[JWF III]

I don't know how to set up a poll, but give me your opinions. I know that the new .327Magnum is being touted as ballistically similar to the .357 Magnum. But when you compare the numbers, well they don't lie like a salesman or a pitchman will.

I've always been fond of shooting the .32 pistols. Walther PP, CZ 27's and Single-Sixes. But this is going to be a full time carry gun, so fondness of a caliber has (almost) nothing to do with my choice.

Keep in mind that this will be a SD gun (SP-101,2 1/4" barrel), and carried by a man of above average muscular build. So excessive recoil will not be an extreme concern.

I'm looking for more of a cartridge evaluation, than a gun evaluation.

So give me your opinions of which cartridge and why. With pros and cons supporting your reasoning.

Thanks in advance,
Wyman

[goodtime]

Off the top of my head, FBI statistics reflect that the single round with the highest percentage of documented one-shot stops on record is the 125-grain 357. It's a proven stopper as far as handguns go.

[ArmedBear]

I'm looking for more of a cartridge evaluation, than a gun evaluation.

There's literally zero reason to get .327 then.

The .357 is a proven, versatile chambering that will accept everything from cowboy loads to hunting rounds. The .327 might or might not be around in a few years.

However, there's really no such thing as a cartridge evaluation without a gun evaluation.

The .327 exists so that 6 rounds can fit in a small-frame revolver instead of 5.

[Bearhands]

well, try finding any .327 ammo on the local shelves... That'd be my first concern. The round seems to have some merit, but I can't see it ever being more popular or more cost effective to shoot than the
.357

[novaDAK]

.327 is not equal to .357mag.

Speer Gold Dot .327 Fed.Mag. (115gr)
Muzzle velocity: 1335 fps
Muzzle energy: 455 ft. lbs

Speer Gold Dot .357 Magnum (125gr)
Muzzle velocity: 1450 fps
Muzzle energy: 583 ft/lb

[Marvin KNox]

The two rounds are in no way comparable IMO.

Gun writers invariably choose to talk about the recoil of .357 magnums with the hottest rounds possible. And they choose to talk about the weakest .357 terminal results possible.

Then they compare the recoil and the terminal performance with the .327 and find them (SURPRISE!) "similar".

Most dishonest IMO.

The .357 mag. can perform the same as the .327 with some of the lowest power offerings available. They can literally blow it away with hotter loading and heavier bullets.

If any two rounds penetrate to 12" or so - and one ends up with a diameter of .65 or so and the other a great deal less - you tell me how they can be equal for carry? If they both kick about the same and are equal in loudness - the former is the winner hands down (and that's the lower power .357's I'm talking about).

Don't waste your money on a solution to a non exisitent problem. We've got the bases covered nicely with a gun that will shoot .38 poppers for practice and blow the barn door off with the big stuff if you can handle it.

[ArmedBear]

Must be the same fantasy world where .357 Sig has .357 Magnum performance, Marvin.:)

[Gryffydd]

Must be the same fantasy world where .357 Sig has .357 Magnum performance, Marvin.
Is that the same one where the 10mm Auto is almost as powerful as the .41 Magnum?
...Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[novaDAK]

must be :D

[MatthewVanitas]

I'm mostly excited about the .327 because I just started handloading .32H&R, and this might mean that there will be more .32 guns on the market to put my H&R in. The H&R is just big enough to handload easily (.32 S&W is too tiny to volumetrically load), but still cheap for powder and lead.

I'm just hoping Marlin comes out with a .327 levergun soon...

That aside, I'm not finding .327 too exciting, as it treads close to just being a .30 Carbine revolver in a slightly smaller package.:uhoh: Then again, I'm no ballistics expert. And more importantly, I'm no marketing expert.

[Doc_Jude]

.357 = available anywhere!

.327 = available... where?

Nuff Said...

[Stainz]

I made my final decision last spring - and sold my .32 H&RM Ruger BHG SSM and 4" SP101, as well as my reloading supplies and dies. Reloading supplies are the same price as .38s - and a lot harder to find. Wimpy .38 Specials drop metal plates more regularly than hot .32 S&WLs or warm H&RMs. Commercial defensive ammo abounds in .38 Special - try to find it in .32 H&RM, much less the .327 Magnum.

As others have said, it seems to be the solution to a question no one asked. Perhaps it was a way in which a left-over glut of 3" .32 H&RM SP-101s could be re-reamed - and a new caliber introduced? Perhaps some decent ammo development, like a Speer Gold Dot, would have saved the .32 H&RM - before everyone dropped that round in the years preceding the .327 Magnum's introduction?

The .38 Special is the answer to me - the .357 Magnum, if you need more oomph!

Stainz

[wheelgunslinger]

I'm mostly excited about the .327 because I just started handloading .32H&R, and this might mean that there will be more .32 guns on the market to put my H&R in. The H&R is just big enough to handload easily (.32 S&W is too tiny to volumetrically load), but still cheap for powder and lead.

I'm just hoping Marlin comes out with a .327 levergun soon...

That aside, I'm not finding .327 too exciting, as it treads close to just being a .30 Carbine revolver in a slightly smaller package. Then again, I'm no ballistics expert. And more importantly, I'm no marketing expert.

You may not be an expert, but you took the words right off of my keyboard.

Great post. :D

[alistaire]

The 125gr Federal .357 is the most effective handgun cartridge. If you can fire it accurately, why would you want to switch to a lesser cartridge?

[wheelgunslinger]

because you want 6 manageable rounds in a pocket revolver as opposed to 5.

[Fishman777]

The .327 might not be for everyone, but I think that it has a place as a legitimate cartridge. The fact that it packs a considerable punch, without a lot of recoil, and allows one to load six rounds in a small framed revolver should make this an attractive cartridge to some folks.

If I am ever in the market for a small framed revolver, it will be a .327 Ruger sp101. I have other priorities right now.

[ArmedBear]

Is that the same one where the 10mm Auto is almost as powerful as the .41 Magnum?

LOL

I hadn't heard that one yet, but I'm sure that it's from the same fantasy world.:)

Messages from beyond!

because you want 6 manageable rounds in a pocket revolver as opposed to 5.

Exactly. As I wrote above, IMO that's the ONLY reason to get one. It might be a worthwhile reason, but if that's not what you're looking for, there's no reason I can see to hop on the "first adopter" bandwagon.

And I sincerely doubt that you'll see a .327 Federal Marlin any time soon.

[mljdeckard]

I view the .327 as something for people who are trying to outperform the .38, not trying to beat a .357. I haven't shot it, but there may be rare situations where you have a frail person who just can't handle the recoil on a .357, I might tell them to try one. But as others have stated, you have to find ammo for it. These users aren't going to be handloaders.

[Loyalist Dave]

the new .327Magnum is being touted as ballistically similar to the .357 Magnum.

I haven't heard this or read this anywhere, if one is comparing factory loads. Handloads of course may be loaded anywhere from squib to maximums.

The .327 has been heralded as an improvement over the .32 H&R Magnum, and some have written that it is what the .32 mag should've been from the beginning. It does seem to give you 6 respectable rounds in a small frame revolver, if one wants that extra shot. Some have the opinion that 5-shots of .357 125 grain loads is better than 6 shots of .327 in any loading. They are probably right. .357 will also shoot anything in the .38 Special family, and some of those loads are good defense rounds as well, and cheaper.

I'd suggest that countries that have some odd preference for .32 caliber handguns (such as India) would do well to arm all cops in Mumbai (and any other city and the countryside) with .327's instead of every fourth cop with a .32 acp. ("magnum" seems to be an odd concept in some parts of the world) Of course they would do better to arm them with .357's, but until then the .327 would be an improvement.

Other countries that favor .32 caliber handguns for police are Portugal and (iirc) The Netherlands and Denmark.

Just a few thoughts...,

LD

[LlanoEstacado]

No question .357 trumps .327 power wise. OTOH, power is not the whole story. I've only shot .357 out of a 6" tube - I'm wondering how controllable it would be out of a snub? It might be good to get some range time before you make up your mind. From what I've read, the .327 is more in the .38+P range of recoil while having superior power to .38 +P. If that is accurate, you should be able to get a reasonable approximation of what the .327 would be like to shoot - especially for double tap and followup purposes - by shooting the .38 +P at the same time you try the .357. If you can control and handle the .357, to your satisfaction, then go with that. If not, maybe the .327 would be a good choice.

[Marvin KNox]

Don't get me wrong!

I'm hoping that the .327 makes it. It seems like it will do a good basic job for self defense for a lot of people.

Another choice for the people. The more the merrier IMO. .32, 380, .38, .357, 9mm, .40, .41, 10mm, .44, .45 you can't have too many guns.

Nothing against the .327 as such.

I just can't figure out the drawing card (except the 6 vs. 5 round idea - that's certainly valid).

If it has the recoil of a .38+p - and the energy is about the same (perhaps a fuzz more) as the .38+p - why would anyone sacrifice a larger peranent wound chanel for a larger temporary wound chanel?

Couple that with the necessesity of going with a little longer barrel in a .327 - more noise -a lighter projectile - and about a hundredth the ammo selection - and it's no choice at all for me.

Both guns will meet FBI minimums with well chosen ammo.

At the very most, it's a "wash". What's the big hoopla?

For me - since temporary wound chanels mean very little or nothing - I'll go for the .38+p every time out. It drills a bigger hole.

[ArmedBear]

why would anyone sacrifice a larger peranent wound chanel for a larger temporary wound chanel?

Because they, like many, have bought into the ridiculous notion that ft-lbs. equals effectiveness, regardless of all other factors like bullet size and weight.

[Bozo]

Well, the .357 has been around since 1935 and I don't think their are many complaints about it. I carry a 2 1/4" .357 5 shot and sometimes a 6 shot 2" .38 special. Works pretty well.

[ArmedBear]

BTW when I say, ".357" referring to a gun, I'm talking about anything it will chamber. I can pick and choose what recoil I want to trade for what power level.

So, it doesn't matter to me if a .327 has a bit less recoil than a .357; if we want less recoil in my .357, we all know what to do. There's a huge variety of available ammo out there.

[researchdoc]

Look... doesn't Rossi make a J-frame'esk .357 mag 6 shot?
I would probably go w/ that over the .327mag
Never had a rossi though... how is the reliablility?

[BullpupBen]

First off calling it the ".327" is just a marketing scheme as it is nothing like a .357. However, in terms of bullet weight and velocity it is very much like a +P+ 9mm round, so I do think it has a lot of potential for SD- though not nearly as much as the .357. In short it does more damage than a .38, kicks less than a .357, and you get one extra round.

I think it has more promise as a hunting gun in medium frame revolvers and leverguns- 8 round cylinders would be easy and you have everything from .32 S&W for squirrels to the new .327 for predator hunting and such.

It also is said to equal the .32/20 or .30 carbine in a rifle.

[MikePGS]

.327:

Energy:

Grains Velocity Energy (Ft/Lbs)

115.000 1300.000 431.505


Momentum:

Grains Velocity Momentum

115.000 1300.000 21.357


Sectional Density:

Grains Diameter Sectional Density

115.000 0.312 0.169


.357:

Energy:

Grains Velocity Energy (Ft/Lbs)

125.000 1400.000 543.961


Momentum:

Grains Velocity Momentum

125.000 1400.000 25.000


Sectional Density:

Grains Diameter Sectional Density

125.000 0.358 0.139



Any Questions?

(Note, the .357 wasn't using the most powerful loads available, not by a long shot)

[ArmedBear]

kicks less than a .357

This doesn't mean anything.

Even commercial .357 ammo is available with 158 grain bullets going 800 fps at the muzzle, with 180 grain bullets going 1400 fps, and everything in between.

How much recoil does a .357 have, exactly?

[Shadan7]

We'll be testing the .327 cartridge in available ammo this spring (http://ballisticsbytheinch.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/more-testing-of-more-calibers-coming/). The barrel is being made at this time. Doesn't help right now, but at least we'll have some solid independent data for comparison.

Cheers!

7

[Jeff]

I'm still trying to figure out why some revolvers are .45acp. What's the point?

The .327 looks interesting but is the answer to a question no one really asked. The sectional density on the bullets might be a little bit better than the .357.

[CuzinMike]

I hope 327 Mag does well, but I don't see it happening. With ammo prices the way they are, and with little likelihood of many 1st time firearm purchasers (many of which may consider the round) wanting to reload, I see the availability and price of 357, and especially 38 killing it.

IMO, if you're that concerned with having one more round, why not just get an autoloader and have several more rounds?

Of course my favorite round is 45acp (yes, in a revolver), but that's just me...:)

[JWF III]

Thanks again for all the replies. They pretty much were consistent with my thoughts. It's just always nice to hear others opinions supporting your thought.

Wyman

[Marvin KNox]

Quote:
why would anyone sacrifice a larger peranent wound chanel for a larger temporary wound chanel?
End Quote:

Quote:
Because they, like many, have bought into the ridiculous notion that ft-lbs. equals effectiveness, regardless of all other factors like bullet size and weight.
End Quote:

It hasn't been too awfully long ago that I believed in that fable as well.

I've got a .357 S&W 340 and I shoot a fairly low power load (DPX) in it for obvious reasons. I get around 11 or 1200 fps with it. I figured that I could get one of the new 5" barreled j-frames and get a whole bunch more foot pounds of energy with the same recoil. I could still hide it well IWB and I figured that was a good way to go for carry.

I got to researching it and realized that, even if the consistently opening DPX bullet slowed it down fast enough to not overpenetrate, all that extra foot pounds of energy was virtualy wasted in a temporary wound chanel.

Now if I could have gone with a bigger mushrooming heavier bullet to use that extra energy (without exiting the body after the recommended 12" or so) - that extra energy could be put to some good use. But I would have gained a whole lot of recoil along with that performance and I was at my limit as it was.

Energy for energy's sake (created by speed) does nothing at all. All energy has to be translated into work to be terminally meaningful. If that work is mearly a temporary wound chanel that closes back up after the bullet passes, it's just "make work" - not effective work.

If a person gets around 12" of recommended penetration and no more - it doesn't matter at all what speed the round hit the body. Now if more speed allows a nicely opening larger mushroom to go the 12" or so and no more - that's powder well spent.

But moving a small bullet at high speeds in and of itself makes no sense at all IMO. Obviously a higher initial speed is required for a smaller bullet to reach the required area of penetration. But even then, if it does so with a narrowed wound chanel - so what?

Foot pounds of energy is good stuff if it can be "dumped" in 10 or 12" by translating it into a larger mushroom of lead that stops in the required lethal area. That's the holy grail of carry ammo - not foot pound figures themselves.

Those who worship at the alter of energy without understanding bullet design and wounding basics - worship in vain IMO.

[Gryffydd]

But moving a small bullet at high speeds in and of itself makes no sense at all IMO.
I'm assuming this is what you intended, but I just wanted to add that this makes sense only when discussing pistol rounds. A 55-65gr HP or SP .223 round at close to 3,000fps is going to do quite a bit of work work.

[ArmedBear]

A 55-65gr HP or SP .223 round at close to 3,000fps is going to do quite a bit of work work.

Most certainly. Roy Weatherby demonstrated how a small bullet could drop very large game, if it was going fast enough.

The catch, as you wrote, is that "fast enough" is much faster than any pistol round.

There's another catch: obstacles can stop a light bullet more easily than a heavy one.

Energy goes up as velocity squared. Momentum doesn't. Momentum is what determines a moving object's tendency to keep on moving. Energy does NOT equal momentum, and if anything, energy overstates the importance of velocity.

IMO a light high-velocity round relies on everything going "just so" more than a heavy, slower round.

[MCgunner]

From a 2.3" barrel of a SP101, my 140 JHP .357 magnum gets 550 ft lbs. From the 3" barrel of a Taurus 66 is gets 600 ft lbs. I don't see the .327 ever being in that neighborhood. As mentioned, the .357 is a proven fight stopper in real life, too, and there are plenty of effective loads to choose from in the caliber. I see the .327 more as an alternative to the .38, but I like .38 better, frankly. Might not have the paper energy, but has the combat record and is mild to shoot both in recoil and muzzle blast.

Actually, the .327 best compares ballistically from a pocket sized gun to the 9x19 +P. I already have a 9x19 pocket gun I like and it offers 13 rounds on tap, not 6, and reloads are faster. It is also milder of muzzle flash, though the recoil is probably a little more. No brainer there as to my choice. :D The .327 MIGHT have a little more energy than my 115 grain JHP 9x19's 410 ft lbs from its 3" barrel, but not by much.

[Marvin KNox]

Quote:
A 55-65gr HP or SP .223 round at close to 3,000fps is going to do quite a bit of work work.
End Quote:

I totally agree!

It sounds like you know this already. But I'll go ahead on this since many may not.

Rifle bullets are in a whole different catagory of performance "wound chanel" wise from pistol bullets in general.

The speeds of rifle bullets allow for very fast impact and expansion speeds compared to pistol bullets.

Take a hollow point 130 gr. .270 rifle and shoot an elk in the lungs. It will blow them out like a pumkin. The very fast speeds of the rifle are what does the job on elk. Now take your .38 revolver and slip a 130 gr. round in between the ribs of an elk and see what happens. You will, indeed, probably kill him just as dead. But he'll likely go a long way before you find him. It won't make a lot of difference if you drive the .38 at 800fps or at 900fps. And it won't make a lot of difference if you substitute a 1400fps .32 for a 1200fps .357. Neither one is going to do the kinds of severe things we can do with Jack O'Conner's favorite rifle - kill him, yes; drop him in his tracks before he can gore you, no.

Handgun speeds just don't cause that explosive reaction of tissue. Rifle speed bullets cause comparatively dramatic wound chanels which in a split second become very real permanent wound chanels because of the tearing of tissue etc.

If we put our hand in a buck of water - it causes hardly any damage to the subject. It simply slides in and the water closes back after it's insertion. If we shove it in a little faster the results are little different. But if we hit the water with a great deal of impact, the results are comparatively staggering. We'll have water in our face, on the walls, and on the floor. A great deal of our water will have been displaced (never to return) from the bucket. We'll have a real "life changing" wound not just a temporary bruise in our bucket of water.

Rifle velocities can translate all that energy into real work in the form of tissue disruption beyond the actual path of the puncture. Handgun velocities, for the most part, do not.

They will certainly cause some damage around the chanel of the bullet path and I'm all for "bruising" the bad guy while I'm killing him. But their only real hope of stopping the assault in time to save our bacon is reaching the vitals (hopefully the central nervous system) with a bullet that can cause severe damage when it arrives on target.

What you see is what you get. You can choose a .32" hole or you can choose a .45" hole. Your choice.

Extra powder can drive your chosen bullet deeper or it can cause it, in many cases, to mushroom better (making a larger wound chanel) or both. But energy for energy's sake means nothing. We need to look at what we are accomplishing with all that energy.

In the case of the .32 mag. - we are most likely overcoming the light bullet's tendency to slow down quickly with extra velocity to begin the wound chanel with. The result is that the light bullet goes in just as deep as the slower heavy bullet. The recoil (for the sake of illustration) is the same for both. The noise level is likely greater from torching off all that powder. The wound chanel is obviously larger for the .38 cal. round - although the bruising aroud the chanel is most likely greater for the fast stepping .32.

Which would you like to be stabbed with, both to the depth of 9 or 10" - a fast moving ice pick or slow moving shovel handle? Which do you think is more likely to sever something vital in it's path, a pencil or a 1" closet dowel?

Like I said, the .327 may make it and it may serve many people well down the road. I hope it does. But don't choose that carry gun based on paper energy alone. That would be a bad mistake IMO. :)

Didn't mean to highjack the thread. Ill get off this now.:o