.30 Carbine Blackhawk v. .327 Fed Mag Blackhawk

30 carbine was abundant and inexpensive way back when which I suspect is why Ruger chambered a Blackhawk in it. A friend of mine has one and it is a good shooter. I always thought the scale was wrong though, too big for too small of a cartridge. I sold my 357 Blackhawk once I got the 45 Colt BH for the same reason. I was tempted by the 327 BH, the 8 shots instead of 6 got me to take another look but once again I decided that if I was going to carry a gun that heavy I wanted it chambered in something starting with a 4.

I came into a 32 H&R Single Six and believed it to be a perfect match between platform and caliber. More than a pound lighter than the Blackhawk, the diminutive revolver was a joy to pack around the woods all day. It is dandy on small game and economical to reload for. A box of fifty rounds in the pack isn't noticed and it doesn't take long to burn through them when the opportunity to do some plinking presents itself. Loaded with a 100 grain cast bullet over Lil'Gun I get over 1200 fps and it'll tip over silhouettes with ease and ring steel way out there.

Then Ruger introduced the Single Seven... I like that one even better. With factory 100 grain ammo I get right at 1500 fps. It is a few ounces heavier than my Blued Single Six, the extra capacity more powerful round makes up for that in my estimation. During hunting season I load it with five 327 full power loads and two downloaded 32 H&R (950fps) loads just in case I get the chance to invite a Grouse to dinner, far less destructive.

American Eagle JFP 100gr after traveling through four milk jugs


My favorite woods loafing gun

Folks have been loading .32-20 leverguns heavy and dealing with the short case life for over 100yrs. Makes a fantastic small game/varmint rifle. The .327 would just legitimize the use of high pressure loads with the added bonus of more robust brass and the use of carbide dies.

eldon519 said:

I don't think it would be a bad idea to make a .327 carbine, but I am not sure what it gains or what niche it fills. Compared to a .357 carbine, the capacity should be the same, and the recoil from a .357 carbine is already very managable. I think it would be a very, very narrow slice of the shooting population who could not tolerate the recoil of a .357 carbine but could tolerate a .327 carbine. There is no fundamental reason not to make a .327 carbine though. If someone cared enough, they could custom build a lighter, smaller action for it or perhaps there is another smaller action already in existence that could handle the .327. In that case I guess you could build a lighter rifle, but as it stands, a .327 in a 1892 or 1894 would actually be heavier than a comparable .357 carbine. Would be a nice small game rifle, but a .357 is already pretty good for that with something like a SWC bullet.

Click to expand...

That's why I was asking, eldon519. I don't know enough about hunting to say what's useful and what's not. My thought was that 327 Federal would work very nicely in lever or pump action rifles with tubular magazines. But other than M1 Carbines, there are not many rifles for 30 Carbine, and it's an excellent cartridge design for semi-auto or bolt-action rifles. I guess neither of them has quite enough power to be a widely useful hunting cartridge. (In fact, I think I read that a number of states made 30 Carbine illegal for deer hunting.)

I knew that .32-20 was once a moderately popular rifle cartridge, like CraigC says, and I thought 327 might be an improved modern equivalent. I guess that in a rifle, that's not something a lot of people want. I wonder if enough do to get a purpose designed rifle off the ground?

Rumor has it that Henry is releasing a 327 lever gun in 2017. Not sure where I read that, I think it was on one of the Ruger Forums. Some one posted a response to an email from the CEO of Henry stating that it was definitely in the works for 2017. I hope it happens.

murf said:

a 45acp will do worse out of a rifle than a full-sized pistol. muzzle velocity actually goes down in the longer rifle barrel.

Click to expand...

My experience has been otherwise. Comparing a 16" Marlin Camp 45 to a 5" Springfield 1911, I got the following chrono results:

230 gr. Berry's RN, 9.2 gr. Blue Dot
Marlin: 1022 fps.
1911: 791 fps.

230 gr. Berry's RN, 5.5 gr. Win 231
Marlin: 916 fps.
1911: 786 fps.

Those are just two examples, one with a fast powder and one with a slow powder. But every load I've shot out of those guns runs faster out of the longer barrel. Other long barrel / short barrel firearms give the same results for me.

YMMV

LOLBELL said:

Rumor has it that Henry is releasing a 327 lever gun in 2017. Not sure where I read that, I think it was on one of the Ruger Forums. Some one posted a response to an email from the CEO of Henry stating that it was definitely in the works for 2017. I hope it happens.

Click to expand...

I posted on Rugerforum.net about the .327, but they never confirmed (to me at least) that it was coming out. I was told it was a possibility.

I'd buy one quick, fast and in a hurry.

327 wins in my house....now if I could get a carbine in 327.

eldon519 said:

I don't think it would be a bad idea to make a .327 carbine, but I am not sure what it gains or what niche it fills.

Click to expand...

The niche is a reloadable centerfire replacement for the 22 LR. If my bolt action 22 can cycle 22 Short, 22 Long, and 22 Long Rifle certainly an action could made to accommodate 32 S&W Long, 32 H&R Magnum, and .327 Federal Magnum.

Why does a new caliber have to fill a niche?...........What is a niche?...............Why does the niche need filling?.....What does the niche need filling with?.... Do my 327s have a niche on them somewhere that needs something put in it?....... Do my 327s need to fill somebody else's niche when I'm not using them? Just pondering here on Black Friday as I drink my morning coffee. I have heard many, many times that the 327 doesn't fill a niche, and was just wondering what that meant and why it needed to do it.

I have the 6 I own because I LIKE the caliber. I can load 327 cheaper than I can buy 22s and plink on the cheap or I can hot rod it to near 357 ballistics and hunt game up to Alabama sized whitetails. A GP100 with a 4 1/2 barrel is the most accurate hand gun I have ever shot. The others are not far behind it.

I think I'll hang on to and continue to enjoy mine whether or not they ever get that danged ole niche full or not.

I agree with you on the niche thing. I don't hunt, and I don't really expect my guns to do much above be fun and/or save my bacon in a bad situation.

If I had to make up a use for my 4" Sp101 .327, it's that I like to pack it for trail use. I stoke it full of .327 for protection (2 legged or coyote/mean dogs. No Internet Ninja Meth-Head Bears in this part of the country). I keep a dump pouch I made containing some .32 wad cutters in my pocket. I figure that if I ever got turned around enough to get hungry enough to pop a small critter, the wad cutter would kill it without blowing it to bits like the .327.

Very accurate gun when I stuff it full of any cartridge. Even .32 acp hits point of aim at 15 yards, and it has the recoil of a cap gun.

Now, I can see a niche coming into plan when it comes to being marketable. If not enough of us find a use for a cartridge, we don't buy them. if we don't buy them, companies stop making them. We've already seen this with the incredible .327 once before.

I still kick myself for not grabbing a 2.25" SP101 I saw in the gun shop years ago that was chambered for it. That said, the 4.2" barrel probably does make more sense in the kit gun role.

I really would love to see more guns chambered in it. A .327 lever gun would be a lot of fun.

I think the biggest draw back the first time it was introduced was availability of guns and ammo at the same time. Even now we have times when we can find guns but no ammo or ammo but no guns. I've solved that problem with reloading. When the 327 was first introduced you had a very limited line of Federal ammo, and not much of that, and a slim choice of components to reload. The only way to acquire brass was to buy factory loads (Federal), shoot and reload the empties.

I don't know if the patent, or what ever, has run out so others can market 327 ammo yet or not, I've not seen anything on the shelves but Federal, but when it does maybe 327 Federal Magnum will be more abundant for the non reloader. When Starline started producing 327 brass I bought 1,000 pieces, I now cast 3 different .314 bullets and have plenty 85 FTX and 100 FTX, so I don't see a 327 ammo shortage in my life time, but, I do shoot mine an awful lot.

If we could just get a 327FM lever gun I would be a Happy, Happy man.

The GP100 is the most accurate hand gun I've shot, The 2 tone Blackhawk is my only safe queen. I have it's all stainless brother that I shoot regularly

LOLBELL, personally I agree with you. But gun manufacturers want to make guns that will make a profit for them, both on the per-unit cost and on the investment in tooling. So for custom guns made for yourself, go nuts. But if, like me, you don't have the money to do that, and want a gun that you can afford, somebody at a gunmaker has to see a significant demand for it. (I apologize if you know that perfectly well, and I misunderstood the point you were making.)

LOLBELL said:

I think the biggest draw back the first time it was introduced was availability of guns and ammo at the same time.

Click to expand...

They should have introduced the Single Seven and marketed it as a sporting round. It was folly to market it only as a self defense cartridge.

Perhaps you don't like the term niche, but usually one needs some incentive. In a revolver, I get it, though it is not for me. You typically get 1 or 2 extra rounds in a handgun in a caliber that is probably somewhere between a .38 Special and a .357 magnum in effectiveness. It was a .327 Federal carbine that I struggle to see any incentive for. Since the capacity is determined by cartridge overall length, the capacity will be the same as a .357 magnum. Because the holes are smaller, it will weigh more. The ammo generally costs more, though I'd imagine it's about a wash for handloading. I suppose in theory it might have slightly less recoil, but one can always download a .357. Perhaps you are not concerned with a niche, but I simply struggle to see where the .327 carbine would offer an advantage or excel over the common .357. At least for me, if I am going to go with a newer, less established round that poses at least some risk of going obsolete in the next 10-20 years, I would like to get some advantage back in return.

jski said:

Never had any problem with rimless cartridges in a revolver. I noticed that S&W's marksman (Jerry Miculek) favorite revolver is a Performance Center Model 325, a .45ACP revolver.

Click to expand...

.... which uses moonclips, so that taper crimp isn't really going to be an issue.


WOOPS: this was addressed two pages ago.

And it was better.

Click to expand...

Better for what? It is too long to allow a comfortable grip in a conventional pistol, too rimless to work well in most revolvers, too weak to get much respect as a rifle cartridge. Overall, .30carb is a marginal cartridge. Not because of ballistics, but because it doesn't have any one niche where it really excellens. The only reason it exists is that it was cheap.

Consider the .30carb in comparison to the .300BO. the Carb is probably 60+ years older than the BO but they are fairly similar in terms of performance. The BO is ballistically a bit better, yes, but both are marginal for something like deer hunting. However, the BO is very good in certain niche ways (it allows use of many parts designed for 5.56, ETC.), and as a result is available in a broader range of firearms.

Consider the .30carb in comparison to .327. Again the Carb is easily 60+ years older but the performance is very similar. However, the .327 is better in certain nich ways (designed for double action revolvers, chamber shape allows use of .32s&w, .32s&w long, .32h&r mag, and maybe .32 auto ammo, ETC.), and as a result is available in a broader range of firearms.

If you want a cartridge to succeed it needs to have a story that resonates with potential buyers. The .30carb story is basically, "there is a war on and this is a cheap way to put something better than a pistol in the hands of soldiers you don't expect to be fighting...and that didn't work out so hey civilians we've got a bunch of guns and ammo you can have cheap..."

The .327 story is "If you carry a .38/.357 you want more capacity. If you carry a .32 you want more power. Either way the .327 is an improvement over existing revolver cartridges for concealed carry." Did that really resonate? Not widely, and not at a time when most gun buyers were trying to build a pre-ban collection and didn't want to divert funds to something seen as unlikely to be legislated against...but somewhat, which is why it still exists.

As for reinventing cartridges, yes, that's a natural side effect of 1) manufacturers trying to sell new guns, and 2) SAAMI reducing specs on existing cartridges. E.g. the SAAMI spec for .357 magnum went from 43.5kpsi to 35kpsi in the early 1990s. But it is also a good thing. Yes, the .300WSM is just a shorter .300WM, but some people enjoy short things. Who are we to judge?

jski said:

Gentleman, ladies (if any are present), my original contention in this thread was simply that Federal had reinvented the wheel when they introduced the .327 Mag. The cartridge already existed, the .30 Carbine. And it was better.

I had just read an article from Taffin, in the American Handgunner, about how ammo/gun manufacturers are constantly reinventing the wheel - only slightly different from the last one. And it seemed that the .327 is just such an example.

Click to expand...

If the wheel was in fact "reinvented with the 327" I think it was probably the 32 SW that was the original wheel, then 32 SW Long, then 32 HR Mag, not the 30 carbine.

We keep quoting professional writer's opinion. Keep in mind writers pen opinions that they are paid to pen. Follow the money trail.

As to the 30 carbine being better I don't think we have convinced anyone yet. You said you have no experience with the 327FM, so how can you say it's inferior to the 30 C. I suggest you get a 327 and spend some time with it and then from an opinion. I think you will come to realize that the difference in ballistics is very minute and the versatility of the 327 out shines the 30 C by far.

I no longer own a 30 carbine, although I have in the past and enjoyed shooting it until the 327FM came about. It will do anything ballisticly the 30 will on many different platforms. My choices in hand guns in 30 was a Blackhawk or a Blackhawk both had a 7.5 pipe.

I just for the life of me can't see any advantages of a 30 C over a 327. If you have a 30, I see no reason to go to the 327 and visa-versa. Just enjoy what you have

I doubt anyone even paid much attention to the .30 carbine when developing the .327. The 30c is a fringe cartridge which has been shoe-horned into a couple handguns. Here is an article detailing some of the issues with its use in the AMT and Blackhawk:
http://americanhandgunner.com/30-carbine-handguns/

It is obvious the roots of the .327 are taking the .32 H&R and hoping to get it closer to the .357 magnum. There isn't a single design feature that would suggest it came from a reinvented .30 carbine. If it were, it would be a significant improvement over the .30c in terms of sizing it to fit common defense-sized revolvers, providing a rim, and allowing for a roll crimp. The latter two considerations are explained in the referenced article. I haven't seen any concrete evidence to suggest the .30c has any ballistic advantage so far, but even if it went 300fps faster, it would.not be worth it to me to pick this awkward round that can't be chambered in anything but a giant single action revolver where it is simply out of place.

jski said:

The cartridge already existed, the .30 Carbine. And it was better.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. You have to completely ignore several key factors to believe that. Since we've already beat this to death, I'll gloss over those factors.

1. The .327 is rimmed and a rim is always preferred in a revolver. Especially one that operates at such lofty pressures. Headspacing on the rim is much easier and allows for the superior roll crimp. No worries about bullets creeping forward under recoil.

2. The .327 is short enough to fit into the Single Six platform. This is a HUGE advantage compared to the overweight and bloated Blackhawk.

3. The .327 utilizes the same HANDGUN bullets as cartridges dating back to the late 1800's. Already plenty of .32 pistol bullets on the market. Bullet selection for the .30 is severely limited.

I agree that they probably never even looked at the .30 when designing the .327Fed. The .327 is what the .32H&R should've been but it was hamstrung by the inferior H&R revolver design. I have never had any affection for the .30Carbine but have much for the .32, owning four of them and that's not nearly enough. Kinda waiting and hoping they introduce the Single Seven in blued steel. If not, I have a real nice blued .32 Bisley Single Six to convert.

And if you're going to quote Taffin, why don't you ask him how many .30cal revolvers he owns versus .32's? He supplies me with articles and frequents my forum, you can ask him there.

jski said:

Have you boys read: ...

Click to expand...

No. Frankly, the choice to use a monospaced type face was so egregiously bad that I have no interest in the author's opinions.

Well keep in mind there are different brands of ammo out there. The fact that you shot something for 19 years (with no mention of how many rounds) is hardly dispositive that someone could experience misfires. And yes, you keep alluding to this same Taffin article to support points which it doesn't. Just give it up man.