I think that's the question that .327 was meant to answer. What's odd is that it's not happening. Instead, we get offerings like an 8-shot Blackhawk, which I think is nothing short of bizarre. It might make sense a few years down the road as a novelty, if the .327 really becomes established, but as a "first out of the gate" .327 application?
Future of the 327 Federal?
- Thread starter Surefire
- Start date
- Status
I think that's the question that .327 was meant to answer. What's odd is that it's not happening. Instead, we get offerings like an 8-shot Blackhawk, which I think is nothing short of bizarre. It might make sense a few years down the road as a novelty, if the .327 really becomes established, but as a "first out of the gate" .327 application?
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
I once had a Single Six in .32 H&R, loved it. Killed a goose once at well over 100 yards with it. Now I know that wasn't legal. My load was 115gr. cast bullets from a Lyman mold and 2400 powder. I don't recall the exact amount, but today it would be considered insane, I'm sure. None the less, it was accurate and potent. Case life was good. I wish I had it back. It's a shame that the ex has it. If Ruger builds a Single Six in .327, I'll likely have to have one. Unless I can find another .32 H&R with a 5.5 inch barrel first.
I thought I had a similar thread just last week. It'll be a tough ride for this little caliber. Charter arms makes a 6 shot j frame with a 4" barrel and target sights, and all there new guns seem to run well. I think the black hawk will be pretty successful but I'm not sure how cost prohibitive it would be for ruger to make a single six and still be priced well. As vern I believe said in my post, smiths are customizing make 5 shot ruger .327's but I remember reading that ruger said it just didn't work well for them (dollars to donuts I imagine). I think ruger should follow in charters foot steps, sp101 4" adjustable sights. Both the gp and the blackhawk are too big to be big commercial success stories. I think the .327 will be much like the .32 h&r, a hidden gem for those who wish to find it. For me, I put a .357 on my hip kids.
Last edited:
Starter52
Member
Since the .327 has two siblings (.32 Long and .32 Magnum) that it can chamber and shoot, I see it staying around.
Shooters like a gun that will chamber more than one cartridge length.
Shooters like a gun that will chamber more than one cartridge length.
zfk55
Member
For me, I put a .357 on my hip kids.
You have hip kids too? Mine are pretty cool. One carrys a .357 Ruger and the other carrys a Micro Combat .45
zfk55
You have hip kids too? Mine are pretty cool. One carrys a .357 Ruger and the other carrys a Micro Combat .45
zfk55
KBintheSLC
Member
I personally don't see it going extinct as it has some great potential for ultra-compact carry revolvers. I would love a 6-shot LCR or J-Frame in .327 if they could swing it. Lets not forget that the gun can actually fire like 4 different cartridges. Sounds pretty good to me.
Mr. Whimsy
member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 89
.327 = FAIL.
To defenders of the status quo, it is not bigger, it is not better, so hurry up and die.
Personally I find it fascinating and would buy an sp101 with 6" tube and adjustables if offered. Heck, even a Single Six. A Blackhawk? Really, Ruger?
A .32 that carries like a .44 Mag., now THAT is an answer to a question nobody asked.
To defenders of the status quo, it is not bigger, it is not better, so hurry up and die.
Personally I find it fascinating and would buy an sp101 with 6" tube and adjustables if offered. Heck, even a Single Six. A Blackhawk? Really, Ruger?
A .32 that carries like a .44 Mag., now THAT is an answer to a question nobody asked.
zfk55
Member
So.... You own one, chrono'd it, did a penetration test and yours failed?
Interesting.
zfk55
Interesting.
zfk55
I agree. Instead, we get a Blackhawk that weighs more than the .44 Magnum version.
If the LCR and J-frame aren't available in .327 within the next few years, the cartridge has a very doubtful future. Sure, it's compatible with several other rounds, but none of these rounds are popular. I'd venture that most of today's handgun shooters have never even seen any of them in person. The .327 will have to make its own way, and that requires appropriate revolvers to drive its sales.
It really is in the gunmakers' hands. So far, that's been the "epic fail", not the cartridge itself.
Last edited:
Landric
Member
There are actually two J-frames in .327 Fed now, a DA/SA traditional hammered 3" with porting and a 2 1/8" Centennial version with night sights and (thankfully) no porting. S&W is calling them both the 632, probably in an effort to confuse things as much as possible since the DA/SA version should be a 631 by the normal numbering system.
I think the Centennial version is probably the best offering available at the moment. My only complaint about it is that its all steel, not an Airweight. That wouldn't be a problem for me if it wasn't for my intended use of said gun. I carry a SP101 all the time off-duty, both in a pocket holster and in a belt holster. On-duty I carry my BUG (a .38 Special Airweight) in an ankle holster. Thanks to an old knee injury I can't carry a gun in an ankle holster for any length of time (let alone a 12 hour shift) if it weighs more than about 16 ounces. Sixteen ounces or less, and it doesn't bother me at all.
So, if S&W offered say a Airweight 432 Centennial and I could get my chief to approve a smaller caliber than .355, I'd be first in line to get one. The same basically goes for the LCR, though I'm not a fan of the LCR appearance, it might still do the job for me.
Taurus is also offering a 327 on the 85 frame, and Charter Arms has one on the Bulldog frame (its probably the lightest on the market right now). The real problem at the moment seems to be the lack of ammunition and its hard to tell if solving that situation will improve gun selection problem, or if making more guns available will solve the problem with ammunition availability.
I think the Centennial version is probably the best offering available at the moment. My only complaint about it is that its all steel, not an Airweight. That wouldn't be a problem for me if it wasn't for my intended use of said gun. I carry a SP101 all the time off-duty, both in a pocket holster and in a belt holster. On-duty I carry my BUG (a .38 Special Airweight) in an ankle holster. Thanks to an old knee injury I can't carry a gun in an ankle holster for any length of time (let alone a 12 hour shift) if it weighs more than about 16 ounces. Sixteen ounces or less, and it doesn't bother me at all.
So, if S&W offered say a Airweight 432 Centennial and I could get my chief to approve a smaller caliber than .355, I'd be first in line to get one. The same basically goes for the LCR, though I'm not a fan of the LCR appearance, it might still do the job for me.
Taurus is also offering a 327 on the 85 frame, and Charter Arms has one on the Bulldog frame (its probably the lightest on the market right now). The real problem at the moment seems to be the lack of ammunition and its hard to tell if solving that situation will improve gun selection problem, or if making more guns available will solve the problem with ammunition availability.
Yeah, I've noted elsewhere what I think, and I stand by that.
That said, I think ArmedBear has a very good point: it's in the hands of the gunmakers.
What we need are two things: a J-frame airweight with 6 rounds, and a levergun.
At 18" barrel length, that round is a screamer. 115gr slug at almost 1900 fps? Whoa. And over a thousand FPS out of a 2" barrel? Yeah, baby. That's on a par with a 9mm +P, with six rounds in a dependable lightweight revolver. Sign me up.
But until then, it's dicey.
Jim D.
That said, I think ArmedBear has a very good point: it's in the hands of the gunmakers.
What we need are two things: a J-frame airweight with 6 rounds, and a levergun.
At 18" barrel length, that round is a screamer. 115gr slug at almost 1900 fps? Whoa. And over a thousand FPS out of a 2" barrel? Yeah, baby. That's on a par with a 9mm +P, with six rounds in a dependable lightweight revolver. Sign me up.
But until then, it's dicey.
Jim D.
I think an SP 101 3" is a good platform for this round. A compact revolver that can produce 400+ ft lbs of energy is hardly a mouse gun, IMO.
6 shots
400+ ft. lbs energy
More energy than some .38 spl loads, and less recoil than .357 magnum.
Would be nice for Ruger to offer a 4" SP 101 format with adjustable sights as a lightweight outdoor small frame gun that still packs a tiny punch.
6 shots
400+ ft. lbs energy
More energy than some .38 spl loads, and less recoil than .357 magnum.
Would be nice for Ruger to offer a 4" SP 101 format with adjustable sights as a lightweight outdoor small frame gun that still packs a tiny punch.
The SP101 a compact? LOL
I didn't realize that you could get J-frames in .327. My mistake. Of course, I'm not sure what I'd do with a ported 3" steel J-frame, but I'm sure somebody wants one. The Centennial looks good. But what's really attractive to me is a lightweight gun. I already have a .357 steel J-frame snubbie and a .38+P Airweight.
At 28 oz., the SP101 3" doesn't do much for me, either. I already have an old Model 10 that's good for 6 shots of .38+P that will also push a 115 grain bullet at 1000 fps if that's my fancy, and it's about the same weight and not much different in size. I realize that you can't buy a NIB Model 10 Standard Barrel any more -- but maybe S&W could reintroduce the K-frame Magnum with .327 (hint, hint S&W). I'm sure that, properly executed, the K Frame can take .327, even if it had some trouble with certain .357. Maybe a 7-shot would be possible, even. Picture a Model 66 2 1/2", but a 7-shot .327. They could even say, "The .327 doesn't need a lock, so we didn't put one on the gun." We can dream, can't we?
Again, I'm not meaning to sound like a bitch, here, but I really don't get the sequence in which these things are being offered. It seems like the novelty guns are coming out first, which is the last thing you want to do if you don't want the cartridge to be just a novelty for the shooter who's got to have everything.
Last edited:
MMCSRET
Member
As an aside; in the event the 327 cartridge and component cases disappear from the market, which I doubt, we can always horsepower up the 32 Magnum past its current pressure ceiling. I'm already doing it and its really gratifying to see what the little cartridge can do. I'm using a 327 revolver to do it, I would never do it in my revolver chambered for 32 mag due the the manufacturing thresh hold and heat treating each it subjected to. 21,000+/- as against 46,000+/-.
Dambugg, thats good. At best I think the the .327 will hold popularity similar to these two cartridges, although in my book the 10mm just got flat out robbed because people wanted teeny weeny guns in .40 rather than the far more versatile 10mm. If I get another handgun it would probably be a 10mm. P.S. I hate the .40 smith.
22-rimfire
Member
You got your wish in a Blackhawk with 8-shot cylinder.
I can't add anything not said to the .327 debate, but on this point:
I think the answer is "not particularly." The really broad appeal and flexibility of the .357 for most civilian shooters covers most needs. And for those hunters, backwoods folks, and fans of power, the .44 magnum is a nice step up.
If there were a large demand for a .40 caliber revolver, you'd have seen lots of .41 magnums dusted off and put to work, or a clamor for new models chambered in it. Neither really exists. It's a fine cartridge, just sandwiched between two other excellent ones. Another significant limit is frame size - you can't cram the cartridge into smaller than a large-frame revolver, like the S&W L frame or Python sized gun. And concealed carry has made all the significant trends in revolver design to go smaller, not larger.
I think the answer is "not particularly." The really broad appeal and flexibility of the .357 for most civilian shooters covers most needs. And for those hunters, backwoods folks, and fans of power, the .44 magnum is a nice step up.
If there were a large demand for a .40 caliber revolver, you'd have seen lots of .41 magnums dusted off and put to work, or a clamor for new models chambered in it. Neither really exists. It's a fine cartridge, just sandwiched between two other excellent ones. Another significant limit is frame size - you can't cram the cartridge into smaller than a large-frame revolver, like the S&W L frame or Python sized gun. And concealed carry has made all the significant trends in revolver design to go smaller, not larger.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
For my 2% of a buck...
It's got a long road ahead of it, and a hard pull to be able to compete with the many established cartridges that do anything it can do a little better. K-frame Smiths are chambered for the .357 magnum, so the option wouldn't be all that appealing when a more powerful and more readily available caliber is already there.
However, I also think it's a useful little cartridge, and would shine in the right platform.
A 5-shot J-frame sized revolver with a 3-inch barrel and adjustable sights chambered for it would make a neat trail or camp gun that wouldn't cause back problems from packing it. It could be downloaded for informal plinking or small game potting, and loaded up to its potential for defense against medium-sized 4-legged predators that one might encounter in the boondocks...like Coyotes and Cougars and such. For defensive use against predators of the 2-legged kind in the wilds...it would suffice, given good bullet placement. I'd prefer to use a solid lead bullet for those situations...but I prefer the same even in a .357 or .41 Magnum. To each his own.
It's got a long road ahead of it, and a hard pull to be able to compete with the many established cartridges that do anything it can do a little better. K-frame Smiths are chambered for the .357 magnum, so the option wouldn't be all that appealing when a more powerful and more readily available caliber is already there.
However, I also think it's a useful little cartridge, and would shine in the right platform.
A 5-shot J-frame sized revolver with a 3-inch barrel and adjustable sights chambered for it would make a neat trail or camp gun that wouldn't cause back problems from packing it. It could be downloaded for informal plinking or small game potting, and loaded up to its potential for defense against medium-sized 4-legged predators that one might encounter in the boondocks...like Coyotes and Cougars and such. For defensive use against predators of the 2-legged kind in the wilds...it would suffice, given good bullet placement. I'd prefer to use a solid lead bullet for those situations...but I prefer the same even in a .357 or .41 Magnum. To each his own.
I think the real potential of the .327 would be in a six or even seven shot J frame or LCR. The advantage would be light recoil with plenty of power for self defense. I don't see it as a plinker (too expensive), and I doubt it would compete with the .38 Special as a target revolver (the K-32 couldn't).
Jim
Jim
- Status
