.327 Federal Club thread

Speaking of which I used to have a .32-20 revolver and it was awesome. Another one they could have simply dusted off instead of reinventing the wheel.
Click to expand...
Naaaa, I'd rather skip the odd bottle-neck, thin brassed old low pressure round.

You could attempt to hot rod the .32-20 (and many, many have) but the mainstream companies couldn't ever get behind a hot .32-20 because of the scads of 100-year old guns out there that couldn't handle it.

This is a natural progression we've seen.
 
That's pretty, Hammer it!

I have a 432 that I got for $335 a few years ago, when they were discontinued.

I am tempted by the snubby 632 also. Sigh.
 
Kcub said
"Speaking of which I used to have a .32-20 revolver and it was awesome. Another one they could have simply dusted off instead of reinventing the wheel."

Sevens said
"Naaaa, I'd rather skip the odd bottle-neck, thin brassed old low pressure round.You could attempt to hot rod the .32-20 (and many, many have) but the mainstream companies couldn't ever get behind a hot .32-20 because of the scads of 100-year old guns out there that couldn't handle it.This is a natural progression we've seen."

In addition to a no-brainer .327 Single Six, I'd love to see a Ruger midframe (New Vaquero and Flattop) in a .32-20/.327 convertible--to satisfy both old and new "needs." USFA came out with such a gun--in their SAA--in limited production two years ago I drooled over. Several years back, Ruger had a similar combo set up with their Buckeye special and Vaquero (but with .32 H&R then). It was a hefty piece--as is the current .327 BH (to a lesser degree (more holes and the aluminum gf and erh compoments IIRC), but a midframe Sheriff (3.75) and 4-5/8" would be dandy.
 
"If we go by your extended diatribe, your buddy has you pegged brilliantly. You got suckered in to .41 Magnum and forever pigeon-holed yourself as "trying to be different" by using the oddball .41 Magnum when we all know that the .44 Magnum would not only have worked perfectly well for everything you use the .41 Magnum for, but it would be cheaper, more available, more mainstream, so many more platform and factory ammunition choices, so many more component bullet choices, so much easier to find brass for, so much easier to find other enthusiasts for to exchange load data and ideas with, ad nauseum."(SEVENS)

Sevens, first off..relax guy, have a gin and tonic:D You come across as on edge,...?

In response to your "diatribe", I didn't get "suckered into a .41 Magnum" as you stated. I had wanted one for years, and after reading Bob Milek's handgun hunting book (and praise of the .41 Magnum, in his "GUNS & AMMO" articles) in the early 80's and SIXGUNS and GUN NOTES #1 & #2, by Elmer Keith and his praise of the .41 for hunting and law enforcement, decided to buy one, as I wanted the .44 power, with less RECOIL. I got a Ruger Blackhawk 4 5/8". It does kick quite a bit less than the .44's, and hits just as hard. Most folks who spend more time in the field SHOOTING, instead of racking up high post counts and spewing advice online...are aware of that!...:rolleyes:.

I was not attempting to be "different", as you stated, but if I am considered as such, as a .41 Mag fan, I'm in good company. Old Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan convinced S&W and Remington to bring out the gun / caliber, and although it never caught on with the police to any extent, for many handgun hunters, the .41 Mag DOES fill a gap. You bring up some good points about cost, brass, loads, etc., for newbies or one gun shooters, but you won't convince me or any other real .41 fans otherwise. I have all the .41 cal brass, lead and primers I need. ;)
 
Last edited:
QUICK! You missed it: My point, that is.

No, man, I like your .41 Magnum... a lot. I like the odd stuff. That's probably why I've been shooting 10mm since 1992 and I am now enamored with my new Coonan. In fact, I've avoided the .41 Magnum like the plague because I've got my hands full with the somewhat odd stuff that I do right now already and I've got myself spread nicely thin.

It's just a little nuts that you point out the uselessness of the .327 Federal Mag while talking about your love for the .41 Mag. It's ironic... maybe you meant for it to be ironic, I don't know. It's not like I dragged you off the street and shoved buckets of .327 goodness in your face -- you elected to post in a thread with SIX HUNDRED FORTY FOUR POSTS of discussion on the .327 Federal Mag to tell the gathered masses, "Meh, .357 does anything it could do, seems like a waste of time."
Most folks who spend more time in the field SHOOTING, instead of racking up high post counts and spewing advice online...are aware of that!... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That's perfectly adorable, what you've done there.

In the calendar year 2011, my records indicate that I handloaded somewhere in the neighborhood of 22,000 rounds. Couldn't be that I shot it all up, did I? Naaa... I've got at least 1,000 rounds of 9mm here in my stock. Of course, I made that in January.

Hell, I don't know. But I think I've gotten in a little shooting. I'm starting slow this year, only 950 in in 2012. The cold weather has had a large hand in that. Things tend to pick up in the summer. I think I'll do okay.

I guess I better ask the TFL staff if they could possibly reduce my post count lest some schmuck think that I don't shoot enough. :p
 
Glenn,

The 432 is a sweet little gun, though I do wish the factory load was just a tad hotter. This little jewel needed only one thing out of the box -- front sight paint! To have something this small with six shots of .327 would be a great defensive gun. Has anyone converted an aluminum framed .32 H&R to .327? I'd be afraid to trust it. I'm not even sure a Scandium frame would hold up without it being specifically engineered for the higher pressure of the .327.
SW432PDhand.jpg

S&W 432PD, .32 H&R Magnum
 
Has anyone converted an aluminum framed .32 H&R to .327? I'd be afraid to trust it. I'm not even sure a Scandium frame would hold up without it being specifically engineered for the higher pressure of the .327.
Click to expand...

I still haven't heard of anyone that has done it. I don't even know of a gunsmith that's willing to gamble their name on it.
 
Nice looking ladysmith Hammer!

Sevens; the .32 special aspect of the .32H&R is what makes it attractive to me. The porridge is neither too hot (.327) or too cold (.32S&W) but just right. :D Well balanced like the .44 special.

That said there is one advantage to the large case capacity of the .327. It would make a nice black powder round I think. ;)

mike
 
There are a lot of folks who bash the .327 as a solution in search of a problem. Another group of folks turn up their noses and say that the .327 doesn't do anything as well as the .38/.357. The cost-benefit types claim that the 6th shot in a J-frame doesn't make up for the round's power.

So here are two charts for you to look at, comparing the .327 Federal Magnum to the .357 Magnum, using various barrel lengths[¹]. One chart compares muzzle velocities[²] and the other compares muzzle energies.

327MagVelocityBBL_LengthJPG.jpg

In the graph above, the dotted lines represent the velocities of two selected .357 Magnum loads by barrel length. It shows the 100gr American Eagle .327 has a velocity slightly better than the 125gr .357 Magnum (CorBon). It also shows that the .327's velocities track well alongside the .357. We can safely say that the velocities are very similar to the two most popular .357 loads. In a short barrel, the .327 Federal Magnum has more velocity out of short barrels than the .357 Magnum.

327MagEnergyBBL_length.jpg

In this graph, the dotted lines represent the muzzle energy of two selected .357 Magnum loads by barrel length. In barrels under 4-inches, the .327 Magnum produces as much or more power than the .357 Magnum. The the 4-inch level, the .357 has ~50 ft-lbs more power than the .327. The .357 does generate more power at the 6-inch length by about 60-90 ft-lbs.[³]

The downsides to the .327 Magnum are that it doesn't produce quite the energy of the .357 Magnum in longer barrels and that the ammo is initially more costly. Ammo costs may decrease if the round becomes more popular. The upsides, however are significant. The .327 Magnum is superior in a short barrel and nearly the same up to a 4-inch barrel. In addition to better than .357 performance you get reduced recoil and flash from the shorter barrels. Plus you have that 6th round (an extra 7th or 8th round in some guns).

So, I can get "better than" .357 Magnum performance plus a 6th shot in a J-Frame with less recoil and flash. Seems like a good choice for a carry gun to me.

Reloading the .327 should be quite economical. The bullets weigh between 1-3 lbs less per 500 (reduced shipping costs) and it uses less powder too.

What's not to like?

¹ Velocity information from http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com
² The BBTI website was missing data for the 85gr Hydrashok in odd barrel lengths from 7 to 17 inches. To obtain the trend line for the 85gr load, missing data was filled by adding half the difference between listed velocities to the previous velocity. This is why the plot is much smoother than for other loads.
³ The .357 does generate more power, but the differences are not hugely significant until we get to 6-inch and longer barrels. In short barrels, the .327 is marginally better by about 20 ft-lbs. This may not seem significant until you consider that with any short-barreled handgun at close range you need all the advantage you can get.
 
I kinda like the .327...I bought a bunch of brass and some heavier bullets to mess around with, but just haven't had the time. Bought the 8-shot Blackhawk as the platform...I'll probably get Hamilton Bowen to make a few changes in the gun...shorter barrel...different sights...better trigger...usual stuff. My idea is to use the gun as a trail gun for hiking (I do a lot of that, with Alf the Wonder Beagle).

There's a big aftermarket in .327 Single Six conversions, and the guys on the single action boards are crazy about the cartridge. Bob Baker @ Freedom Arms builds a really really nice SA .327 revolver...I was almost tempted to open my wallet at SHOT.

Thinking about having my Bowen .30 Carbine Blackhawk rechambered...

Michael B

PS: Predator rifle is stupid fun!

PPS: Was in Brazil in November and begged the guys at Rossi to build a .327 Model 92 lever gun. The Marlin .32 H&R was cool but never worked worth a hoot, especially if you ran it fast...issues on the diameter of the mag tube, I think. I still have one...
 
I feel that in a contender using very heavy bullets, this could be a great 327 Whisper type round. Other than that, I struggle to see what it can do that a 357/38 cannot already do. Also, at 48k psi, I'll bet it is pretty loud!
 
Michael Baine said
"PPS: Was in Brazil in November and begged the guys at Rossi to build a .327 Model 92 lever gun."

+1 Good for you!! Any reaction?
 
I think the title is misleading

I feel that in a contender using very heavy bullets, this could be a great 327 Whisper type round. Other than that, I struggle to see what it can do that a 357/38 cannot already do. Also, at 48k psi, I'll bet it is pretty loud!
Click to expand...

No offense to this poster but since you are betting, it sounds like you have never heard the report of a 327 so I am betting you have never shot one either. As you cannot see what it can do, you probably haven't read posts 20-600 either. (Not that I blame you) or felt the reduced recoil.

BTW- I would have the same opinion except I have shot one and own one.


I have followed this thread for many months. About every 2 weeks, someone sees the topic,"what went wrong" and think they are joining a 'BASHING OF THE BULLETS' without reading the posts.

This is followed by the same 10 or 20 who valiantly defend it and the few hundred who wish they could have said it that well.

Rinse and repeat next week.

I wonder if it would make sense for BillCA, Sevens, Frankxxxx, Meyers etc to re-post the great data and graphs under a new title and close this one out.

Call it "The 327, what went right in spite of bad marketing" or "The little bullett who could" or "The bullet marketed before it was understood" or something with a positive note.

I know it would take time to re-post it once but I don't see this ending any time soon under this same name. :D
 
Last edited:
L2Rb said:
"BillCA, Sevens, Frankxxxx, Meyers etc to re-post the great data and graphs under a new title and close this one out.Call it "The 327, what went right in spite of bad marketing" or "The little bullett who could" or "The bullet marketed before it was understood" or something with a positive note.I know it would take time to re-post it once but I don't see this ending any time soon under this same name."

It's actually not a bad idea. I've been sorta bothered by the title of this from the start :) Those not all that familiar with the .327 to start with might get the wrong idea! I can see the headlines in the mid fifties, a mere two years after the Vette's intro when the Thunderbird was killing the Chevy. "What went wrong?" Advance forward a mere five years and then another forty five or fifty. Then, GM execs: "Boy that Vette was a bad idea wasn't it? We shoulda abandoned it way back then two years into it when sales and the press was a bit rough."
 
As the originator of this thread, with 33,000 views, I'm going to confidently say that things went exceptionally well.

I love the 327 Mag, and I'm the proud owner of a Ruger SP101 in the same chambering. The more this thing is under watchful public eye, the better chance it has to march on.

I guess that marketing degree I got many years ago paid off after all. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top