And the Latest and Greatest is...

[Diggers]

Mcgunner

They list how the 115 grain bullet did in a number of different tests here if you are interested.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st327_110707/

I think this round has a future but ONLY if they build a gun for it that is in line with what the .327 is all about. The future success of this round is ALL ABOUT THE GUN. The SP 101 does NOT do it for this round.


This is a small SD round created for the CCW market.

So the gun that will make the .327 take off will have to be something along the lines of the 642/ 442 type revolver.

The selling point will be light weight with good power AND 6 SHOTS.

If they don’t put the caliber into that gun package it will most likely fail.

Maybe S&W will grab the ball and run with it in their gun line, would not be too hard to change one of the air light type models they all ready have to chamber the .327 .

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't know that S&W is going to be in any hurry to adopt a Ruger development, unless they see a substantial market demand. Taurus on the other hand may likely have something at the forthcoming SHOT Show.

 

[munk]

Bill Ruger said, and I'm paraphrasing, that his cast material is stronger than the same amount of forging. I believe him. It is a myth that Ruger makes thick castings to have them as strong as forged; the truth is the castings can't get too much thinner/smaller, and it cost's money to turn them down.

I've heard the 'it's only fat because it has to be' argument too many times.

If a shooter does not want a .32 more power to him. (actually a .312) But life is about choice and I'm for more choices. A 32 mag at the pressures it should have been when introduced is a good thing, not a bad thing. And it is not a bad thing that a company 'only wants to make money'. That's what capitalism is.

I love 41's, but also 45 Colts, 44 mags, 357s and 38's.....and my Smith model 16 32 H&R mag.

This is a straight walled 32/20 and if you've never shot a 32/20 you've missed out on one sweet shooting round.


The 327 should make an adequate defense cartridge in a small package, and a superb varmint round in a handy carbine. That's justification enough for its existence.
munk

 

[Walkalong]

I still don't even have a .32 Mag.

I believe I will just stick with medium power .357's if I carry a revolver, unless it's my .44 Spl.

It should be a screamer, with an ear splitting report to go with it.

It could be an advantage if they woud put 7 or 8 in a small revolver I suppose.

 

[Stainz]

Looking at the referenced 'Shooting Times' article reveals some interesting stats, the most interesting being the round goes through 5" more gelatin after it passes through a car door... interesting. Well, work backwards from that 100 fps more mv of the .327, whose mass is 100gr, and the .357 whose mass is 125gr - and produces 35 ft-lb more KE, and you'll find that the 100gr .327M makes 1,412 fps - for 441.8 ft-lb KE, while the 125gr .357 Magnum makes 1,312 fps for 476.8 ft-lb KE. Pretty substantial, as the hottest .32 H&RM I have chrono-ed, and from a 4.6" SSM, is 1,186 fps for a Georgia Arms 100gr JHP - making nearly 312 ft-lb - a good bit less than that new .327M.

Now, anyone who has shot a 125gr .357M of this velocity from a 15 oz Airweight will tell you - it's a good sized bark AND bite. Lowering the 'bite' by 20% isn't significant - maybe 50% would be. Since recoil energy is more about momentum transferred, and ignoring the differences in propellant & case weight, the momentum difference becomes important. Halfing that would mean dropping the velocity to the 820 fps range - 965 if you decrease the bullet mass to 85 gr. Admittedly, real world RE determinations would permit a bit more velocity - all things considered. Simply stated, if you want 'reasonable' recoil energy in a .327M CC Airweight, you will stay well within the .32 H&RM range. Go to a 3" SP101, and things improve - twice the gun mass helps.

Of course, that cheesy windage-only adjustable rear sight will still play fits in 'fitting' a load combo to proper POI, vertically speaking. At least it does with my 4" SP101 in .32 H&RM. Another CCW problem with the high velocity .327M - it'll do a number on your eardrums, particularly in a small inside room - with no protection. I'll stick with my 2" +P 10 - and the 158gr LHPSWCs from Remington - at home - the same rounds in my 642 for CCW. More .32 revolvers will help. Anyone know why it's called a .327M? My Dillon dies produce the same measured .334" OD cases as MagTech .32 S&WL and GA Arms .32 H&RM. My SP101 has .339" ID chambers - works the brass a bit (.005" difference). My 115gr LRNFP O.T. Laser Cast bullets, actually intended for a .32-20 case, are .313"- .314". Nothing seems to be close to .327M...

Stainz

 

[munk]

Recoil cannot be understood just as a mathematical model. It is a subjective experience, and what we measure as recoil has different characteristics based upon the explosive event.

20% reduction in recoil may or may not be important. The .308 differs from the 06 only very slightly in factory recoil figures, yet the one or two pounds less recoil has some shooters very happy. Two cartridges, achieving similar foot pounds of energy with different size, weight, and speed of the projectile do not recoil the 'same'. Some folks firing a 30 mag just grin at the 40 plus foot pounds of recoil; but they wince if you suggest firing a 375 H&H with the same recoil energy.

I honestly don't know what is going to happen in a SP101 sized revolver firing the 327 full house. I do know firing my Smith model 16 32 H&R mag with handloads loaded to similar SAAMI pressures as other mags, ( and not the whimpy SAAMI specs for the 32 H&R) is very easy, the recoil absolutely no problem. I doubt very much the 32 is going to be more of a noise problem than the 357. We know what happens to one's ears firing a 357 indoors. I guess that's the price you pay for stopping a bad guy.

It's called the '.327' because there is a 357, and sales wishes want to ride the coatails of the name recognition of the bigger and well known cartridge. For the homeowner not interested in shooting, but in 'protecting' himself, a gun less powerful than a 357 that he could handle and still do the job can be understood as a 327
I wish there were an actual .327

No one is going to introduce a hot .312 That doesn't mean anything to Johnny Homeowner.

There's no question the little 327 is never going to compete with the 357. The question is can it do the defense job and offer less recoil? Will it be easier to control? And gasp; will it appeal to a new buyer intimidated by more powerful rounds?

A nine mill in a light plastic handgun has more recoil than many people want to put up with. The 327 may be a alternative. We can talk about how they should learn to shoot, bigger rounds are better, why bother when you can have ----------?? But the bottom line is someone comfortable shooting the 327 is going to put more hits on target than with the handgun we think more suitable.
And it might have a future as a target round.



And I still think it is going to be one hell of a varmint cartridge if it ever gets put in a suitable package.

munk

 

[BigG]

Another entry in the picket fence of cartridges.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Interesting round. As a reloader I can see the advantage in the high metal price market. Smaller bullet, lighter, cheaper to produce and shoot.

Makes sense to me, but I won't buy one.

I collect 5 screw N frames, and one has to focus in life.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Here's the first substantive review I've seen of the new gun and cartridge.

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

(There was also a short thing by Dick Metcalf in Shooting Times that basically just repeated Federal's press release.)

Basically, what we've got here is a straight-walled modern reincarnation of the .32-20, but factory loaded to the ballistics of serious .32-20 handloads, with modern bullets like the Speer Gold Dot JHP. Or call it a revolver version of the 7.62 Tokarev, if you think that sounds tougher.

I think I want one. That Gold Dot .327 Mag load (115 gr JHP @ 1300 fps from a 3" Ruger!) promises more actual zip than most 9mm defense rounds deliver from service pistols. Pretty sweet woods "kit gun" that could be pressed into defensive duty.

One thing I can't figure out is whether you could chamber the new .327 Mag in an existing Ruger SP101 chambered in .32 H&R Mag. - so you wouldn't need a new revolver to use the new cartridge. It looks like the .327-chambered SP101 uses the slightly longer cylinder that is used on the .357 SP101s. Question is could you still chamber the .327 in the shorter cylinder used on the .22 LR, .32 H&R, and .38 Special SP101s.

The .327 cartridge is simply a .32 H&R Mag round lengthened by 0.125". I used to own an SP101 in .32 H&R -- neat sixgun -- and I recall that the .32 H&R cartridge left a good bit of gap between bullet and forcing cone when chambered.

 

[P. Plainsman]

One other tidbit: Notice in that Gunblast review, Quinn admits he messed up while experimenting with the discontinued Win 571 powder, and created an inadvertent "proof load" in the .327 Mag SP101 - enough overpressure to flow the brass, ruining it. Quinn estimates over 75,000 psi.

The Ruger evidently survived unharmed.

 

[Big Boomer]

Although I am all for advancing technology it seems as though we have an answer in need of a question. It might as well have just been an existing caliber like .357 coming out in the "new advanced" 3 51/64ths barrel for advanced performance...

Slightly longer adding more power! I just don't get it, there are many loads for the .357 and 9mm and .357 sig that cover these numbers.

I keep hoping for an sp101 in 44mag! I love the 454's but the frames are just a bit too big to pack around.

I was hoping if it were a new caliber to be something truly breakthrough. This is rather a disappointment.