DawgFvr
Member
I think I've found the perfect weapon and caliber for my wife. Hmmm...if S&W makes this for their little 642, I'd be all over it!
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SP101-327.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SP101-327.htm
Jeff Quinn reviews the .327
- Thread starter DawgFvr
- Start date
- Status
MrTuffPaws
Member
.327??? I bet that's a spendy one.
Interesting. I too was following the all the threads about this, and wondering how much of all the promised performance would come to be, while at the same time not being discouraged by all the imemdiate nay-sayers. I'm perfectly happy with m7 .357mag SP101, and don't mind the recoil or capacity. However, if this round goes "mainstream" and becomes affordable the way .40S&W did (as opposed to the .357sig), I'd be interested to pick it up.
It would be cool if we could get an 8-shot GP-100 or L frame with this.
I can just see the Smith&wesson version now. ".327 magnum-8 times"
It would be cool if we could get an 8-shot GP-100 or L frame with this.
I can just see the Smith&wesson version now. ".327 magnum-8 times"
Malodorousroadkill
Member
If the recoil of this round is reasonable, I'd sooner see a 6times on an alloy j-frame. A bit more oomph than a .32 H&R.
Looks like it's almost as powerful as .357 from the same barrel length. I imagine recoil would be proportional. Main benefit is a 6th round, but you probably give up a lot of terminal performance, simply because the bullets don't have as much R&D time.
Tom Servo
Member
Heck with that, I want a 10-shot N-Frame with moonclips!
W.E.G.
Member
belt-fed baby!
The claim they are making that the .327 is almost as powerful as the 357 is somewhat disingenuous. 357 magnum ammo ranges from a little over 38+p+ to just under 41 Magnum. They are not saying WHICH 357 loads they are comparing the .327 to. It most definitely IS NOT the top end 125, 158 or 180-grain loads because there is no way a 95-grain bullet from that case could even come close to those loads. For Federal and Ruger to even leave that kind of speculation open to debate is irresponsible and dishonest, in my opinion.
I am not just venting here. I have an sp101 3-inch in 32 Magnum and a m66 3-inch in 357 Magnum and at very well-appointed reloading shop and bullet casting operation. I load extensively for both cartridges. The 327 is unlikely to do anything that the 32H&R cannot do with judicious handloading. the 32H&R is NO WHERE NEAR THE GUN THAT A 357 IS. Period. End of story.
I love the 32 and the 327 will be a great caliber. I agree with those who are hoping for a 6-shot S&W 442 or 642 in this caliber. But, honestly, I would be more excited about more of those guns being put on the shelves in 32H&R.
Where the 327 will REALLY shine is as a lever-action carbine round, and as a TC Contender round.
I am not just venting here. I have an sp101 3-inch in 32 Magnum and a m66 3-inch in 357 Magnum and at very well-appointed reloading shop and bullet casting operation. I load extensively for both cartridges. The 327 is unlikely to do anything that the 32H&R cannot do with judicious handloading. the 32H&R is NO WHERE NEAR THE GUN THAT A 357 IS. Period. End of story.
I love the 32 and the 327 will be a great caliber. I agree with those who are hoping for a 6-shot S&W 442 or 642 in this caliber. But, honestly, I would be more excited about more of those guns being put on the shelves in 32H&R.
Where the 327 will REALLY shine is as a lever-action carbine round, and as a TC Contender round.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
lawboy,
Why would you be more excited about a 32 H&R Magnum over a 327 Federal Magnum? The 32 H&R will never give you over 1300 fps with a 115gr bullet like the 327 Federal will. Besides, a revolver chambered in 327 Federal Magnum will fire 32 H&R Magnum rounds. (along with 32 S&W Short and Long rounds)
jameslovesjammie
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 243
I second the moon clipped 10 shot N frame. It would be awesome in ICORE, and could give revolvers a little better chance in IPSC. I think IPSC has .355 as the minimum though.
Malodorousroadkill
Member
It can throw 100grain at 1400fps and thats what 9x19mm corbon pow r ball does. A 15 oz easily pocketed snubby that can throw 6 rounds that are 9mm +P equivalent that won't feel like you just slammed your hand in large metal door. Wow. Thats just cool to think about. AND it would most likely cost under 400 bucks. With all the problems I hear about many of the single stack, polymer, semi-autos that are under 400, I think kel-tec and Kahr might have to start getting those manufacturing bugs worked out.
I would expect that a 32 Magnum could be easily rechambered for the new round. And since the weapons that are going to use the new round are the same weapons that the 32 magnum is chambered in, there will be no problem. I like the 32 mag, and have a couple of revolvers chambered for it, but I am not sure if I want to rechamber any of them. I expect that the botique 32 mag rounds offered by some ammo builders will all but bridge the gap.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I take it you've little to no experience with the 2nd generation P3AT. The bugs have been worked out for quite a while now.
Yes, it would be nice if S&W reintroduced the 342 in .327 Federal Magnum. A Taurus equivalent wouldn't hurt either. If Ruger would make a J Frame equivalent I'd buy it just for the sake of it not having an internal lock. Realistically a titanium or aluminium frame SP-101 should be pretty easy for them to make, and that would be a big step in the right direction.
We can hope. We'll see what the new year brings to metals and oil prices, and see how much the increased production costs push up new gun prices. Hopefully prices won't push too much higher than what they are.
JNewell
Member
More power to 'em. If it were me calling the shots (literally), I'd have sent this back down to product development with a big red X on it. It's a real stretch to believe that a .32 is going to sell in any substantial numbers after the first year.
lesjones
Member
Until a year or two ago S&W had a number of AirWeight .32 revolvers. They even advertised them in magazines with full page ads. Didn't work. Now they don't list a single .32 on their site.
The .32 has its fans and you can work in an extra round on most frames, but they caliber's smaller, you get fewer ammo choices, and the ammo is more expensive.
The .32 has its fans and you can work in an extra round on most frames, but they caliber's smaller, you get fewer ammo choices, and the ammo is more expensive.
Malodorousroadkill
Member
Now that I'm thinking about it, aren't the speeds its hitting like a 7.62 tokarev? Maybe a bit harder. In a medium or large frame revolver, with warm loads, this could give class II vests trouble?
On the SW forum, it seems pretty clear that SW isn't a fan of this round and that the Js aren't easily chambered for this round.
Without a J frame sized gun, it's really a nonstarted. The SP101 is rather a big gun and doesn't serve the J's purpose.
Without a J frame sized gun, it's really a nonstarted. The SP101 is rather a big gun and doesn't serve the J's purpose.
DawgFvr
Member
GEM...point well taken. I would think that Ruger would cast their first Alum weapon frame just for this purpose. Actually compete with S&W's all time seller...the 642...what a thought.
Shawnee
member
Curious that Quinn didn't present a comparison to the .38 Special and 38 +P
TT
member
What is the difficulty in chambering a J frame in this round?
jfh
Member.
As far as Marketing goes--
I'll bet DawgFvr has it about right.
Ruger will use the FC 327 to launch their aluminum competitor to the 642, etc. It's price point will be extremely competitive--if they're smart, perhaps $20.00 lower than the S&W j-frames, I would guess.
Federal and Ruger's collaboration was extremely well done, in naming it as a Federal rather than tying it to the firearm brand.
Of course S&W doesn't like this--but my guess is that if the cartridge does in fact get some traction (personally, I think it can), then this will force S&W to eventually produce revolvers for it.
I think I have it right that the S&W j-frames are their highest-volume sales in revolvers. As the 'carry revolution' of the last twenty years occurred, they've ridden along with it--and done j-frame development as well (i.e., the Scandium frames. But, that five-shot capacity is something all of us j-frame afficiandos accept and wish it were better.
I'm curious enough about the round to consider getting an SP-101 as soon as the initial reviews come in and we know there are no major screwups. But--I'd rather buy a Smith chambered for it.
TT: The only issue for a j-frame cylinder would be the necessary machining and related setup to do it as a 5-shot. I think the J-frame cylinder does not have room for six, even in .327, or that it would take high-test metallurgy for the cylinder (thus adding to the cost.)
Jim H.
I'll bet DawgFvr has it about right.
Ruger will use the FC 327 to launch their aluminum competitor to the 642, etc. It's price point will be extremely competitive--if they're smart, perhaps $20.00 lower than the S&W j-frames, I would guess.
Federal and Ruger's collaboration was extremely well done, in naming it as a Federal rather than tying it to the firearm brand.
Of course S&W doesn't like this--but my guess is that if the cartridge does in fact get some traction (personally, I think it can), then this will force S&W to eventually produce revolvers for it.
I think I have it right that the S&W j-frames are their highest-volume sales in revolvers. As the 'carry revolution' of the last twenty years occurred, they've ridden along with it--and done j-frame development as well (i.e., the Scandium frames. But, that five-shot capacity is something all of us j-frame afficiandos accept and wish it were better.
I'm curious enough about the round to consider getting an SP-101 as soon as the initial reviews come in and we know there are no major screwups. But--I'd rather buy a Smith chambered for it.
TT: The only issue for a j-frame cylinder would be the necessary machining and related setup to do it as a 5-shot. I think the J-frame cylinder does not have room for six, even in .327, or that it would take high-test metallurgy for the cylinder (thus adding to the cost.)
Jim H.
Malodorousroadkill
Member
That doesn't make sense as there have already been j-frames in .32 H&R and .327 mag takes those too, if I'm not mistaken.
I doubt that Ruger will do an aluminum frame revolver. I seriously wish they would do it, but they already got a 4inch 45colt redhawk and that new autopistol out plus the .327 SP-101.
I doubt that Ruger will do an aluminum frame revolver. I seriously wish they would do it, but they already got a 4inch 45colt redhawk and that new autopistol out plus the .327 SP-101.
TT
member
Rats- I’d only be interested in a .327 J frame if it was a 6 shooter.
jfh
Member.
I stand corrected--shoulda done a google first.
S&W currently lists no guns for .32xx--but GunBlast reviewed the S&W 431 &432 two years ago--six-shot j-frames. Here's the link.
They already have the tooling. They have the raw cylinders, so the only need is to set up for the new chambers in the cylinder. The only issue really would be marketing--i.e., would they put this more-powerful round into an aluminum frame (price point) or into a scandium frame?
Jim H.
S&W currently lists no guns for .32xx--but GunBlast reviewed the S&W 431 &432 two years ago--six-shot j-frames. Here's the link.
They already have the tooling. They have the raw cylinders, so the only need is to set up for the new chambers in the cylinder. The only issue really would be marketing--i.e., would they put this more-powerful round into an aluminum frame (price point) or into a scandium frame?
Jim H.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
