Jeff Quinn reviews the .327


PDA






DawgFvr
December 4, 2007, 12:04 PM
I think I've found the perfect weapon and caliber for my wife. Hmmm...if S&W makes this for their little 642, I'd be all over it!

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SP101-327.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Jeff Quinn reviews the .327" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrTuffPaws
December 4, 2007, 01:18 PM
.327??? I bet that's a spendy one.

19-3Ben
December 4, 2007, 01:33 PM
Interesting. I too was following the all the threads about this, and wondering how much of all the promised performance would come to be, while at the same time not being discouraged by all the imemdiate nay-sayers. I'm perfectly happy with m7 .357mag SP101, and don't mind the recoil or capacity. However, if this round goes "mainstream" and becomes affordable the way .40S&W did (as opposed to the .357sig), I'd be interested to pick it up.
It would be cool if we could get an 8-shot GP-100 or L frame with this.
I can just see the Smith&wesson version now. ".327 magnum-8 times"

Malodorousroadkill
December 4, 2007, 09:46 PM
If the recoil of this round is reasonable, I'd sooner see a 6times on an alloy j-frame. A bit more oomph than a .32 H&R.

RyanM
December 4, 2007, 11:14 PM
Looks like it's almost as powerful as .357 from the same barrel length. I imagine recoil would be proportional. Main benefit is a 6th round, but you probably give up a lot of terminal performance, simply because the bullets don't have as much R&D time.

Tom Servo
December 5, 2007, 12:18 AM
If the recoil of this round is reasonable, I'd sooner see a 6times on an alloy j-frame.
Heck with that, I want a 10-shot N-Frame with moonclips!

W.E.G.
December 5, 2007, 12:29 AM
belt-fed baby!

lawboy
December 5, 2007, 02:02 AM
The claim they are making that the .327 is almost as powerful as the 357 is somewhat disingenuous. 357 magnum ammo ranges from a little over 38+p+ to just under 41 Magnum. They are not saying WHICH 357 loads they are comparing the .327 to. It most definitely IS NOT the top end 125, 158 or 180-grain loads because there is no way a 95-grain bullet from that case could even come close to those loads. For Federal and Ruger to even leave that kind of speculation open to debate is irresponsible and dishonest, in my opinion.
I am not just venting here. I have an sp101 3-inch in 32 Magnum and a m66 3-inch in 357 Magnum and at very well-appointed reloading shop and bullet casting operation. I load extensively for both cartridges. The 327 is unlikely to do anything that the 32H&R cannot do with judicious handloading. the 32H&R is NO WHERE NEAR THE GUN THAT A 357 IS. Period. End of story.
I love the 32 and the 327 will be a great caliber. I agree with those who are hoping for a 6-shot S&W 442 or 642 in this caliber. But, honestly, I would be more excited about more of those guns being put on the shelves in 32H&R.
Where the 327 will REALLY shine is as a lever-action carbine round, and as a TC Contender round.

Dithsoer
December 5, 2007, 02:04 AM
Would it be possible to re-chamber a .32 H & R magnum SP101 to this new cartridge?

ArchAngelCD
December 5, 2007, 03:31 AM
I love the 32 and the 327 will be a great caliber. I agree with those who are hoping for a 6-shot S&W 442 or 642 in this caliber. But, honestly, I would be more excited about more of those guns being put on the shelves in 32H&R.
lawboy,
Why would you be more excited about a 32 H&R Magnum over a 327 Federal Magnum? The 32 H&R will never give you over 1300 fps with a 115gr bullet like the 327 Federal will. Besides, a revolver chambered in 327 Federal Magnum will fire 32 H&R Magnum rounds. (along with 32 S&W Short and Long rounds)

jameslovesjammie
December 5, 2007, 03:53 AM
I second the moon clipped 10 shot N frame. It would be awesome in ICORE, and could give revolvers a little better chance in IPSC. I think IPSC has .355 as the minimum though.

Malodorousroadkill
December 5, 2007, 04:58 AM
It can throw 100grain at 1400fps and thats what 9x19mm corbon pow r ball does. A 15 oz easily pocketed snubby that can throw 6 rounds that are 9mm +P equivalent that won't feel like you just slammed your hand in large metal door. Wow. Thats just cool to think about. AND it would most likely cost under 400 bucks. With all the problems I hear about many of the single stack, polymer, semi-autos that are under 400, I think kel-tec and Kahr might have to start getting those manufacturing bugs worked out.

Jack2427
December 5, 2007, 06:52 AM
I would expect that a 32 Magnum could be easily rechambered for the new round. And since the weapons that are going to use the new round are the same weapons that the 32 magnum is chambered in, there will be no problem. I like the 32 mag, and have a couple of revolvers chambered for it, but I am not sure if I want to rechamber any of them. I expect that the botique 32 mag rounds offered by some ammo builders will all but bridge the gap.

ugaarguy
December 5, 2007, 07:14 AM
With all the problems I hear about many of the single stack, polymer, semi-autos that are under 400, I think kel-tec and Kahr might have to start getting those manufacturing bugs worked out.
I take it you've little to no experience with the 2nd generation P3AT. The bugs have been worked out for quite a while now.
A 15 oz easily pocketed snubby that can throw 6 rounds that are 9mm +P equivalent that won't feel like you just slammed your hand in large metal door. Wow. Thats just cool to think about.
Yes, it would be nice if S&W reintroduced the 342 in .327 Federal Magnum. A Taurus equivalent wouldn't hurt either. If Ruger would make a J Frame equivalent I'd buy it just for the sake of it not having an internal lock. Realistically a titanium or aluminium frame SP-101 should be pretty easy for them to make, and that would be a big step in the right direction.
AND it would most likely cost under 400 bucks.

We can hope. We'll see what the new year brings to metals and oil prices, and see how much the increased production costs push up new gun prices. Hopefully prices won't push too much higher than what they are.

JNewell
December 5, 2007, 09:08 PM
More power to 'em. If it were me calling the shots (literally), I'd have sent this back down to product development with a big red X on it. It's a real stretch to believe that a .32 is going to sell in any substantial numbers after the first year.

lesjones
December 5, 2007, 09:36 PM
Until a year or two ago S&W had a number of AirWeight .32 revolvers. They even advertised them in magazines with full page ads. Didn't work. Now they don't list a single .32 on their site.

The .32 has its fans and you can work in an extra round on most frames, but they caliber's smaller, you get fewer ammo choices, and the ammo is more expensive.

Malodorousroadkill
December 6, 2007, 12:30 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it, aren't the speeds its hitting like a 7.62 tokarev? Maybe a bit harder. In a medium or large frame revolver, with warm loads, this could give class II vests trouble?

GEM
December 6, 2007, 01:29 PM
On the SW forum, it seems pretty clear that SW isn't a fan of this round and that the Js aren't easily chambered for this round.

Without a J frame sized gun, it's really a nonstarted. The SP101 is rather a big gun and doesn't serve the J's purpose.

DawgFvr
December 6, 2007, 01:36 PM
GEM...point well taken. I would think that Ruger would cast their first Alum weapon frame just for this purpose. Actually compete with S&W's all time seller...the 642...what a thought.

Shawnee
December 6, 2007, 01:55 PM
Curious that Quinn didn't present a comparison to the .38 Special and 38 +P

TT
December 6, 2007, 01:58 PM
What is the difficulty in chambering a J frame in this round?

jfh
December 6, 2007, 01:59 PM
I'll bet DawgFvr has it about right.

Ruger will use the FC 327 to launch their aluminum competitor to the 642, etc. It's price point will be extremely competitive--if they're smart, perhaps $20.00 lower than the S&W j-frames, I would guess.

Federal and Ruger's collaboration was extremely well done, in naming it as a Federal rather than tying it to the firearm brand.

Of course S&W doesn't like this--but my guess is that if the cartridge does in fact get some traction (personally, I think it can), then this will force S&W to eventually produce revolvers for it.

I think I have it right that the S&W j-frames are their highest-volume sales in revolvers. As the 'carry revolution' of the last twenty years occurred, they've ridden along with it--and done j-frame development as well (i.e., the Scandium frames. But, that five-shot capacity is something all of us j-frame afficiandos accept and wish it were better.

I'm curious enough about the round to consider getting an SP-101 as soon as the initial reviews come in and we know there are no major screwups. But--I'd rather buy a Smith chambered for it.

TT: The only issue for a j-frame cylinder would be the necessary machining and related setup to do it as a 5-shot. I think the J-frame cylinder does not have room for six, even in .327, or that it would take high-test metallurgy for the cylinder (thus adding to the cost.)

Jim H.

Malodorousroadkill
December 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
That doesn't make sense as there have already been j-frames in .32 H&R and .327 mag takes those too, if I'm not mistaken.
I doubt that Ruger will do an aluminum frame revolver. I seriously wish they would do it, but they already got a 4inch 45colt redhawk and that new autopistol out plus the .327 SP-101.

TT
December 6, 2007, 02:28 PM
Rats- Id only be interested in a .327 J frame if it was a 6 shooter.

jfh
December 6, 2007, 02:31 PM
I stand corrected--shoulda done a google first.

S&W currently lists no guns for .32xx--but GunBlast reviewed the S&W 431 &432 two years ago--six-shot j-frames. Here's the link. (http://www.gunblast.com/WBell_SW32s.htm)

They already have the tooling. They have the raw cylinders, so the only need is to set up for the new chambers in the cylinder. The only issue really would be marketing--i.e., would they put this more-powerful round into an aluminum frame (price point) or into a scandium frame?

Jim H.

razorblade31
December 6, 2007, 05:19 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it, aren't the speeds its hitting like a 7.62 tokarev? Maybe a bit harder. In a medium or large frame revolver, with warm loads, this could give class II vests trouble?

I doubt it. While it looks pretty hot, WWB tokarev ammo runs 85 grains at around 1550fps, and handloads can push a 90 grainer past 1700fps.

jpr9954
December 9, 2007, 12:43 AM
The problem, as I see it, with this round right now is the cost of the ammo. Midway USA offers both the Federal 85 gr. HydroShok and the American Eagle 100 gr. (or will be offering them). For 20 round - not the usual 50 round handgun boxes - they will be charging $19.95 and $24.95 respectively. That is pretty steep when compared to .38 or .357 ammo.

John

grimjaw
December 9, 2007, 03:21 AM
That is pretty steep when compared to .38 or .357 ammo.

Yes, and the other cartridges that a .327 Mag cylinder is able to chamber (.32 H&R, .32 S&W Long) aren't much cheaper. Recoil might be a reason to switch, but economics (at least today) aren't.

jm

461
December 9, 2007, 03:29 AM
But if you reload, the round will be incredibly cheap to build- hardly any lead or powder involved. The .32H&R mag is my most economical round to load for.

nero45acp
December 9, 2007, 05:30 PM
Well this gives me an excuse to buy two new guns. An SP101 .327 Federal Magnum, and a used SP101 .22LR for cheap practice....



nero(almost any excuse will do....)

tinygnat219
December 10, 2007, 01:48 PM
Shoot the 7.62 Tokarev will give you .357 performance as long as the right bullet is used. I'd LOVE to see a revolver in this round!

SWMAN
December 10, 2007, 02:19 PM
Seems to me to be another caliber looking for a home.:)

Cosmoline
December 10, 2007, 02:24 PM
I'm really interested in this round, which is probably the ultimate kiss of death for it ;-)

JNewell
December 10, 2007, 09:19 PM
Seems to me to be another caliber looking for a home.

I think it'll find one, no problem.

Right 'longside the .32 H&R Magnum...

PAPACHUCK
December 11, 2007, 11:51 PM
I've been wanting a .32 H&R for some time now, now I REALLY want a .327!!:D

DWARREN123
December 12, 2007, 02:13 AM
Just load the 32 H&R mag to full potential. It can be something else.

ECVMatt
December 12, 2007, 02:36 AM
A 4 5/8" Single Six would make one heck of a woods bumbing gun. I could see that becoming a constant companion.

Matt

falrifles
December 12, 2007, 11:59 AM
I'm very interested in this cartridge. However I am concerned about it's terminal performance. A small projectile at high velocity is not exactly the best thing in a gun fight. You need enough bullet mass to penetrate deep enough into clothing, tissue and bone to be truly effective. The FBI and several other noteworthy individuals have concluded this based on actuall shootings.

I may buy this caliber simply because it is interesting. However, I suscribe to the practice of carrying a gun that can fire a round capable of at least 12 inches of penetration in tissue and bone. Life is too precious and gunfights present too many variables to take a chance on something like this fast little pill.

I have to admit that it makes sense from a sales standpoint. Using the 32 H&R magnum in these guns is an attractive, practical advantage.

vanilla_gorilla
December 12, 2007, 12:47 PM
Meh.

DawgFvr
December 12, 2007, 01:21 PM
You need enough bullet mass to penetrate deep enough into clothing, tissue and bone to be truly effective.

Huh? Lookyhere...speed is the key to penetration...not mass. With enough speed, one can penetrate a series of human beings, back to back, with a sub-atomic neutron. "It has more pressure and more case capacity, resulting in more bullet speed. Lots more bullet speed. More velocity makes it hit harder and penetrate deeper." This cartridge has plenty of speed...and like all other defensive shootings, if the bullet has the correct placement, this is exactly what one would want in a gun fight.

351 WINCHESTER
December 12, 2007, 11:42 PM
Now I'm usually a skeptic about new ctgs. but I may take exception. If s & w could chamber this round in their 642 series (don't know if it could handle the pressure) we may have a winner. I had a ruger sp101 and it was a decent gun, but too big and heavy for cc. Recoil wasn't that bad as I recall. It would have made a heck of a truck gun. Should have kept it and had an action job done.

Feanaro
December 16, 2007, 10:54 PM
Lookyhere...speed is the key to penetration...not mass.

Which is why you hunt elephants with a light, high speed round... right?

Heavier objects retain their velocity longer than lighter ones. This is important when you want this object to punch through barriers, like skin and bone.

ArchAngelCD
December 17, 2007, 03:38 AM
If you guys are worried about velocity and mass why not buy the Speer offering? It will be a 115gr projectile traveling at 1300fps. I would say that fills both bills, no? 115gr seems to be popular in a 9mm, why not a .327 Magnum?

DawgFvr
December 17, 2007, 11:49 AM
ArchAngelCD...yup, I think the 1300 fps 115 grain bullet would be a very good man stopper indeed.

Feanaro: Apples and Oranges. Two legged creatures was my focus, however, if one had the right amount of speed...one could bring down an elephant with a piece of straw. The military has been working on a small plastic projectile that, when fired out of an electro-magnetic rail gun, can bring down aeiral aircraft. Another, real world example: A small, hard (spent uranium) slug fired at high speed (1 mile per second) was found to be far more efficient at knocking out a tank than the larger mass projectile previously used.

TimboKhan
December 17, 2007, 12:36 PM
I am surprised no one has cast aspersions on the reviewers breeding and intelligence for suggesting that someone who can't take recoil should use a .22mag.

I admit that I am interested in this round, but I am gonna do the same thing I do with every new round. Wait a couple of years to see how it does, then either totally buy into it or completely disregard it.

FLA2760
December 18, 2007, 05:11 PM
Malodorousroadkill wrote, "If the recoil of this round is reasonable, I'd sooner see a 6times on an alloy j-frame. A bit more oomph than a .32 H&R".

A Big +1 on that. I really like my Smith 432PD (.32H&Rmag) as a BUG to my
G27. This .327 however would open up some interesting possibilities.

Diggers
December 19, 2007, 03:25 AM
falrifles
Jeff Quinn did do a penetration test on a chunk of pig.

The 100 grain SP went through all 16 inches of meat he bought and kept going. Seems like a fair test, 16+ inches of meat is pretty good. It would be interesting to see what happens when it hits bone though.

Any how I like the .327, seems like a VERY good choice for the light weight snubies that a .357 is really just too much for. I Hope they make a gun for it...thats where it will shine.

Question...people have asked about converting sp 101 .32 H&R into a .327.

Is the cylinder on the .32 H&R long enough to convert it??? Or should I say does the .327 sp have a longer cylinder to fit the longer brass of the .327?

Lovesbeer99
December 19, 2007, 08:59 PM
I don't think you can load a 32 H&R to the same level as the 327. From what I've read the .327 has a much thinker case to handle higher pressures than the 32 H&R can. As a matter of fact the reports state that you should not even try to shorten a .327 to .32 size and load as a .32H&R as the pressures will be way too heavy for a .32 specific gun.

Warren
January 24, 2008, 07:22 AM
Is there really room in an N-frame cyl for 10 .327s? SW has that one uber 357 with 8 chambers so certainly that many is possible. Maybe 9, but 10?

If so that would be ultra cool. Holy moly, people would stop knocking the round then. 10 rounds of 115s at 1300 out of a wheelie? Dayummm.

He ran 135s up to 1250.

He also tested some 85s that got up to 1740 which would do the job as well. people more knowledgeable would have to weigh in here with thoughts on if that low weight would pierce clothing with enough oomph left to stop the threat.

wheelgunslinger
January 24, 2008, 10:35 AM
Holy moly, people would stop knocking the round then. 10 rounds of 115s at 1300 out of a wheelie? Dayummm.
Yep. Dayuummmmmm! I'd buy one.

Heck, I may buy this 327 SP101. It's concealable enough for me. My hand fairly swallows a J-Frame. And, you know it'll be a good weapon since it's a Ruger.

Stainz
January 24, 2008, 11:08 AM
Well, my 4" .32M SP101, despite it's being delivered new with a horrid trigger, is definitely a keeper today. Some total dissection, TLC, new lighter Wolff springs, and a longer Hogue rubber grip, made mine a real plinker. Sure it gets the GA Arms 100gr JHP (XTP) .32 H&RMs to a chrono-ed 1,186 fps - decent protection. But... my 115gr LRNFP, actually .32-20 bullets, at 820 fps hit close enough vertically from 10-25yd to be real fun plinkers. Remember, the cheesy adjustable rear sight on an SP101 is adjustable in windage only - and only used on the long gone .22LR, .32 H&RM, and now, the .327 Magnum versions. It really deserves a better rear sight. At 28 oz, it aint my idea of a pocket protector. I'll stick with my five-shot .38 Special (642) and .44 Special (296).

My pusher had a new Ruger .327 Magnum for $429 a few weeks back - bet it's still there. He had no ammo for it! Sadly, I don't predict a huge future for the round. The .32 H&RM variants weren't canned for great sales.

Stainz

DawgFvr
January 25, 2008, 02:09 AM
Give it some time...the rounds will come. As previously noted...make a 642 for this caliber and it really will be the perfect pocket revolver. I suspect that Taurus will figure it out before Ruger and S&W. Not much info about reloading it either...but given time, this could be the perfect self-defense round. Face it...the .38 Special would be history once the .327 mag comes out in small, light J frames.

P. Plainsman
January 25, 2008, 03:37 AM
As previously noted...make a 642 for this caliber and it really will be the perfect pocket revolver. I suspect that Taurus will figure it out before Ruger and S&W.
This strikes me as right. I might buy that Taurus. I like the concept of .327 Mag as a way to get six decently powerful shots in a teeny snubby. I also like the idea of it as a modern .32-20 for small game hunting in mid-sized revolvers with at least 4" barrels. (In single and double action, please. Some of us prefer K-frames to Blackhawks.)

Face it...the .38 Special would be history once the .327 mag comes out in small, light J frames.
Nah. Not even for defense, let alone plinking. People will be plinking with .38 Special ammo on Mars in 2208, once the terraforming kicks in ;). As for defense, the .38 can push a much more massive slug than a .32 (e.g., 158 grain lead hollowpoint), launch it at modest pressures and still hit fairly hard.

Now, I predict some of these .327 defense loads will also prove effective ... but they'll need a lot of velocity to work, which means they'll be hard on eardrums.

Stainz
January 25, 2008, 07:31 AM
Once upon a time, S&W made the 431 (hammered) & 432 (hammerless) Airweights - in .32 H&RM. The 432 looked like a 442, except for the six smaller holes in the cylinder. So, they've already been there and done that. They were dropped due to poor sales nearly two years ago. Ruger dropped their SSM and SP101 .32 H&RM offerings - due to poor sales. Try to find a Taurus .32M! In fact, the only .32M I have seen in the last year or so at my local pusher's is the 5-shot Charter Arms 'Undercoverrette'... no thank you. If you reload, grab one of the 3" SP101s and have fun. If you don't reload - and want a pocket protector - get a 642 and even loading it with 148gr FWC will afford more protection with similar recoil.

Remember... the .32 H&RM dates back only to 1984 - and was H&R's swan song. Seen an H&R offering lately? They went belly up twenty years ago. I wish Ruger well... but I'd been more impressed if they had re-issued the .22LR SP101 with deeper .22 WMR chambers. That six-shooter also died due to poor sales. Hard to keep a line going for a niche market.

Stainz

Brian Williams
January 25, 2008, 09:33 AM
The 327 would be a great Single shot rifle cartridge for ground hogs or rabbits.

Shawnee
January 25, 2008, 09:51 AM
$1.10 per shot ?

No thank you. :barf:


:cool:

JNewell
January 25, 2008, 09:23 PM
They were dropped due to poor sales nearly two years ago. Ruger dropped their SSM and SP101 .32 H&RM offerings - due to poor sales.

This is all true...which is why, IMHO, someone at Ruger ought to submit their head for examination. Most folks try not to get burned a second time the same way...? :confused::uhoh::eek:

Gaucho Gringo
January 25, 2008, 10:15 PM
From about 1890 to the 1930's a 32 in many flavors was considered a good defensive round from what I have read over the years. It was used by police departments and regular civilians. From what I have read one of the reasons for it's fall from grace was it's lack of penetration in steel bodied automobiles. I am sure there were other factors involved too like gun makers wanting to sell their guns in new calibers like .357 mag contributed also. Does anyone else like OLD FUFF have any comments or observations?

Vicious-Peanut
January 25, 2008, 10:22 PM
I personally feel they are little small for a primary defense gun. They have great performance no doubt, and I think they would be GREAT as a carbine round. Right between a .30 carbine and .357.

shooter429
January 27, 2008, 10:10 AM
I am a fan of the little .32s. In fact, one of my favorite guns of all time was a S&W K-frame in .32 H&R with beautiful grips. The recoil of the .32 S&W is so gentle that it could easily replace the .22, but I always thought it needed more power on the top end, and now it has it. It would be perfect in a Model 60 3" J-frame with 6-shots instead of 5. That would be a versatile fun little gun. I do hope the caliber takes off, cuz I am dying to get my hands on 1.

Shooter429

Stainz
January 27, 2008, 05:28 PM
The .32s are fun, but even reloading for my two, shown below, is getting expensive. Good prices for powder, primers, and lead bullets runs ~$140-$150/1,000 - plus the cost of the .32 H&RM brass, if you don't have it. Reloading lead for the .38's is no more expensive, as many more .38 bullets are produced, the market availability/competition offsetting the additional lead mass and propellant cost. Heck, reloading plinker .38s is cheaper!

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0227.jpg

Yeah, the .32s are fun... but, a cheapo pawn shop Model 10 and some 158gr LSWC/LRN .38 plinkers is a lot more fun - and likelier to hit POA, too!

Stainz

mnw42
January 28, 2008, 05:44 PM
Looking at what this cartridge does I think a proper comparison woukd be to the .30 M1 Carbine and the .30 tok.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jeff Quinn reviews the .327" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!