FrankenMauser
New member
Gun store "Gods" don't like it when their 'subjects' question their knowledge and authority.
.327 Federal Club thread
- Thread starter farmboy
- Start date
Gun store "Gods" don't like it when their 'subjects' question their knowledge and authority.
vaquero aleman
New member
one more opinion
I thought the idea of the 327 magnum was a really good one. The only problem I see with the round is that no major manufacturer seems to be loading the round to its full CUP potential. I would like to see some 327 loaded to what it "can be", not what it "has been". And, for what it's worth, I asked Double Tap if they were going to load some 327, and they said that it was an issue of component availability, so...
I thought the idea of the 327 magnum was a really good one. The only problem I see with the round is that no major manufacturer seems to be loading the round to its full CUP potential. I would like to see some 327 loaded to what it "can be", not what it "has been". And, for what it's worth, I asked Double Tap if they were going to load some 327, and they said that it was an issue of component availability, so...
Last edited:
.327 mag
to 9MM, the .327 also handles H&R mags;plus if you study the ballistics,it shows relatively good power, fps,etc,.certainly doesn't kick like the 357.And do we need another cartridge;to quote the rifle guru Jack O'Connor,"the world would have done fine with the 7mm, the 257, robts and the 30-06.
Remember good bullet placement kills quicker than a hog with twenty bullets in his behind.otiac
to 9MM, the .327 also handles H&R mags;plus if you study the ballistics,it shows relatively good power, fps,etc,.certainly doesn't kick like the 357.And do we need another cartridge;to quote the rifle guru Jack O'Connor,"the world would have done fine with the 7mm, the 257, robts and the 30-06.
Remember good bullet placement kills quicker than a hog with twenty bullets in his behind.otiac
You could learn to handload ....... then you could tap dance at the Splodeyville city limits to your heart's content, 'cause, as we all know, you can do it better than the major manufacturers, as you don't have to worry about lawsuits...... it's your gun, beat it if you want to!
Billy Shears
New member
Hmmm, I'm thinking the American Eagle 100 grain soft point bullet moving at 1,500 feet per second and generating right at 500 foot pounds of kinetic energy is probably enough to put the sting into most folks' palms after a few cylinders.
That's about as much power as I figure I'll ever want from a snubby.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=462443
FrankenMauser
New member
Out of the SP101, you feel it (not too bad). I imagine it wouldn't be bad out of the GP100 (1,580-1,600 fps?). From the Blackhawk (1,700+ fps
)... It's nothing. I'm really not sure about the S&W or Taurus revolvers - their frames and grips are different (of course).You have to remember that SAAMI requires a little "safety buffer" in factory loads, to allow for in-lot variations, and lot-to-lot variations. So... if they want pressure to remain safe, with lot-to-lot variation, in, say, the 7.5" Sparrowhawk; you won't be getting absolute maximum pressures with something like the Taurus snubbie or Ruger SP101.
I believe strongly enough that the cartridge is being loaded to its full potential, that I have plans to take multiple species of Deer, a Blackbear, and Bobcat(s) with my Blackhawk, within the next 2 years. (I would have larger game on the list, but the states I hunt in exempt the cartridge, simply because it is not .35 caliber, or larger. It meets all other requirements.
) I may end up using some hand loads, but the current factory offerings would be plenty. I'm also having a really hard time saying "no" to getting another .327. These cheap Taurus 327s with a 2" barrel are very, very tempting. (I very much dislike Taurus, but think it may be worth taking the risk. 
)I know I am the odd man out, but, for me, the .327 really is the next .357. (It will never replace the .357 in the firearms world. ....But it will always outnumber them in my gun safe.)
And, my last word for the night:
We do need just a couple more tough 'hunting' bullets for the .327. Hey, Swift, make me some A-Frames. Nosler, make me some Partitions. Woodleigh, give me a hydrostatically-stabilized solid.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Wow...
This thread is now the 6th longest (non-sticky) thread, in the handgun section, in TFL's history.
*...Unless archived posts don't get polled for the standard sort feature. In that case, all bets are off.
This thread is now the 6th longest (non-sticky) thread, in the handgun section, in TFL's history.
*...Unless archived posts don't get polled for the standard sort feature. In that case, all bets are off.
I think a big part of that reason is... sadly... the popularity of the .327 Federal Mag.
Someone puts up a post in it, and others see the thread title and want to add why they like or don't like the .327 Federal.
And then the "usual suspects", you & I and others who really like the .327 Federal also add more posts dissecting what they said.
Truth is, there's not a lot of places on TFL forums where there is an active discussion on the .327.
I love this thread... but for my buck, I'd like to see even 25% of the traffic on the most recent thread on handloading the .327 Federal.
That thread can be found here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=454312&highlight=327
Someone puts up a post in it, and others see the thread title and want to add why they like or don't like the .327 Federal.
And then the "usual suspects", you & I and others who really like the .327 Federal also add more posts dissecting what they said.
Truth is, there's not a lot of places on TFL forums where there is an active discussion on the .327.
I love this thread... but for my buck, I'd like to see even 25% of the traffic on the most recent thread on handloading the .327 Federal.
That thread can be found here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=454312&highlight=327
FrankenMauser
New member
I think one of the biggest factors with that languishing thread, is that most reloaders don't care to step into uncharted territory, and many are scared to share their own pet loads. They run a few Google searches (TFL usually has multiple hits on the first page), pick out the data that will help them, and never return. Generally, you get a few blog-style posts with load data, our data on TFL (old thread and the new thread), and a few hits for magazine articles.
It seems like the active posters in the reloading forum are also the type of reloaders that are always chasing perfection and more data. We're never 100% satisfied. And we aren't afraid of creating our own data. Even if we have a notebook with 50 successful loads for a single cartridge, we keep chasing different powders, primers, bullets, velocities, and better accuracy. When we turn around and share that data, it can be disappointing to see nothing come from other reloaders. They "reap the benefits", but don't, "share the wealth".
I have no idea when I'll be able to test my last load development cycle (about 350 rounds of .327, 5-6 different loads; and 200-300 rounds of .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R, unpublished loads). As I mentioned before, our long-distance move has thrown a wrench into the works. It may be a while, before I can unpack the .327 ammo. ...But I'm not finished.
On the up side... I have made up my mind to buy one of the blued 2" Taurus 327s. As long as the lockup and play are acceptable, I can work with the crappy internals. A few hours with my Arkansas stones will make a huge difference. It should make a good kit gun, and will give me more data for load development. (And the wife should be pleased with the option for double-action.)
I'm just not sold on what a high-pressure round is going to do in a 2-inch snub.
There's just too much to give up. As a kit gun, something to pack in a small space and use for critters or tin cans while bumping about in the wild, I'm sure it would be fun.
But one of the big draws to this round is it's (hopeful) ability as a defense cartridge... and I think when you cut the barrel down to two inches, you cut the nutz off this round.
There's just too much to give up. As a kit gun, something to pack in a small space and use for critters or tin cans while bumping about in the wild, I'm sure it would be fun.
But one of the big draws to this round is it's (hopeful) ability as a defense cartridge... and I think when you cut the barrel down to two inches, you cut the nutz off this round.
The 2" barrel does affect the performance, but it's not all that bad really.
BBL ....... Federal ....... AE 100gr ... Speer
LEN ....... 85gr............ JSP ....... 115gr
............Hydrashok .................. Gold Dot
4".......... 1462 (403)..... 1604 (571)... 1451 (538)
3".......... 1331 (334)..... 1398 (434)... 1316 (442)
2".......... 976 (180)...... 1056 (248)... 1042 (277)
Numbers in parenthesis are the muzzle-energy figures.
Source: www.ballisticsbytheinch.com
The lightweight Hydrashok suffers the most, but the rest at least live up to the .38 Special energy levels. Not bad for something that gives you an extra round. It's certainly going to be better than a .380 or .32 ACP.
BBL ....... Federal ....... AE 100gr ... Speer
LEN ....... 85gr............ JSP ....... 115gr
............Hydrashok .................. Gold Dot
4".......... 1462 (403)..... 1604 (571)... 1451 (538)
3".......... 1331 (334)..... 1398 (434)... 1316 (442)
2".......... 976 (180)...... 1056 (248)... 1042 (277)
Numbers in parenthesis are the muzzle-energy figures.
Source: www.ballisticsbytheinch.com
The lightweight Hydrashok suffers the most, but the rest at least live up to the .38 Special energy levels. Not bad for something that gives you an extra round. It's certainly going to be better than a .380 or .32 ACP.
I think you and I are looking at this in two different ways -- nothing wrong with that.
You see the numbers and compare it to .38 Special, with an extra shot.
I see the numbers and I see how BADLY even the one inch from 3-inches to 2-inches just kills the speed of this round. (I tend to look at the 3-inch rather than the 4-inch because the SP-101 is a 3.06" barrel)
I mean, really -- the drop off isn't a little, it's like a cliff's edge.
How the round does in a real defensive shooting is pretty much all conjecture at this point because there is no street data that I know about. But from a two-inch, you are talking a bullet that is little more than HALF the weight of a 158gr .38, going under 1,000 FPS.
If anything, it compares favorably with a .32 ACP.
The .32 ACP is a round that I simply wouldn't put in to a defensive role.
For everything in the world that I really, really like about the .327 Federal Magnum -- the two inch barrel just kills that for me.
You see the numbers and compare it to .38 Special, with an extra shot.
I see the numbers and I see how BADLY even the one inch from 3-inches to 2-inches just kills the speed of this round. (I tend to look at the 3-inch rather than the 4-inch because the SP-101 is a 3.06" barrel)
I mean, really -- the drop off isn't a little, it's like a cliff's edge.
How the round does in a real defensive shooting is pretty much all conjecture at this point because there is no street data that I know about. But from a two-inch, you are talking a bullet that is little more than HALF the weight of a 158gr .38, going under 1,000 FPS.
If anything, it compares favorably with a .32 ACP.
The .32 ACP is a round that I simply wouldn't put in to a defensive role.
For everything in the world that I really, really like about the .327 Federal Magnum -- the two inch barrel just kills that for me.
FrankenMauser
New member
Yea, the 2" barrel really neuters the cartridge.
...But I was planning on shooting .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R out of it, primarily. Its only real use with .327 loads would be for attempts at load development for the short barrel (and to see how badly other loads fall off in the 2").
I see things the same way. But, I am looking at it in comparison to the Blackhawk (hey, it's what I've got). Losing 700 fps (AE 100 gr JSP), when going from the Blackhawk to the Taurus, is rather significant (41% loss).
I still like the idea of a fairly compact, double-action, 'beater' .32 revolver, though. Who knows... I may say that it is a completely worthless firearm, a year from now. Or, I may develop some decent "Short Barrel" loads for it. We'll see...
...But I was planning on shooting .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R out of it, primarily. Its only real use with .327 loads would be for attempts at load development for the short barrel (and to see how badly other loads fall off in the 2").
I see things the same way. But, I am looking at it in comparison to the Blackhawk (hey, it's what I've got). Losing 700 fps (AE 100 gr JSP), when going from the Blackhawk to the Taurus, is rather significant (41% loss).
I still like the idea of a fairly compact, double-action, 'beater' .32 revolver, though. Who knows... I may say that it is a completely worthless firearm, a year from now. Or, I may develop some decent "Short Barrel" loads for it. We'll see...
Last edited:
Sevens said:
Yes, we are looking at it differently. You're focusing on the least potent cartridge configuration while I'm thinking that the 100/115 grain cartridges would be more appropriate in a 2-inch. To me, your view is like dismissing the .38 Special by checking the performance of a 158gr RNL in a 2-inch barrel and ignoring the +P versions.
Users have to remember that the .327 Federal was designed for a 3-inch barrel as its primary launcher (as the SP-101). It was believed that this combination would be a desirable carry gun (similar to the 3-inch K frames) by providing a little extra velocity while keeping pressures manageable.
Compromises abound in the handgun world. For decades, if we wanted a concealable .357 Magnum, your choices were limited to 2.5-inch or 3-inch barrels on K & N frames or something just as bulky (2.5, 3, Python, 2.125" Lawman). Those were bulky 6-shooters. If you wanted something smaller it was a .38 Special. Dissing (or dismissing) the .327 because it won't perform well in a 2-inch barrel is like tossing away a 2.5-inch Model 19 because it won't send a 125gr JHP downrange anywhere close to 1400 fps.
FrankenMauser said:
If you guys are wedded to a 2-inch barrel, then the .327 probably isn't going to work for you ever. Not even my favorite cartridge, the .41 Magnum, is impressive out of 2-inch barrel. Except for emulating the flash and flame of Hiroshima when you set one off.
I'd not willingly take the .32 ACP or .32 Long as a primary carry gun. The J-frame .32 Longs can tolerate some hot rodding that will get you .32 H&R like performance. But not .327 performance. The 2-inch is too much of a compromise.
I absolutely see your point Bill, and I saw it even before your explanation...
But the drop off from 3-inch to 2-inch is staggering in any factory load.
Perhaps some creative work at the load bench can improve what happens from a two-inch tube. Maybe some lucky guy with a REALLY slim flash gap will gain a few FPS.
Either way, I'm left with a tiny bullet that isn't even going fast. In it's most hardcore load, it's like a light 9mm bullet, without even the .356" of the 9mm, which most of us agree isn't large.
Bullet energy ain't everything, but it's got to be something and your best 2-inch load can't even get to three hundred. At this point, it's a BUG, it's no longer a viable primary, IMO.
The high pressure round needs room to work.
I'm a huge fan of the .327, but if I were god of all things .327, I would allow a two-inch out of any gun factory. It would soil the good name of my cartridge.
(of course, if I were god of all things .327, I would provide a LOT of cheap brass, a huge selection of component slugs with large inventory, a slew of load data and more factory loads from more manufacturers than you could count, and that's not even addressing how many different cool guns you'd see being churned out by the hardware builders.)
(...and not one of them with less than a 3-inch barrel...)
But the drop off from 3-inch to 2-inch is staggering in any factory load.
Perhaps some creative work at the load bench can improve what happens from a two-inch tube. Maybe some lucky guy with a REALLY slim flash gap will gain a few FPS.
Either way, I'm left with a tiny bullet that isn't even going fast. In it's most hardcore load, it's like a light 9mm bullet, without even the .356" of the 9mm, which most of us agree isn't large.
Bullet energy ain't everything, but it's got to be something and your best 2-inch load can't even get to three hundred. At this point, it's a BUG, it's no longer a viable primary, IMO.
The high pressure round needs room to work.
I'm a huge fan of the .327, but if I were god of all things .327, I would allow a two-inch out of any gun factory. It would soil the good name of my cartridge.
(of course, if I were god of all things .327, I would provide a LOT of cheap brass, a huge selection of component slugs with large inventory, a slew of load data and more factory loads from more manufacturers than you could count, and that's not even addressing how many different cool guns you'd see being churned out by the hardware builders.)
(...and not one of them with less than a 3-inch barrel...)
Crankylove
New member
You've got my vote
I love my SP101, even if others see it as useless.
The drop in velocites from Franken's 5 1/2" Blackhawk (his wife's really) vs. my 3" SP101 are pretty noticable, so it will be interesting to compare his 2" Taurus with the data we already know for the two Rugers.
FrankenMauser
New member
The Taurus 2" would be more of a kit gun and plinking gun, than a primary carry gun (for me). I already have a .38 +P J-frame, that I would trust far more than the Taurus. And, when I can launch a 125-158 gr bullet at the same speed as an 85-100 grain bullet... I'll take the bigger one.
(For me, the extra round doesn't matter.)I've been cross-posting this photo far too much, lately... (S&W 642-2 LS and 7.5" Super Blackhawk)
Let's step back and think about this for a second.sevens said:
You said it's like "a light 9mm bullet, without even the .356" of the 9mm..."
I think it's pretty incredible that they managed to pack that kind of performance into a .312" diameter projectile. The 100gr .327 gets over 400 ft-lbs which is better than quite a few 9mm loads. Most .38 Special standard velocity loads are in the low 200's and even the .38 +P seldom gets to 300, especially in a snubby. Yet how many thousands of people feel adequately armed with a .38 Special? Apparently FrankenMauser feels a 125gr .38 +P at 976 fps (264 ft-lbs) is plenty adequate.
It's especially pleasing to me that the .327 enters into the .357 Magnum's territory out of a 4-inch barrel (apples to apples here, in comparing performance in 4-inch guns).
I'm a big fan of the big bullet theory -- people stop doing bad things sooner when you poke big holes in them. The 10mm, .41, .45 and .44 Special are some of my favorite rounds.
While I also have .38/.357's and 9mm's, for whatever reason, I'm fond of the .32 caliber revolver rounds. I'd dearly love S&W to re-issue the tack-driving Model 16 chambered for .327 Federal (with the "magnum underlug of the Model 19 to be consistent).
For the person who only owns one gun, the .327 is not a bad choice as long as the barrel is 3 inches or longer. There is some versatility there between all the cartridges & loads available to it and likely more to come.
(Note: If anyone starts blathering about the .38 Special or 9mm having more versatility in loads, I'll point out it has a 100 year head start!)
Frankenmauser said:
First off -- a nice pair of revolvers.
Certainly if we are talking equal velocities the heavier bullet tends to do a better job. But what I see is the 115gr Speer Gold Dot's performance as very good. At 1042 fps from a 2" it's barely subsonic. That's better than most .38 +P from a snubby. I expect the .32 caliber Gold Dot to be as good as their .38/9mm products too, so that means high reliability, even at lower speeds.
Fortunately, in the .327, the performance of the 100-115gr ammo is still quite good compared to .38 special out of a 2-inch. Looking at the .38 Special data at Ballistics By The Inch, the Speer 135gr GDHP launches from a 642 at 897 fps (241 ft-lbs) and the 100+grain .327's are comparable in their energy output (248 & 277 ft-lbs). Thus, we have diameter as the major difference.
If the extra round isn't a sufficient reason for you, so be it. It provides others with a certain "comfort level".
If you want to make the argument that the bigger diameter bullet is always going to be superior, then I'll take a bigger & heavier bullet at 750 fps from my nightstand companion.
This snubby fires those 230gr Hydrashok +P at an honest 827 fps out of a 2 5/8" barrel (349 ft-lbs)
These days, there seems to be many MORE thousands of people who feel adequately armed with 85 to 100 grain .380's from pistols smaller than the crap I took this morning.
I'm not one of them.
I applaud the folks that are armed -- the more, the better. But a NAA mini revolver in .22 Mag or a P3AT or a 2-inch .327 are not, IMO, enough effort.