[Cosmoline]

I heard a bit of this on Guntalk but not enough to figure out exactly what it was. But if I heard right Ruger is introducing a new SP101 in a new .32 cartridge that's considerably hotter than the H&R mag. It's on par with .38 +p+ only with 100 and 115 grain bullets, probably hitting about like a Tokarev. But I missed most of the broadcast. Anyone know more details? There's bupkus on Ruger's site or Guntalk about it. Did I dream it?

[rcmodel]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=315207&highlight=.32+magnum

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

[Cosmoline]

Ah, it escaped my searches. Thanks!

[Old Fuff]

It's already been rejected by the usual crowd... Nothing below .45 or .50 can be considered to be "serious"... :uhoh:

[Cosmoline]

I've always liked the weird old .32 revolver rounds. This is just a weird new one. My own interest in it is probably the ultimate seal of doom. Plus I have this odd interest in using a CCW to dink squirrels and ptarmigan. The .38's are too big and mangle them up. An SP that can chamber .32 S&W would be idea.

[rcmodel]

It's gonna be ear-splitting I betcha!
Better pack your muffs when you go after them there TreeRats!

For some odd reason, 32-20's and .30 Carbine revolvers are worse then .44 Mags when it comes to plain old Pain when you shoot them without hearing protection.

This one looks like it's right up there with similar velocity.

Edited:
Just reread your post.
Oh, you said .32 S&W!
Nevermind!

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

[Ratshooter]

Well, i'm for any kind of 32 stuff. Thirty two's are my favorites. I have 3 32 S&W long revolvers and 5 32 mag revolvers and a Marlin 94 in 32 mag. Also two 32 autos.

My loads are reaching 1250 fps from a 4" 101 and 1306 from a 5.5" single six. It reaches 1900 fps from my Marlin 94. Thats with a book load of Hodgden Li'l gun (12gr's) and an 85 gr Hornady. So i don't know how much better this will be. I guess the case is longer to hold more powder. Sort of a magnum version of the magnum.

I was Ruger would make the 4" version again only this time with REAL adjustable sights like was listed in the catalog not the windage only ones that it came with.

I do hope Speer will sell the 115 gr gold dot. I shoot 115 lead now but at between 900 and 1000 fps.

[Texas Colt]

I guess the case is longer to hold more powder. Sort of a magnum version of the magnum.

So does that make this new round the 32 Maximum? :neener:

[bannockburn]

Texas Colt

Yeah, that would be better than 327, which sounds to me like it should have "cubic inches" after it. I definitely like the 32 Maximum better; quick get it copyrighted.

[Walkalong]

rcmodel is right about ear splitting. I traded off my Colt in 32-20 for that reason.

Don't miss it. I would like a Model 16 .32 Mag, but they are like Gold right now. Someday.

This new .327 Magnum does sound interesting though. A 7 round L frame Smith might be VERY interesting. Or just a 6 round K frame would be nice as well.

[Ratshooter]

Walkalong, i think you can get 7 in the K frame and 8 in the L frame. Heck maybe 9 in an N frame.

[Jim March]

Do I hear 11 in an X-frame?

:)

"Hey man, it goes to ELEVEN!"

[ugaarguy]

Well you go from 5 .38s to 6 .32s in a J frame. They already make 7 round .357 Mag L frames, and it can jump to 8 in the N frame. I'm thinkin 8 in an L frame, no problem, and 9, possibly 10, in an N frame. Could we be looking at a 12 round or more X Frame? :D

[Geronimo45]

Would it fit the Nagant, by any chance? I've been looking desperately for a reason to buy one.

[Jim March]

They'll spread a Nagant to hell and gone if they fit.

Ghaaa.

[Stainz]

I thought the .32 H&RMs fizzled due to lack of interest. Hmmm, just got rid of 'old stock', I suppose, in preparation for the new Magnum-Magnums. Brilliant, Ruger... I won't play, however. The .32's I bought in the last two years, a SS BHG SSM and 4" SP101, fought over the title of the absolute worst firearm I've ever bought, QC wise. Sure, they cleaned up... but what a pure shame a bit more care wasn't given during manufacturing.

Now, as to applications - particularly as a CCW. The SP101 is a tad heavier, probably 26+ oz for a 2" .32, vs S&W's best selling current revolver, the 642, and it's 15 oz. Throw weight goes to the S&W - .38's of 158gr are typical, vs 100gr JHP for current .32s (My favorite .32M load is a 115gr LRNFP @ 820-850 fps - great plinker!).

The KE may just go to the new Magnum-Magnum... but will it open? The +P 158gr LHPSWC opens quite well at the 840+ fps it makes from my 642 - that's 247 ft-lb. My 4" SP101 got 1,186 fps from the GA Arms 100gr JHPs - 311 ft-lb (Expect less from a 2" barrel, of course!). In the infamous '2L pop bottle full of water' test - at 12-15yd, the .38's are more effective, pretty much 'as expected'. So, a band of marauding pop bottles are best protected from by the .38. Works for me... the .32 is just a fun round, anyway!

Maybe it'll take-off - and S&W will produce a new Airweight version of the 432PD - with a Ti cylinder - and a frame in an Al/Sc/Expensivium alloy to handle the extra pressure. Maybe 11-12 oz, as it will have six holes... wow, hold me back, I said facetiously!

Actually, I think my range trip today will include the .32's - and their Ruskie 1895 Nagant brethren. I need the trigger finger excercise... Still have visions of a 4" non-ported .500 Mag sending 440+gr LWFN down range at 800-850 fps... now THAT would be protection!

Stainz

PS A difficult admission.... that .32M SP101 trigger really did improve with the lightest springs - and a whole lot of 'clean-up'.

[Walkalong]

Walkalong, i think you can get 7 in the K frame and 8 in the L frame
Even better. :D

[Jim March]

Ruger's QC has been on the upswing of late. My 2005-era NewVaq is in all ways an excellent gun by any standard.

[MCgunner]

I'm thinkin' they shoulda just put a rim on the .30 carbine case.

It's already been rejected by the usual crowd... Nothing below .45 or .50 can be considered to be "serious".

No, no Fuff, it's .357, nothing smaller than .357. A .32 might expand, but a .38 will never.....ah....forget it. :rolleyes:

[rcmodel]

The .30 carbine is a tapered case, and is not the best design for a revolver cartridge.

It works, but a straight-walled case is a much better way to do it.

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

[Geronimo45]

but a straight-walled case is a much better way to do it.
Why?

They'll spread a Nagant to hell and gone if they fit.
Shucks. Well, it'd be fun to watch (from a bunker).:p

[trueblue1776]

I'm excited, .32 bullets are C-H-E-A-P!

[rcmodel]

Why?

Well, the tapered case of the .30 Carbine has been known to occasionally cause set-back problems in revolvers chambered for them.

When fired, the case is driven rearward against the recoil shield, and expands. Since it is tapered, it won't easlily go back in the chamber all the way after it is expanded, and the head may drag on the recoil shield as the cylinder rotates.

A straight walled case on the otherhand, can be pushed back into the chamber by the recoil shield quite easily after it expands.

I have had one Ruger .30 carbine Blackhawk that would sometimes needed two-hand help to rotate the cylinder against case-head drag.

My buddy still has one that often shears a ring of brass at the case mouth and can't be reloaded until the ring is removed with a cleaning brush. Don't know why the .30 carbine does it, but I have never seen any other revolver caliber do it except in that caliber.

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

[Timthinker]

RC, did the problems you cite with the .30 Carbine occur more frequently with one particular load or was it a general problem?


Timthinker

[Geronimo45]

When fired, the case is driven rearward against the recoil shield, and expands. Since it is tapered, it won't easlily go back in the chamber all the way after it is expanded, and the head may drag on the recoil shield as the cylinder rotates.
Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. So the very thing that makes a tapered case great for a semi-automatic action can cause issues with a revolver. The lack of moonclipped revolvers in calibers other than .45 also makes more sense now.

[461]

That's some of what is good about the new .327Mag, you get performance on par with the .30Carbine and .32/20 without the problems of those two rounds.

From a reloader perspective it's a big improvement, the .30 Carbine doesn't work with carbide sizers because it's not straight walled, the .32/20 has a double problem as it can't use carbide sizers and the brass is very thin and fragile.

I'm anxiously waiting for the .327Mag and really looking at having some fun with it. I'm a tad nervous that this is being touted as a defense round rather than a sportsman round, hopefully they'll see the sporting merit and market it that way as well.

An nice single action Ruger and a lever action Marlin would be a very nice set up for small game. I already have the set for the .32 H&R Mag and it's wonderful, the .327 can only make it better.

[rcmodel]

RC, did the problems you cite with the .30 Carbine occur more frequently with one particular load or was it a general problem?
TimthinkerMy Blackhawk was with most reloads and also GI mil-sup.
I think it was more a rough recoil shield problem then a .30 Carbine problem.
My friends has never had problems with cylinder rotation.

But he continues to have the "brass ring in the chamber" thing with both GI mil-sup and reloads. I have tried to get him to send it back to Ruger for diagnoses, but he has never bothered because he seldom shoots it anymore.

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