.327 Federal Magnum snubs?

[Cheapshooter]

If Ruger were to chamber their LCR revolver in .327 Magnum and have six holes drilled in the cylinder, I'd probably buy one for pocket carry use.

Excelent idea, and I would be first in line for one. EXCEPT, It can't be done, or at least not with the current cylinder, and frame size. The 327 Federal Magnum SAAMI maximum pressure is 10,000 PSI higher than 357 Magnum requiring a stouter cylinder that then would be larger in diameter not fitting the exisitin frame size.

 

[rdmallory]

Starline is making brass ~$110 for 500. And since you should not have to bend over and pick it up should last a lifetime.

Doug

 

[Sevens]

It will last a while.
It will NOT last a lifetime. 45k PSI is hard on revolver brass and these split more often than any I've used.

I'd love to report that the brass lasts as long as .38 and .357, but that's not the case.

 

[glenncal1]

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/advanced_cat_search.php?cated=5&manufacturers_id=&ITATR_list[1]=238&ITATR_list[2]=&ITATR_list[3]=&ITATR_list[4]=&ITATR_list[5]=&ITATR_list[6]=

ammo

 

[Madcap_Magician]

357 magnum will already cause permanent hearing loss if you fire it indoors. 327 federal is FAR louder. I'd never use it for SD

So will any other caliber, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative.

 

[coalroller]

I seen a bunch of new brass for this caliber today at the outdoorsman in Ontario Oregon if anyone was looking for brass.

 

[dgludwig]

Quote (dgludwig):
If Ruger were to chamber their LCR revolver in .327 Magnum and have six holes drilled in the cylinder, I'd probably buy one for pocket carry use.

Quote (Cheapshooter): Excelent idea, and I would be first in line for one. EXCEPT, It can't be done, or at least not with the current cylinder, and frame size. The 327 Federal Magnum SAAMI maximum pressure is 10,000 PSI higher than 357 Magnum requiring a stouter cylinder that then would be larger in diameter not fitting the exisitin frame size.

An old thread, admittedly, but in the context of the above discussion, it's interesting to note that Ruger just announced that they will be producing an LCR revolver chambered in .327 Magnum. I plan on buying one first chance I get!

 

[Real Gun]

With that barrel under 2", I wonder what is the actual pressure with all that energy wasted going out the barrel.

 

[dgludwig]

Lots of energy is wasted with a shorter barrel, no matter the cartridge. It's a compromise we have to make when we carry compact handguns. I doubt they will, but I'd really like to see the new LCR chambered in .327 Magnum to be fitted with a 3" barrel.

 

[Model12Win]

This is one of the reasons why I'm not so hot on the new LCR with the tiny barrel in .327 Fed Mag.

Make mine a 3" or better in the cal, then we'll talk.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

I wonder if the revival of this thread had more to do with sticking it to any naysayers who said .327 was DOA back in 2013.

As per the energy issue, here is an excerpt from a post I made in the current thread on Ruger's new LCR in .327:

Looking at the muzzle energy graphs over at Ballistics by the Inch, here are some rough comparisons for a two-inch barrel that might come as a surprise:

110-170 ft-lbs for .38 special (appears to include +p)
135 ft-lbs for .32 H&R Magnum (only one ammo type tested)

180-280 ft-lbs for .327 Federal Magnum
200-320 ft-lbs for .357 magnum

The LCR barrel is actually 1.875" but this should help to put things into perspective. Compared to other popular snub rounds, you get plenty of punch with .327 (plus a sixth round). Shorter barrels mean wasting more force in any caliber. Hotter loads mean more waste, which means more flash and bang with either .327 or .357. The point is that this isn't a special issue for .327 Federal.

 

[Real Gun]

The question was whether short barrels reduce the pressure that the gun must withstand, i.e whether it can accommodate the caliber, i.e. whether the LCR is capable of handling the 327 Federal Magnum, an old question that seems to be settled. I just wondered if short barrels reduce pressure concerns.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Interesting read from the past.
It still amazes me that when ever 32 cal guns are talked about and esp the 327 Magnum.
The poo pooers come out in droves to disparage the choice. Its almost like a compulsion.
They tend to focus on a specif aspect and tout that as a reason NOT to even think about the caliber.
We tend to be over sensitive also. Usually turn it into poop flinging contest.

They miss the whole point entirely. The 32's and esp the 327 magnum are not one trick ponies. True they are not the best for any one choice, but when you look at all the roles that a 32 can and do fill.
It turns them into a absolute no brainer.

Not entirely their fault. The Gun mags and manufactures fostered the idea.

For us its a painful blessing???
Sure we want respect for the caliber. But on the other hand. We really like that you can find some examples of some very very good fire arms that we can buy at a fraction of the going rate for one in 38 cal. Sort of like having a super secret that only we know about.
Sooo Shhhhhhhhh

In my world, if it ever comes too it and we only one choice for a hand gun.
I keep my Ruger single 7 5.5 inch in 327 magnum.
Can fill all my needs, except maybe bear defense. Its is accurate enough though maybe a get a lucky eye shot as I try to run away.

 

[tallball]

I am a 32 fan. The 327 gives you one revolver that fills multiple roles:

32 sw and 32 sw long for plinking with no more recoil than a 22.

32 h&r magnum for a respectable sd round perfect for those who have problems with recoil.

327 for a sd round closer to a 357.

And about half of my 32 magnums will shoot 32acp just fine.
.
No wonder I own several of them!

 

[2damnold4this]

Looking at the muzzle energy graphs over at Ballistics by the Inch, here are some rough comparisons for a two-inch barrel that might come as a surprise:

110-170 ft-lbs for .38 special (appears to include +p)
135 ft-lbs for .32 H&R Magnum (only one ammo type tested)

180-280 ft-lbs for .327 Federal Magnum
200-320 ft-lbs for .357 magnum

Looking at the real world test for the 642, we get a muzzle energy of 241 foot pounds for the 135 grain Gold Dot. There isn't a real world test in a two or less inch barrel for the .327 but in the real world test for the 115 Gold Dot out of the 3" SP101, we get 469 foot pounds. I'd be ok with either but the 327 does have a good bit more zip on it and the one extra round is not a bad thing.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

That is true with factory ammo of any caliber. The Shorter the barrel the lower the performance.
It all depends on what barrel length the ammo was designed for.
Strange choice by the manufactures of both the Guns and the ammo.

The Gun guys selling it for short barrel use and the ammo company optimizing the loading's for a 4 inch barreled gun... ummm ok

Hand loading does allow one to optimize loads to the form factor being used.
You can create much better ammo than what is offered retail.
Not saying it super easy, because going to a faster powder load narrows the window of appropriate loads and still stay inside the pressure range.
But it is certainly do able.
it is in essence a simple burn rate problem. Slower powder and shorter barrel = a big flash with a higher amount of powder burning after the bullet has exited the barrel. That accomplishes nothing but cool factor.

Speed up the powder burn even just slightly= More powder burning behind the bullet and accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish.

 

[Model12Win]

.327 performance really suffers in barrels shorter than 3".

This cartridge relys on very high pressure (for a handgun) to drive a light bullet to ludicrous speed (for a handgun) to get the energy levels advertised ...... they use fairly slow powders and long barrels to get that speed.

Using a short barrel turns a lot of that speed into blast and noise ..... you get lower performance and more blast/recoil than the thing was designed to produce......

+1 Jim

This is one reason why I'm not excited about the new Ruger LCR in .327 Fed Mag. It's got a really short 1 7/8" bbl, not enough to do this cartridge justice. If they brought back the SP101 w/ 3" bbl or the LCRx w/ 3" bbl, I'd be all over that though.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

This is one reason why I'm not excited about the new Ruger LCR in .327 Fed Mag. It's got a really short 1 7/8" bbl, not enough to do this cartridge justice. If they brought back the SP101 w/ 3" bbl or the LCRx w/ 3" bbl, I'd be all over that though.

You can say the same thing about .357 magnum. The difference between a 2" and a 3" barrel for either caliber tends to be over 100 ft-lbs. Given the 2" numbers I shared above, it should be obvious that we are talking about more than a 50% increase in muzzle energy for most loads in either caliber. So again, it's not just about doing this caliber justice. It's a feature of short barrels in general.

That said, I'm sorry to have missed the 3" SP101. I love my 4" version but it's in a different carry class. For pocket carry, this new LCR should be an excellent alternative to current models in .38 or .357.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It makes sense as marketing - people like snubbies.

 

[Real Gun]

You can say the same thing about .357 magnum.

Unless maybe one of the big frames, a 357 snub is another bad idea. At least there is enough acceptance of the concealed carry or duty carry 357 for some commercial ammo to have been optimized for short barrels. My shortest 357 is 3".