #1 ADVERTISED purpose is a great thing. Who knows, someone who has never owned a firearm before may just pick this one up and like it well enough to buy it. I think any company willing to give us more choices, possibly turn more folks into gunnies, and put more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is doing a good thing.

I think this would be a great chambering to aid progressive instruction, especially for women and kids, or anyone who may be a little recoil sensitive. Start with 32 S&W, move up to 32 H&R, then complete the training with 32 fed. Presently, I start new shooters with a 22 auto or revolver, then move to a 9mm auto or 38 revolver once they are comfortable with the 22, and then let them try a variety to find what they like best. Most guys (new shooters mind you) are dying for the chance to pick up the 44mag, close their eyes, hold their breath, and put a shotgun pattern out at 25ft. Most women are perfectly content with the 38 or 9mm they have been using up to that point, and manage to print consistently good groups, but some comment they want something a little smaller, lighter or that kicks less, I think this is where a 327 mag would be ideal.

[Fishman777]

The reason I intend to buy a .327 magnum sp101 is that I want at least one gun in the house that my wife would feel comfortable with. She *hates* autoloaders and thinks that my GP100 is a little too big and heavy. She does think that it is a really sexy gun with the hogue grips, but she is not completely comfortable with it. I am a huge ruger DA revolver fan, and really don't want to buy from a different revolver manufacturer.

The sp101 is an absolutely perfect fit for her. She'll have a smaller, lighter revolver with the hogue grips that she likes. Despite the small size, the recoil shouldn't be too crazy with .32 rounds. With the .327 magnum version, she could start off with the lighter .32 rounds and she could work up to the .327 magnum rounds.

[Diggers]

Indeed Fisherman777 , (I was out fishing last eve. :D)

I believe I read that the 85 grain load of .327 was created as the reduced recoil load for people who are recoil sensitive.

Cant wait to try these loads out. :D

[trueblue1776]

My wife doesn't shoot, but I do reload. And a full power load that uses a .32 bullet is going to be cheap to reload.

[Fishman777]

*sigh*

I miss fishing.

Been so busy lately. I really need to move to someplace that is better suited for my hobbies. The chicago area is not very kind to the recreational shooter or the outdoor enthusiast.

[munk]

The bullet diameter is not .327 as some posts here would seem to indicate. As the round is touted to allow the lesser cartridges to be fired in the same weapon, that means .311 to .312

I wish it were a .327 But there is room for a hot 30 in a revolver. The M1Carbine is too much. This is a straight walled 32/20, and for those of you who have had the fortune to fire a 32/20 in an accurate platform, you know what a sweet shooting round it is. Right before WW1 the number one selling cartridge in Colt's single action was the 32/20. Not the 45 Colt as many would first believe.

It has a niche in the self defense department for those that do not want a 357 or 38+P. The 32 mag is underpowered because HR introduced it in revolvers of modest strength. This seems to fix that. Metcalf in his initial review rightly surmised there are a lot of people who have joined the concealed carry bandwagon who have no wish to become gunnies. There is no reason they should be required to shoot what many of us consider the ballistic baseline of a hot nine or modest 357, a 40 or a 45 acp.

It will make the definitive varmint round in a handy lever, be minimal for self defense, and is worthy.

I don't understand the resistance by gunnies to this. If you wish to resist new cartridge development, (and is anything new?) start with all those 30 cal rifle rounds we have.

There is more reason for this 30 cal handgun round than there was for the 41 mag, and the 41 mag is a superb cartridge. It is still alive because shooters recognize its value. It should be much easier to see the merits of this.

We have no commonly available revolver cartridge below 38, until we reach 22, do we? That's enough room for me. ( the M1 Carbine round is too much for a concealed carry small revolver and has found a very small home in the Ruger Blackhawks)

It is interesting to see some shooters not only ask why bother with a hot 32, but have an attitude about it.




munk

[MachIVshooter]

no offense, but if you want a small gun with a wallop, there are things like the Glock 36. This cartridge just seems superfluous; An answer to a question nobody was asking.

That could easily be said of the 45 GAP. However, unlike the GAP, this cartridge offers increased performance in the same size platform. The GAP is only surviving because Glock is persistent and Glock people pick fashion (???) over function. There were plenty of smaller and lighter .45 ACP's, some with higher capacity. BUt Glock people are stuck on Glock. Kind of like Toyota people will buy a Tundra to pull a big-a$$ boat or trailer, even ough they'd have been far better suited with a Cummins or Duramax. It's a case of brand loyalty gone too far, and often to the detriment of the owner. Springfield saw the writing on the wall and almost as soon as they introduced a .45 GAP, it was replaced with .45 ACP.

It's the same reason GAP, RSAUM and WSM sales nosedived, but RUM sales are thriving. Jury's still out on the RCM's. The .40 S&W & .308 Win. are about the only shortened versions of parent cartridges that have faired well. Otherwise, only increased performance has allowed new rounds to survive past the initial hoopla.

I suspect many of the people bashing this new chambering have never fired a .32 H&R mag, either. Superb little cartridge, much more effective than .380 ACP.

[Timthinker]

Munk, I enjoyed reading your thoughtful post, but the .30 Carbine Blackhawk seems to be out of production. I searched the Ruger website for it, but I was unable to locate one. Perhaps Ruger infrequently produces this model and we are in a hiatus period. Only time will tell.

Less than two weeks ago, one of our members referred to the .327 Magnum as a super .32 Magnum, or something to that effect. That description seemed amusingly appropriate in lieu of your post. Yes, H&R "underloaded" the .32 Magnum for the reason you stated and this new cartridge appears to improve that situation. I eagerly await reading reports about this new cartridge. Only time will tell if it will become popular.


Timthinker

[Shell Shucker]

Get yours while you can; they are sure to be a collectors item in the not so distant future.........

[munk]

Timthinker;

I didn't know Ruger dropped the Carbine cartridge. They used to re-issue the 41 on and off again...but for some reason, I think the M1 Carbine may be really gone.

I don't believe Federal's 327 will make it. I'm not certain the Federal 338 rifle cartridge will either.

I may be one of the few here who actually thought the Ruger 480 was a good idea and wanted one....

There was a man who said once, "I can always tell who will be President each election: the guy I didn't vote for." Maybe that's true for me and new cartridges.

munk

[Cosmoline]

I don't see this as another .45, because the market is already overpacked with big bore rounds. There are dozens upon dozens of them. What we don't have is very much attention at the other end for handguns, in the .32 range or smaller. To the extent this reverses that trend I see it as very positive. Plus anything that revives the excellent old line of .32 S&W's is worth a tip of the hat. Also, to the extent it duplicates the old school .32-20 loads it's worth a nod. The drawback of that round was its somewhat antiquated shape of the brass. The ballistics of it were always awesome, and it ranks as one of the top ten all time rounds of any type in my book. If we can get an improved .32-20 in a new handgun and new levergun, I think we're really set. Heck I'll buy it. Looking back over all the hunting I've done, I can honestly say 99% of it could have been done with a carbine in the .32-20 range. With fewer bullets and escaped game, as well.

[peyton]

Do you think this round will fit in a Ruger Single Six size cylinder? I have a single six in 32 HR and wanted to know if Ruger will offer another cylinder to users. I hope Marlin starts building their lever action in the new caliber, do you think it will also load the 32 H&R Mag.

[ojibweindian]

115 grain bullet at 1300fps? Color me underwhelmed. Roughly a 9mm +P.

[Marvin KNox]

Oh boy!

I get to punch .311 holes in people to a depth of 10 or 12".

The only price I pay for this priviledge is close to .357 mag. recoil, noise and blast, carrying a 3" barrel gun, buying high priced ammo online and paying the shipping (if I can find some), and choosing from a limited number of handgun styles.

Why on earth would I want to go back to punching those wide holes to 10 or 12" with my .38 spl.?

I'd have to put up with less recoil, less noise and blast, a shorter barrel, lower ammo prices, and the bewildering array of handguns I had to consider.

Hmm...........Which way to go?:confused: