And the Latest and Greatest is...

[ugaarguy]

So how come "Ruger-only" loads exist if their frames are only as strong as S&W ones? Wouldn't that mean those same loads would be safe in a S&W frame?

"Ruger Only" loads exist only in .45 Colt. Notice that when Ruger took the Vaquero off of a .44 Mag frame and shrunk it to closer to the size of a SAA it no longer rated as being safe for "Ruger Only" loads. In the Redhawk & Blackhawk lines Ruger heat treats their 45 Colt cylinders as if they were 44 Mag cylinders. S&W heat treats .45 Colt cylinders as if they're .45 Colt cylinders - they sell revolvers in .44 Magnum for those who want .44 Magnum performance. Take note that the Redhawk is also larger than S&W's N Frames.

Granted, an SP101 is a whole 5 oz heavier than a S&W 60, then again, I prefer my revolvers to be a little overbuilt since I want them to last a lifetime.

Sorry, but you're wrong again. First there are no "Ruger Only" .357 Magnum loads. Second, a Model 60 will last a lifetime if you don't hot rod it with handloads beyond industry accepted pressures.

We can take this further. As strong as Ruger claims the Super Redhawk to be they've yet to make it, or any other revolver, in .460 XVR which is one of the highest pressure rounds ever chambered in a standard production handgun. S&W also builds the lightest .357 and .44 Magnum revolvers in the world using forged & machined Scandium alloys.

As for the topic at hand I'm rather interested in the .327 Federal Magnum. I've owned an SP101 in the past and wouldn't mind getting another. If the recoil and balistics are what the press release claims this should offer pretty good performance in a comfortable to shoot package. My main reservations are that this thing will probably have muzzle blast like a .357 Magnum and I have to wonder about top strap flame cutting as well.

 

[jameslovesjammie]

I agree 100% with ugaarguy on every point mentioned.

I don't imagine that much could be done to improve the velocity of this round either by handloading. Most of the factory ammo in the last couple of years has been produced right at the limit of what the cartridge is safely capable of. Such examples that come to mind are the .204, and .270 WSM. I am sitting right under 3,300 fps with my WSM and don't think I can safely go any faster.

 

[Stainz]

I love my SSM and 4" SP101, both .32Ms and both bought new in the last 21 months. The only reason I bought them as cheaply as I did was their having been dropped by Ruger due to poor sales. S&W dumped their two, the Airweight 6-shot 431 & 432, as well. If a cartridge, based on the old .32 S&WL and introduced in 1984, can't make it, what makes them think a new and similar round will? Plus - the 100gr JHP from GA Arms in .32 H&RM chrono-ed 1,186 fps - that's 311 ft-lb - from an existing gun/ammo combination - at considerably less recoil than +P .38s. The 431/432/SP101 six round capacity is comforting.

If you have ever had the displeasure of launching warm .357Ms from a 12 oz Al/Sc/Ti S&W Airweight, you know what misery that is. 20% less? You'll never notice that. I just think it's another poor marketing decision. Re-instate the .32 H&RM revolvers, especially a 4"-6" adjustable sight 6-shooter - get more ammo makers involved - that may have promises. I fear the .327M is the solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, the answer to a question no one has posed. But then, it is early - and I may just be missing my caffein...

Stainz

 

[campbell]

Another vote for skeptical that this new .32 is filling any kind of significant niche.

 

[GTSteve03]

Sorry, but you're wrong again. First there are no "Ruger Only" .357 Magnum loads. Second, a Model 60 will last a lifetime if you don't hot rod it with handloads beyond industry accepted pressures.

So which is it? S&W frames are as strong as Ruger frames in .357 only if you stay within industry accepted pressure, or they're as strong as Ruger frames, full stop?

I see lots of experimentation with .357 pushing it up to the velocity it used to be 50 years ago. I don't see those loads recommended in K-frames due to wearing out those frames. No one seems to have a problem with SP101s and GP100s getting worn out.

 

[Marshall]

I think innovation is a good thing. A stagnant industry does nothing. Good for Ruger.

 

[454c]

Re-instate the 32 H&R Mag.??? Since the 32 Mag. can be used in the 327 Mag., isn't that what they are doing and then some?

 

[ugaarguy]

I see lots of experimentation with .357 pushing it up to the velocity it used to be 50 years ago. I don't see those loads recommended in K-frames due to wearing out those frames. No one seems to have a problem with SP101s and GP100s getting worn out.

Alright, lets get it straight again. First, the problem with the K Frame is in the forcing cone being narrowed on the bottom to allow the crane to close using its short height frame. Yes, if you shoot full house magnums loaded with lighter than 148grain bullets, particularly 130gr and lighter you will crack the forcing cone on a K Frame, but not the frame. The slightly taller L Frame was introduced which remedied the forcing cone problem in medium frame S&Ws. So yes an L Frame S&W will eat anything a GP100 will.

Next, the published velocities from 50 years ago are the result of using 8" test barrels with no barrel/cylinder gap in many cases, as well as using even longer barrels vented to supposedly simulate an 8" length, not 4" or 6" test guns as are used to today. If you're getting published velocities from 50 years ago out of a 4 or 6 inch bbl revolver you're pushing things to far.

Again, just because someone has been shooting handload X with no problems doesn't mean it's safe. The cylinder may hold together, but wear on the lock work, top strap cutting, and barrel erosion will be greatly accelerated.

Further, those "Ruger Only" 45 Colt loads are industry accepted. True, SAAMI does not recognize them, but almost all reloading manuals, even the very conservative Speer manuals, list Ruger & T/C only 45 Colt loads. No industry accepted reloading manual, again that's reloading manual, not Billy Bob's hot handload recipe book, lists Ruger only loads in .357 Magnum.

Five Ounces

Granted, an SP101 is a whole 5 oz heavier than a S&W 60, then again, I prefer my revolvers to be a little overbuilt since I want them to last a lifetime.

I come back to this quote because five ounces, on the surface, seems insignificant. Yet, five ounces is nearly a third of a pound. A silver dollar is an ounce of pure silver. Those five ounces are the equivalent of carrying five silver dollars in your pocket or on your belt. With that much more material Ruger should be chambering the SP in 41 Magnum, or giving us six rounds of .357 Magnum. Colt gave us six rounds of .38 Special +P in the forged steel frame Detective Special which is still smaller than an SP.

 

[GTSteve03]

Five Ounces

Actually, it looks like I was wrong about the 5 ounces. According to the Ruger and S&W websites:

SP101
Caliber: .357 Magnum
Capacity: 5 Rounds
Finish: Satin Stainless
Grip: Rubber w/ Synthetic Insert
Barrel Length: 2 1/4"
Groove: 5
Twist: 1:18 3/4" RH
Overall Length: 7"
Weight: 25 oz

Model 60
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 5 Rounds
Barrel Length: 2 1/8"
Front Sight: Black Blade Front
Rear Sight: Fixed
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Small - Chiefs Special Style
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 6 5/8"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 22.5 oz

So the Ruger is 2.5 oz heavier than the Smith. Half the original difference I posted. Yes I realize that's 2.5 silver dollars, but it sure doesn't seem like it's much more material to me. Just enough to make it the superior snubby.

I'm sure the SP101 would make a great platform for the .32 Ultra Super-Duper Magnum, with 6 shots and a robust frame it should be another lifelong shooting companion.

 

[ugaarguy]

I'm sure the SP101 would make a great platform for the .32 Ultra Super-Duper Magnum, with 6 shots and a robust frame it should be another lifelong shooting companion.

No, no, no. This is just the .32 Super-Duper Magnum. We have to wait for S&W to lengthen the case yet again before we get to Ultra Super-Duper status. Kinda like the 45 Colt/454 Casull/460 XVR thing. Of course by the time it gets to Ultra Super-Duper Length you'll need an N Frame or Redhawk cylinder to hold it. A 10 shot .32 N Frame Performance Center Revolver looms.

 

[Diggers]

Humm, I've been reading the posts and trying to figure out what the marketing angle on this is.

They wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would some how make them money.

This is what I think; there has been a lot of states in the last number of years to legalize CCW. The result of that is small framed guns have gotten more popular, as we have seen from the 642 thread.

I think they believe the .32 mag could be a big seller to that market too IF it had more power....taa daa in comes the .327!!

So with creating the .327 they are trying to create the same wild popularity that the .357 / .38 enjoys but in a smaller package.

Now people can buy the .327/ .32 H&R gun and perhaps that will breath new life into the gun sales. They hope!

I personally think the .32 mag is a really cool round and if the .327 will breath new interest into it thats great.

I will be interested to see what the gun is like and how that round kicks compared to a .38 +p.

Should be alot o fun.

 

[Stainz]

Ruger had mag adds with a cute cowgirl in a doorway holding a .32 H&RM SSM - that didn't even help. If the one I bought new on closeout was a proper sampling, little wonder. It was beset with more QC/manufacturing problems than any other Ruger I had ever bought - at least until that SP101 in .32 - it was a new low! Sure, I could and did fix them. The uninitiated would have simply taken a bath trading them away. That SP101 wouldn't have made it off any of the 'lower level' company's assembly lines. Shame on Ruger.

And, to add insult to injury, their chambers are all at the max ID - .339". With my ammo coming out of the final seater/re-sizer at .334", the same as every commercial round I have measured, the little rounds rattle in the chambers. With milder loads, where the case doesn't full obturate to close off the chamber, good old black powder .45 Colt chamber type blowback occurs, putting propellant residue impinging on your hand - and face. Of course, we all wear safety glasses when we shoot, so it isn't a problem. I'll wager it is detrimental to decent groups, however. No, if their manufacturing slop makes the .32 H&RM unsatisfactory, the .327M won't fare any better. By the time you get up to .45 Colt, it is less noticeable... witness how many folks put up with small and uneven .45 Colt cylinder exits from Ruger - and for how long?.

Sure, as said, without change/innovation, the marketplace stagnates. You should give it a proper test, however, before canning a new caliber - like the .480 Ruger. I doubt anything would save the .45 Gap. The .32 H&RM could have voted before it fizzled. I simply think some changes - and re-introductions - would help. Tighter QC on the .32s combined with some decent ammo development by a main line ammo maker would make it viable. Maybe 5-shot cylinders for the .480 Ruger would instill confidence. You wanna bring out a mild kicker of a round? How about a proper smokeless rated .44 Russian cartridge chambered revolver?

The Ruger vs S&W discussion is never-ending. If proper SAAMI spec'd ammo doesn't make it for me in a particular caliber, I go to a different caliber. I started with Rugers - gravitated to S&Ws - but I like DA shooting. I really like shooting that .32 SP101 - now. It's a nearly every-trip range companion - as is my 696 and some .44 Russians! Do what suits you...

Stainz

PS I bet I can reload the .32's I shot this week before my wife is ready for the day's yard sales... fun little round!

 

[peyton]

Ruger SP101 has that slender piece of steel, and they call it an adjustable sight? The 32 H&RM SSM is as heavy as a 357 caliber black hawk (felt similiar in weight. The 32 needs a frame based on bearcat, I have a S&W 631 4 inch barrel and it is perfect. Good adjustable sights, good balance and a hoot to shoot. Just wish they made that length barrel more often. This new bullet will go no where without manufacturers supporting it.

Oh, can I take my .327 diameter drill bit and ream out a couple of thousands to make a longer chamber for these new super duper cartridges? Boy, there are a lot of 32 S&W long J frames out there begging to be brought back to life. Or can we do a cylinder swap? Really can the current Single sixes be reamed to accomodate the new length cartridge?

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

awww, not another caliber that doesn't do anything existing loads don't do

 

[Jim March]

Welll...I see some positives here.

* A lot of people are now carrying 357s with "low power" or "reduced recoil" or "tactical lite" 357 ammo. The best of the 327 loads involving the 115gr Gold Dot spanks the 135gr Speer 357 for energy and beats out the Golden Saber too.

* You get an extra round in a J-class package. If you're not using full 357 horsepower *now*, why not go to a true sixgun?

* Speedloaders are already available - everything for the six-shot 32Mags will work.

* Handloaders should be able to use 32H&RMag dies and bullets, so there's reloading support already. And it's much easier to reload than the 32-20.

* The gun can shoot 32Mag, 32S&W/S&WLong as well, so very low power factory practice ammo for newbies exists now. This lack was a major drawback of the 480Ruger.

Some of the gurus over on the Single Actions forum think the Single Six could be converted with a custom cylinder and the frame window opened a shave. It'd be tight but doable and would make for a hell of a nice little sixgun.

The BIG, big question: will Ruger do a Titanium SP101? Ruger has serious expertise with titanium in things like golf clubs, even some aerospace parts. They definitely can do it - question is, will they?

Because that would be one HELL of a good gun.

 

[Diggers]

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

Here is a short read on the .327. It mentions the reasons behind its creation. (As I posted )

6 shot SP 101 in .327 mag sounds like a blast! (Ha ha blast... get it? )

 

[macadore]

The ballistics look similar to the 7.2x25 which is similar to the .30 Carbine round. They are reinventing the wheel.

 

[MCgunner]

Sorry, but you're wrong again. First there are no "Ruger Only" .357 Magnum loads. Second, a Model 60 will last a lifetime if you don't hot rod it with handloads beyond industry accepted pressures.

You can hot rod your .357 and the SP101 will last you a lifetime where you're model 60 will shoot itself loose. I shoot 180 grain handloads in my SP101 that I won't shoot in a K frame, let alone a J frame. The SP101 is as strong as an L frame IMHO. It's not the cast or forged, it's the fact that it has no side plate in its design. It is inherently stronger and lighter than a comparably strong L or N frame. And, then, you have the GP100. And Ruger INVESTMENT casts their stuff. It's not exactly injection molded.

I can't understand how a forging could be any stronger than a cast frame anyway. I mean, is the stock the gun is forged or machined from not originally cast as a piece of billet steel? Somewhere from the ore to the billet, it has to be melted and cast, right?

Now, back on topic, if I can only get 450 ft lbs out of it, how is it equal to a .357? I still think a 158 SWCHP +P .38 would out-perform it. It's sorta the shooting hogs with a .223 thing, just ain't a lot of bullet there to penetrate anything and still get expansion. I'm perfectly happy with my ultralite .38. and my .357 caliber SP101. The ONLY advantage I can really see for myself, not being recoil shy, is six shots vs 5. That might make it arguable against the .38, but against the .357, not even a chance. LOL

Someone posted it right, would make a neat trail/kit gun with flatter trajectory than a .38 and more pop than a .22.

 

[Jim March]

Now, back on topic, if I can only get 450 ft lbs out of it, how is it equal to a .357?

It would be more potent than a lot of the 357 rounds that people actually *carry*: Golden Saber, Speer 135gr 357, etc.

 

[sm]

Not needed.

Just me.

By 1955 all the actual gun platforms and calibers we will really ever need, were already on the market and proven.
If we do not count the .44 magnum, which came out in '55, we could go back another 20 years to 1935.

Why even the 9x23 was already around, and that today is being touted as the latest thing - again.
Just like the Rolling Stones have just "been" discovered by some folks for the first time.

So to me, all this Creative Marketing is just that, Creative, and not needed.

I mean we had real guns, with real loadings and folks could and did shoot back when.


Take me back to the five and dime Jimmy Dean...

 

[ugaarguy]

You can hot rod your .357 and the SP101 will last you a lifetime where you're model 60 will shoot itself loose. I shoot 180 grain handloads in my SP101 that I won't shoot in a K frame, let alone a J frame. The SP101 is as strong as an L frame IMHO. It's not the cast or forged, it's the fact that it has no side plate in its design. It is inherently stronger and lighter than a comparably strong L or N frame. And, then, you have the GP100. And Ruger INVESTMENT casts their stuff. It's not exactly injection molded.

Again, just because someone has been shooting handload X with no problems doesn't mean it's safe. The cylinder may hold together, but wear on the lock work, top strap cutting, and barrel erosion will be greatly accelerated.

Further, those "Ruger Only" 45 Colt loads are industry accepted. True, SAAMI does not recognize them, but almost all reloading manuals, even the very conservative Speer manuals, list Ruger & T/C only 45 Colt loads. No industry accepted reloading manual, again that's reloading manual, not Billy Bob's hot handload recipe book, lists Ruger only loads in .357 Magnum.

AGAIN - SHOW ME AN INDUSTRY ACCEPTED "RUGER ONLY" .357 Mag Load.

 

[sixgunner455]

I don't think I need this, either. Maybe somebody does.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Raw power is one thing. Using it effectively is another. If a lightweight snubby can be charged with six (not five) rounds that offers a 20% reduction in recoil, the package might have some merit.

Agreed.

 

[MCgunner]

It would be more potent than a lot of the 357 rounds that people actually *carry*: Golden Saber, Speer 135gr 357, etc.

Well, I guess I'm not people. I get 551 ft lbs out of a 140 grain Speer JHP from a 2.3" SP101 and can control it just fine. I actually get 662 ft lbs, a tick over 1300 fps, from a 180 grain Hornady XTP from that very same 2.3" barrel. That one should stop a hog up close, or a bear for the back packer. I wouldn't give up that versatility in that gun for less recoil and an extra round, JMHO. I have .38s for self defense duty and I don't think they're lacking, frankly. The SP101 is a belt gun. Yeah, the flash/bang is enough that I don't keep it loaded with magnums in the house, but hey, I don't know if the .327 (I like the name, used to have a 327 small block 300 horse in a 67 Chevelle) would have much less flash/bang, just less recoil. I can handle the recoil of the .357 in the SP101. Now, they come up with a lighter titanium gun in the caliber, they're going to sell plenty of 'em I'll bet. But, I don't think I'll be in the market. I just don't think it's much of an improvement over the .38 +P, let alone the .357.

 

[MCgunner]

BTW, my handloads are below industry accepted pressures, SAAMI. They're right out of the Speer manual. The 180 grain load I use isn't, it's from a magazine article I read and worked up in my Blackhawk, but all my other loads are straight from the Speer manuals.

I load my 158 grain load a little lighter, is a common load that many use, 14.5 grains of 2400 and a gas checked 158 grain hand cast bullet sized to .357. I could up that a grain, but it's my most fired load, range load, and plenty hot enough that I used it to kill three whitetail, two from a Blackhawk and one from a rifle. It makes1162 fps, 426 ft lbs from the 2.3" barrel which is in the realm of the .327 loads listed. From a 6.5" barrel it makes 760 ft lbs.

I doubt anyone will advocate hunting deer with the .327, yet even my lighter load 158 grain is an adequate hunting round for deer sized game. For self defense, I carry my .5 grains below maximum in the Speer #11 manual handload.at 1332 fps/551 ft lbs and it's well within SAAMI pressures. I don't recall buying a factory box of .357 magnum in 30 years, bought a few for my old Security Six when I first got it before I got set up to reload it.

Now, when reloading info comes out for the .327, I'll really be able to measure apples against apples, but you're still workin' with a wimpy 100 grain .32 caliber bullet. I consider the .30 carbine underpowered for hunting, let alone this thing. It'll be plenty effective as a self defense round, my only question is should I sell all my .38s and .357s for one? I really don't think so. I don't think this round has enough appeal to me to even buy one over a .38 or .357 if I was in the market for a self defense snubby and wasn't already set up in .38/.357 caliber. I'd still choose a good .38 or .357 going on what I know at the moment. I just suspect the penetration given expansion of a 100 grain bullet. The .38 +P 158 grain bullet is well proven on the street and effective.