.327 Fed vs .30 Carbine revolver

[TTv2]

They're also way too much beef for the .357, let alone the .327. The Single Seven is a much more appropriate platform.

I guess I'm also one of those "fools" who still loves their .32-20's. Not sure when the brass became "rare".

How do you know Ruger "hates" the .32ACP?

The S7 is a more appropriate platform for carrying and shooting offhand, but the BH is great for reducing recoil and shooting from a rested position. I agree with you otherwise, the .327 BH is too much steel to happily carry.

I have inside information a well known youtuber called Starline recently and was told given the market demand for brass Starline has halted all production of .32-20 brass and has no plans currently to make any for the foreseeable future. Also during that call the tech said they hold the thickness of the case mouths at .0065"... literally paper thin. I cannot imagine case life with them is anything other than terribly short.

You can love your .32-20, but by golly it is a terrible caliber for one to spend money to get into. At least with a conversion cylinder that costs maybe $100 it's a cheap way to get into it for those who must have authenticity for their CAS matches.

Ruger hates .32 ACP because 72 years in business and not one handgun ever produced in the chambering.

 

[fxvr5]

This bodes well for .327FM being chambered in a lever action once Marlin is off life support.

Henry has lever guns in 327 Federal.

 

[Frulk]

Yup. One is in my safe. And it’s lonely.

 

[GarrettJ]

The S7 is a more appropriate platform for carrying and shooting offhand, but the BH is great for reducing recoil and shooting from a rested position. I agree with you otherwise, the .327 BH is too much steel to happily carry.

The correct answer of course, would be to get both.


I tried to talk myself into an SP101. But I can’t get past the Ruger lawyer-proof trigger that was on the .357 I owned in the ‘90s.

Maybe I’ll warm up to one of those in .327 eventually.

 

[TTv2]

The correct answer of course, would be to get both.


I tried to talk myself into an SP101. But I can’t get past the Ruger lawyer-proof trigger that was on the .357 I owned in the ‘90s.

Maybe I’ll warm up to one of those in .327 eventually.

Stick with the LCR if you want a double action .327. It's a crime Ruger hasn't come out with the 3 inch version yet.

 

[lincen]

I'm rather fond of the 327 Rugers. Not pictured is my LCRx in 327. Was hoping for a 3" barrel version but probably will never happen.

The GP100 has a seven round capacity and is my choice for shooting the 327 Federal Magnums. Mostly shoot 32 H&R magnums and the 32 S&W longs in the others.

 

[GarrettJ]

Stick with the LCR if you want a double action .327. It's a crime Ruger hasn't come out with the 3 inch version yet.

The LCR looks like the illegitimate love child of a Glock and an abused J-frame.

Looks aside it seems like that stubby barrel would give you a lot of extra blast, and not a lot else.

Thanks, but I’ll pass.

 

[Geldarr]

Now, a .327 LCRx with a 4" barrel would be really nice as a woods gun!

But I have been waiting for a 3" LCRx to come out ever since they announced the longer barreled version. If there hadn't have been issues with the sights on the CA professional, I'd have bought that a year or two ago.

 

[lincen]

The LCR is like coffee, it is an acquired taste. Believe me your thoughts are my thoughts on looks but I mainly wanted it for the 32 H&R magnum rounds. They have a pretty decent trigger too !

 

[Frulk]

Any update on the Charter Arms Pro sight issue? Has that been resolved?

That’s a .32 cal gun I really liked the look of and was ready to buy until the comments started popping up here about sights and point of aim/impact issues

 

[TTv2]

The LCR looks like the illegitimate love child of a Glock and an abused J-frame.

Looks aside it seems like that stubby barrel would give you a lot of extra blast, and not a lot else.

Thanks, but I’ll pass.

It'll be no worse out of a 4 inch SP101

 

[TTv2]

Any update on the Charter Arms Pro sight issue? Has that been resolved?

That’s a .32 cal gun I really liked the look of and was ready to buy until the comments started popping up here about sights and point of aim/impact issues

In a way, yes, they can be resolved, but it requires changing the way you align the sights. Instead of making the top of the front sight flush with the top of the rear sight, you have to align the top of the rear sight along the centerline of the fiber optic rod on the front sight.

It's a different sight picture than any other handgun I've ever shot and I don't like that I have to change my fundamentals to make it work, but it will fix the issue because Charter refuses to offer an adjustable sight version or a different front sight.

 

[Dunross]

Even if Charter Arms refuses to offer a different sight is it possible to have a different sight from another company fitted to the gun?

 

[Monac]

Ruger hates .32 ACP because 72 years in business and not one handgun ever produced in the chambering.

I don't think anybody in the US made guns in 32 ACP, from whenever Colt stopped making the Model 1903 late in WWII, until one or another cast zinc gun maker started in the 1980's. S&W hasn't since the early 1930's. First the market was glutted by German war bring-back and surplus 32's, then foreign makers took over the pocket auto market in the US, and by the time the Gun Control Act of 1968 put a crimp in that, everybody wanted 380.

Now that I think of it, Seecamp may have been the first maker of 32 automatics in the US since about 1944; maybe they got their foot in the door before the zinc gun makers did. At any rate, they led the way in the revival of 32 ACP as a vest-pocket caliber. Ruger probably made the right choice in going with 380, though; people always seem to want the bigger caliber, even if it's unpleasant to shoot. I'm not saying people are wrong, just that I don't care for heavy recoil.

Sorry if I'm just rambling, or if this is undesirable thread drift; the subject is 327 vs 30 Carbine, after all. Let me know and I'll delete it.

 

[TTv2]

Even if Charter Arms refuses to offer a different sight is it possible to have a different sight from another company fitted to the gun?

It's possible somebody will decide to make a replacement sight for the Charter Professionals, like MCarbo is a big enough aftermarket company that focuses on less popular guns they could probably do it and make a small profit from it even tho there aren't many owners of the revolvers, but I don't expect to see it happening anytime soon. Not unless people start buying those revolvers like crazy.

 

[TTv2]

I don't think anybody in the US made guns in 32 ACP, from whenever Colt stopped making the Model 1903 late in WWII, until one or another cast zinc gun maker started in the 1980's. S&W hasn't since the early 1930's. First the market was glutted by German war bring-back and surplus 32's, then foreign makers took over the pocket auto market in the US, and by the time the Gun Control Act of 1968 put a crimp in that, everybody wanted 380.

Now that I think of it, Seecamp may have been the first maker of 32 automatics in the US since about 1944; maybe they got their foot in the door before the zinc gun makers did. At any rate, they led the way in the revival of 32 ACP as a vest-pocket caliber. Ruger probably made the right choice in going with 380, though; people always seem to want the bigger caliber, even if it's unpleasant to shoot. I'm not saying people are wrong, just that I don't care for heavy recoil.

Sorry if I'm just rambling, or if this is undesirable thread drift; the subject is 327 vs 30 Carbine, after all. Let me know and I'll delete it.

Regardless of what company in the US was making a .32 semi auto after WW2 until the Seecamp is irrelevant, .32 ACP handguns have been around a long time, the ammo has always been around and continues to be around and people continually ask if .32 revolvers can shoot .32 ACP because apparently .32 ACP is more common than .32 S&W/H&R or .327 is.

My point was a .32 ACP cylinder would likely be a popular addition for any .32/.327 Mag Ruger single action because my experience has been .32 ACP has issues in Ruger revolvers that would be resolved with an appropriate spare cylinder, but Ruger hates .32 ACP and even tho they could make MORE MONEY selling a convertible Single Seven or even a Blackhawk, they won't do it.

 

[Monac]

Regardless of what company in the US was making a .32 semi auto after WW2 until the Seecamp is irrelevant, .32 ACP handguns have been around a long time, the ammo has always been around and continues to be around and people continually ask if .32 revolvers can shoot .32 ACP because apparently .32 ACP is more common than .32 S&W/H&R or .327 is.

My point was a .32 ACP cylinder would likely be a popular addition for any .32/.327 Mag Ruger single action because my experience has been .32 ACP has issues in Ruger revolvers that would be resolved with an appropriate spare cylinder, but Ruger hates .32 ACP and even tho they could make MORE MONEY selling a convertible Single Seven or even a Blackhawk, they won't do it.

Making a 32 ACP cylinder for the 32 Single Six is an excellent idea that never would have occurred to me. I was thinking that it had been a very long time since any major American firearms company had made anything in 32 ACP. Seecamp is, or was, a small manufacturer, and Kel-Tec, although bigger, is still not in Ruger's class. If Ruger hates 32 ACP because they have not made a 32 ACP in 72 years, then S&W must hate it worse, because they are going on 90 years with no 32 ACPs.

 

[GarrettJ]

... my experience has been .32 ACP has issues in Ruger revolvers ...

What issues? Just curious. I have ran a couple cylinders through my .32 Single Six. While not as accurate as .32 H&R loads, they weren’t terrible either.

But I can see the appeal if you’re stuck shooting factory ammo.

 

[TTv2]

What issues? Just curious. I have ran a couple cylinders through my .32 Single Six. While not as accurate as .32 H&R loads, they weren’t terrible either.

But I can see the appeal if you’re stuck shooting factory ammo.

The major issue was talked about in the Lucky Gunner video on shooting .32 ACP in revolvers and it has to do with the excessive gap from the base of the .32 ACP case to the recoil shield. The larger the gap, the more room the case has to blow back and the primer can impale itself on the firing pin and the firing pin can get stuck and lock up the revolver.

With a proper cylinder the .32 ACP would be in the same position as the rimmed .32 revolver cases would be and the issue would not happen. Further, the .32 ACP chamber would be shorter which means there would be less of a jump for the bullet until it reaches the throat. This reduced jump prevents less gas leakage and allows more pressure to be built and leads to higher and more consistent velocities and a better, more consistent powder burn.

 

[TTv2]

Making a 32 ACP cylinder for the 32 Single Six is an excellent idea that never would have occurred to me. I was thinking that it had been a very long time since any major American firearms company had made anything in 32 ACP. Seecamp is, or was, a small manufacturer, and Kel-Tec, although bigger, is still not in Ruger's class. If Ruger hates 32 ACP because they have not made a 32 ACP in 72 years, then S&W must hate it worse, because they are going on 90 years with no 32 ACPs.

I agree, but with Ruger they copied Kel Tec's .380, which itself was made from the P32, so Ruger has a gun that was effectively made for .32 and they've never bothered to offer a .32 version, but they'll gladly sell you a .22 model that barely works.

Even beyond the semi autos, Ruger was making .32 Magnum Single Sixes in the 80s not long after the cartridge came out, but to my knowledge they never offered a convertible with a .32 ACP cylinder for them throughout their production run. It's not like there weren't cheap .32 ACPs being cast from Zinc out in Southern California being sold in the thousands every month or PPK's being sold thanks to the Bond films. There was a market for such a thing.

 

[lincen]

Even if Charter Arms refuses to offer a different sight is it possible to have a different sight from another company fitted to the gun?

I've posted a while back that the only way to truly fix the problem with the Charter Arms Professional is to mill down the the top of the barrel. With the sight completely removed you would literally have to place the fiber optic tube flat on the barrel to hit hit the point of aim. I milled about .070" of the top of the barrel, tapped the sigh screw hole deeper and reinstalled the sight. To me it was a $350 revolver of no use and after one trip back to Charter Arms it was up to me at that point. I realize that many folks don't have access to a milling machine but perhaps you know someone.

BEFORE

AFTER

 

[CraigC]

The S7 is a more appropriate platform for carrying and shooting offhand, but the BH is great for reducing recoil and shooting from a rested position. I agree with you otherwise, the .327 BH is too much steel to happily carry.

Who buys a .32 revolver to shoot off a rest???

I have inside information a well known youtuber called Starline recently and was told given the market demand for brass Starline has halted all production of .32-20 brass and has no plans currently to make any for the foreseeable future. Also during that call the tech said they hold the thickness of the case mouths at .0065"... literally paper thin. I cannot imagine case life with them is anything other than terribly short.

Oh boy, a YouTuber, a credible source I'm sure. Don't think I'm gonna judge anything during this shortage. How many .32-20's have you handloaded? I was espousing the virtues of the .327 long before you came around. However, having been a .32-20 fan for decades, I'm not about to part with any of them. Nor do I appreciate being characterized as a "fool" for doing so. The .32-20 has been around for 150yrs and guns that chamber it are still in current production. The problem with your .327 rhetoric is that those .32-20 guns have not been replaced on the market with .327's. Doing a quick search on Davidson's, there are only 7 guns offered in .327 and only Henry makes a levergun. None are in stock. Meanwhile, I can drive to Dixie Gun Works right now and buy a brand new .32-20 1873 rifle or sixgun and be back before dark. So I don't think I'm gonna part with my gorgeous Browning 53 just yet. The Henry Big Boy is nice but not that nice.

Ruger hates .32 ACP because 72 years in business and not one handgun ever produced in the chambering.

Wow, that's a bit of a stretch. It helps to know your history. First of all, very few makers build .32's any more because .380's can be built on the same platform. Ruger didn't get into concealed carry guns until very late in the game, wen .380's the size of .32's were the rage. They've sold millions of LCP's. Ruger doesn't "hate" the .32ACP. They just don't see any merit in producing one, for obvious reasons.

 

[Dunross]

I've posted a while back that the only way to truly fix the problem with the Charter Arms Professional is to mill down the the top of the barrel. With the sight completely removed you would literally have to place the fiber optic tube flat on the barrel to hit hit the point of aim. I milled about .070" of the top of the barrel, tapped the sigh screw hole deeper and reinstalled the sight. To me it was a $350 revolver of no use and after one trip back to Charter Arms it was up to me at that point. I realize that many folks don't have access to a milling machine but perhaps you know someone.

BEFORE

AFTER

That looks pretty good to me. Of course having a smith do that sort of work for me would probably double the cost of the gun, but still it looks pretty good.

 

[TTv2]

Who buys a .32 revolver to shoot off a rest??

Whoever wants one.

Oh boy, a YouTuber, a credible source I'm sure. Don't think I'm gonna judge anything during this shortage. How many .32-20's have you handloaded? I was espousing the virtues of the .327 long before you came around. However, having been a .32-20 fan for decades, I'm not about to part with any of them. Nor do I appreciate being characterized as a "fool" for doing so. The .32-20 has been around for 150yrs and guns that chamber it are still in current production. The problem with your .327 rhetoric is that those .32-20 guns have not been replaced on the market with .327's. Doing a quick search on Davidson's, there are only 7 guns offered in .327 and only Henry makes a levergun. None are in stock. Meanwhile, I can drive to Dixie Gun Works right now and buy a brand new .32-20 1873 rifle or sixgun and be back before dark. So I don't think I'm gonna part with my gorgeous Browning 53 just yet. The Henry Big Boy is nice but not that nice.

While you try to paint people who make videos on youtube like they're some type of subhuman, the person I'm referring to has a decent sized following and is well known and respected in the reloading community on this forum and elsewhere.

I never said you or anyone else should immediately sell or throw away their .32-20s, but IMO anyone who is looking for a .32 revolver or lever action should not buy a .32-20 and if they do so because they prefer a vintage caliber simply because it's old and not some new fangled high pressure ear splitter... they are the fools.

Sure, you can drive to DGW and buy a .32-20, but can you buy a modern made double action? Nope, cuz they're all stuck in single actions with crap sights and only Uberti is currently making a .32-20 revolver. For lever rifles, nobody is making a .32-20 currently, so if you like buying used goods, have at it. At least with Henry's .327 you can be the first owner of one.

Wow, that's a bit of a stretch. It helps to know your history. First of all, very few makers build .32's any more because .380's can be built on the same platform. Ruger didn't get into concealed carry guns until very late in the game, wen .380's the size of .32's were the rage. They've sold millions of LCP's. Ruger doesn't "hate" the .32ACP. They just don't see any merit in producing one, for obvious reasons.

I will give you that one and that issue of .380 over .32 is not endemic to Ruger, it's an industry wide issue and only Kel Tec, NAA, and Beretta are making small .32s. That however doesn't change that Ruger could have offered cylinders for their .32 single actions to shoot it over the years, nor that the LCP II, arguably the best micro pistol on the market, can't also be offered in a lower recoiling, yet more reliable than .22 rimfire .32 ACP.

 

[CraigC]

While you try to paint people who make videos on youtube like they're some type of subhuman, the person I'm referring to has a decent sized following and is well known and respected in the reloading community on this forum and elsewhere.

There are good source of info but there are also a lot of idiots on YouTube. Somehow, people think having a YouTube channel lends you credibility. It doesn't. Since I don't know who you're talking about, I can only speak in general.

I never said you or anyone else should immediately sell or throw away their .32-20s, but IMO anyone who is looking for a .32 revolver or lever action should not buy a .32-20 and if they do so because they prefer a vintage caliber simply because it's old and not some new fangled high pressure ear splitter... they are the fools.

All very interesting, you assume too much, have a very narrow mind and paint with a very wide brush. As I already said, where are all the .327's? If you want an 1866, 1873, 1892 or Marlin 1894 based .32 levergun, there are ZERO .327's. But there are .32-20's. You 'might' have an argument if all the same guns were available in both cartridges but they are not. It's a good thing we do not require your approval to buy the firearms that interest us. You're awfully opinionated for someone with such a narrow frame of reference.

Sure, you can drive to DGW and buy a .32-20, but can you buy a modern made double action? Nope, cuz they're all stuck in single actions with crap sights and only Uberti is currently making a .32-20 revolver. For lever rifles, nobody is making a .32-20 currently, so if you like buying used goods, have at it. At least with Henry's .327 you can be the first owner of one.

As I said, I can drive to DGW and buy an 1866, 1873 or SAA in .32-20. All new guns. Leverguns in .327 are great, as long as the Henry is what you want. If you have an aversion to used guns (awfully sensitive) maybe you need to get out more. I guess you hate single actions, fixed sights and the WCF's.

I will give you that one and that issue of .380 over .32 is not endemic to Ruger, it's an industry wide issue and only Kel Tec, NAA, and Beretta are making small .32s. That however doesn't change that Ruger could have offered cylinders for their .32 single actions to shoot it over the years, nor that the LCP II, arguably the best micro pistol on the market, can't also be offered in a lower recoiling, yet more reliable than .22 rimfire .32 ACP.

Well, 32's have never been big sellers, period. They don't even have a .327 single action in the catalog so why would they have a .32ACP convertible?