.327 Federal Club thread

Very interesting, Mr. Flados ......

I've always avoided low density loads, mostly because they allow a double charge to go undetected ....... but also have read much about positional variations in burn rate ...... and have read about potential detonation danger with very fast powder at low densities......
 
Jimbob86,

Your "potential detonation danger" phrase makes me think of powders in or close to the Blue Dot to H110/WW296 range. These powders have very well described concerns when the powder densities get too low.

Down in the very fast end of the burn rate spectrum, lots of evidence would say that charge rates can be dropped to barely get the bullet out of the barrel with no "detonation" danger. One of the more detailed independent assessments of low charges can be found at the link below. I am not completely convinced in all of the conclusions at this site, but I did agree with most of what was said. There is also huge amount of real data presented.

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm
 
Last edited:
Down in the very fast end of the burn rate spectrum, lots of evidence would say that charge rates can be dropped to barely get the bullet out of the barrel with no "detonation" danger.
Click to expand...

I'm not a scientist of the internal ballistics type, but nearly all the KB'ed pistols I have seen in person or on the 'net involved low density loads of very dense, fast powder ...... usually titegroup in a .40S&W.

Your wild velocity swings tend to make me think that there is wide swing in pressure ....... and powder is progressive, with regard to burn rate- the higher the pressure, the faster it burns ....... what you are seeing can't be good.

While you may save a few cents on powder, you are making poor ammo, and risk being penny wise and pound foolish if you damage your gun.
 
I just wanted to let everyone know I had sent Ruger an e-mail asking if they had planned to put out the LCRX platform in the 327mag round. They responded today saying they do not plan on putting out the LCRX in ANY other caliber... Needless to say I was a little disappointed.:( I would of preferred to have the gun in 327 with a hammer, they already make barrels and cylinders in the regular LCR's so????
 
WARNING: YOUR USE OF ANY LOAD DATA WRITTEN IN MY POST IS DONE AT YOUR OWN RISK. I ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE OR INJURY RESULTING FROM USING THIS INFORMATION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

If you want a really fun (and cheap) load for your .327 Federal, try using the 71g FMJ with 8.0g of Bluedot (standard primer) in a .32 H&R case. I found it to be very accurate at 15 yards from my Ruger SP101 in 327 Fed. I was averaging 1162 fps. Increasing to 8.5g of Bluedot (in my .327 Federal Single Seven) gave me 1368 fps with excellent accuracy also. They ring the gong pretty strong. I had zero signs of over-pressure with both loads and burned clean. The 8.5g load feels like it could be a hotter .327 Federal load.

This load is found elsewhere online from people who have "tested" the load, but not published by any manufacturer. This is not my creation, but it sure is a fun little round. If you give it a try, I would work up, of course. I am not sure if I would go anymore than the 8.5 grain of bluedot, though I have seen online load data for higher with this case/weight combo.

Sorry for this being slightly off topic, but it is relevant since you should only try this load in a .327 Federal chambered gun. I have not tested this in a 32 H&R gun. I suggest you not do that testing either.

Again, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
 
Soft loads?

What's the quietest, softest shooting handload that is reasonable (i.e. consistent ignition) to shoot in a .327 gun? Load up some .32 ACP?
 
32 S&W Long with 98 grain WC shot from my 327. These were shot from 25 yards with less than 2 grains of powder.

TgtWC1_zps1a9d908f.jpg
 
Smee, I have thought for a while that we would not see additional calibers in the LCRx model. I felt like looking at the gun it likely did not have the strength to handle pressures higher than 38 special + P. You'll notice on the LCR that there is a pin at the top of the polymer portion of the gun near the rear site which provides additional strength for the recoil of a larger higher pressure caliber. The LCRx does not have this strengthening pin. I think in order to get a higher pressure caliber into the LCRx it would require an almost complete redesign.
 
I just wanted to let everyone know I had sent Ruger an e-mail asking if they had planned to put out the LCRX platform in the 327mag round. They responded today saying they do not plan on putting out the LCRX in ANY other caliber... Needless to say I was a little disappointed. I would of preferred to have the gun in 327 with a hammer, they already make barrels and cylinders in the regular LCR's so????
Click to expand...
This is getting into a non .327 related topic, but I will respond.

It's likely because Ruger does not want to have the LCRx line compete with the SP101 line. The .38 LCRx works for the LCR because it's a low power cartridge and its a waste of steel in the SP101's. Making the LCR in .22, .357, or .327, directly competes with the SP101.

With this response by Ruger, it all but confirms what I've long believed.

Welp, guess that basically means the .327 is not going to be chambered in any other Ruger guns beyond what's now available. I don't see Ruger putting it in the GP100 again, nor the Blackhawk.

Maybe the Vaquero for Cowboy Action Shooting.
 
Smee, I have thought for a while that we would not see additional calibers in the LCRx model. I felt like looking at the gun it likely did not have the strength to handle pressures higher than 38 special + P. You'll notice on the LCR that there is a pin at the top of the polymer portion of the gun near the rear site which provides additional strength for the recoil of a larger higher pressure caliber. The LCRx does not have this strengthening pin. I think in order to get a higher pressure caliber into the LCRx it would require an almost complete redesign.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I can see what you're getting at, but why then wouldn't Ruger also make a .22 LR version of the LCRx? It would directly compete against the S&W 317 and be a better gun in the process.

I'll also mention that not all pins have to go through in order work. By this I mean the LCR has one through pin, but the LCRx could possibly work by have two pins, one on each side of the exposed hammer.
 
Last edited:
It's likely because Ruger does not want to have the LCRx line compete with the SP101 line.
Click to expand...

Interesting point of view but I'm not sure I agree: I think the LCR and the SP101 revolvers are enough different from each other that they appeal to different buyers; sort of like the different rationale for buying that is posed between Smith&Wesson J-frames and K-frames or between K-frames and L-frames. Significant enough differences in size, weight and general configuration to attract diverse buyers in my view.
 
Not that my opinion really matters, but I would love an .327 LCRX to supplement my SP101 in 327 Fed. I have little interest in the LCR in .327 Fed Mag, especially at the $600 prices I see. If they come down to half that price, I might consider it, but I really do not like short barrels, and for sure not that short (1.87" ??).

I see an X version, with a slightly longer barrel (@ 3"), no competition to the SP101. I feel that both designs serve very different purposes and interest.

They would have a sale with me if they came out with the .327 in the 3" LCRx, perhaps even at the $600 price range.
 
Last edited:
The LCR 38 is built on a lighter frame than the LCR 327 or 357. Just a guess but is the LCR-X built up from that lighter frame? It might be less about competing with the SP101 and more about investing in yet another frame type.
 
Cosmo, the .38 and .22 rimfire LCR's have an Aluminum frame, the others are steel. So far as I can tell, Ruger would have to make the steel frame with the longer barrel shroud for the LCRx, with the Aluminum frame, Ruger could make the LCRx in .22 LR and .22 Magnum tomorrow.
 
It does and I'm hearing rumors from other parts of the Internet that a .22 LCRx with 3 inch barrel or longer is already in the works, so that means Ruger is looking at making the longer barreled LCRx revolvers.

As for .327, if you can make the LCRx in .357, you can do it with .327. I don't think the higher pressures the .327 operates at will make a difference at all.
 
The .327 Federal LCR is built on the steel (.357 Mag) LCR frame.
So there's really no reason they can't ream a 6-shot cylinder, install a different barrel/liner, and do the same on the .357 LCRx frame (if there's even a difference between frames).
 
Something completely unrelated to the current topic.

I bought a Single 7 a while back and really enjoy shooting it. I have been drooling over the Henry carbine set to come out soon so that I can have a companion to the S7. However, price puts it a bit out of reach with future home renovations needing funded. An idea started forming in my head. I have a Ruger M77 in 30-06 that rarely gets used, its a very nice gun, Leupold scope, ported barrel, very nice walnut...its just not used much.

I'm sure most of you are aware of MCA Sports (http://www.mcace.com/adapters.htm) chamber adapters. They are a semi-permanent way of making certain guns capable of shooting something of lower power. They sell an adapter for the 30-06, chambered for the .32 H&R Mag. A .327 mag chamber reamer from Pacific Tool is around $150.

You know where I'm going with this...Why couldn't I ream the chamber of the adapter and then fix it into my 30-06 and make my very own .327 mag rifle? I emailed MCA with this very question. The response? "the adapter will split in the first few shots." That's it..no explanation or reasoning.

Needless to say I'm not satisfied with my answer. I'm not sure how extraction would work in a bolt gun, obviously I'd be feeding cartridges in single shot.

Any thoughts? Should I leave it alone and move on? Or should I satisfy my curiosity and risk the loss of a $30 adapter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top