wnycollector
New member
I'm interested. I'm a sucker for 32, especially if it comes in a barrel length I don't currently have in my collection.
7 shot 32 HR mag revolver from Charter Arms
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
A handloaded 327 Federal with a 85 gr XTP runs 1700 fps from my 4.2" SP101, so it's not what I would call a 'little more'.
FrankenMauser
New member
We all have our preferences.
I like .327 Federal.
I bought four different revolvers chambered for it, and daily carry one of them.
...But one has been sold (pending funds), another is for sale, and I prefer .32 H&R (and .32 S&W Long).
.32 H&R is the sweet spot, in my opinion.
Sure, I saw 1,725 fps out of the 5.5" Blackhawk with AE 100 gr factory ammo on a hot day; while my hottest .32 H&R load only clocked about 1,350 fps from the same barrel (and a lighter bullet).
But I find myself wanting more .32 H&R and less .327 Federal...
I like .327 Federal.
I bought four different revolvers chambered for it, and daily carry one of them.
...But one has been sold (pending funds), another is for sale, and I prefer .32 H&R (and .32 S&W Long).
.32 H&R is the sweet spot, in my opinion.
Sure, I saw 1,725 fps out of the 5.5" Blackhawk with AE 100 gr factory ammo on a hot day; while my hottest .32 H&R load only clocked about 1,350 fps from the same barrel (and a lighter bullet).
But I find myself wanting more .32 H&R and less .327 Federal...
Onward Allusion
New member
I would have preferred 327 Fed Mag instead of 32 H&R Mag. More options in a similar sized gun. Really would love to have a 10-shot DA in 327 Fed Mag. It wouldn't be much bigger than a S&W 627 or Taurus 608.
Geez...while I've always considered Charter Arms revolvers sort of clunky in their looks, but this one is downright purdy!
I'd object to the front sight (needs to be all metal and with a tritium dot if you absolutely have to have night sights), and needs an adj. rear sight, but the rest seems to be good/great. Too, in my own .32 H&R's, (2 Ruger Single Sixes and a S&W M16), I've never found the chambering (vs. .327) to be a detriment for suitable uses. I hunt with them for woodchucks, squirrels, skunks and coons, but think that any .32 is a bit small for SD use. YMMV, and some very knowledgeable folks here on TFL, do advocate for SD use.
Hope the new gun's trigger is up to snuf and that QC issues are well taken care of. Rod
I will bet a nickel that Ruger introduces a .327 in their 3" LCRX soon. They must have one in the works and this competition from Charter will be the kick they need to get it out sooner than later. I like the looks of the Charter but when Ruger does start selling their version, that's the one I'll buy. Six rounds instead of seven, but adjustable sights and a very good trigger, and about the same weight (at a guess, based on their other models).
what charge weight are you using. Hodgdon doesn't even show L'il Gun on the 85gr load data with the three powders they list for this cartridge.
https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol
Here are some loads from Load Data written by Brial Pearce and he always loads hot but I don't see any loads approaching that speed. He is using a 3.5" barrel so just a little shorter than yours but not enough to explain the vast difference in speeds.
https://loaddata.com/articles/PDF/LD-13 Pearce LR1.pdf
I looked in my old 2004 Hodgdon annual and te 327 isn't even listed. I guess its time for a new one huh?
Not doubting you but would like to know what you are loading and where you got the data. The 327 is only 1/8th inch longer than the 32 mag so a 400fps difference is huge.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
I like the 327 LCR just like I like my 357 in magnum. I truely like having the ability to choose different ammo for different reasons without having to switch revolvers. I fully agree the the 32 H&R ammo is terrific.
what charge weight are you using. Hodgdon doesn't even show L'il Gun on the 85gr load data with the three powders they list for this cartridge.
https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol
Here are some loads from Load Data written by Brial Pearce and he always loads hot but I don't see any loads approaching that speed. He is using a 3.5" barrel so just a little shorter than yours but not enough to explain the vast difference in speeds.
https://loaddata.com/articles/PDF/LD-13 Pearce LR1.pdf
I looked in my old 2004 Hodgdon annual and te 327 isn't even listed. I guess its time for a new one huh?
Not doubting you but would like to know what you are loading and where you got the data. The 327 is only 1/8th inch longer than the 32 mag so a 400fps difference is huge.
I used published data from Hornady #10 and Lyman 50th with Accurate #9 powder.
People using this data should work their load up from starting charges.
The 327 is only 1/8th inch longer than the 32 mag so a 400fps difference is huge.
But the 327 Federal is loaded up to 45,000 psi while the 32 H&R is loaded up to 21,000 CUP. That's roughly twice the pressure.
And there is a 380 fps difference between Federal factory 32 H&R and 327 Fed with a 85 grain bullet, and the 32 H&R is fired from a longer 5" non-vented barrel and the 327 Federal from a 4" vented barrel, so the difference is not surprising at all.
Well thats a pretty good difference but not a selling point to me. The 32 mag has all the muzzle blast I care to hear. But if I had one of the 7.5" Rugers I might consider the 327. But not in a pocket pistol. If I need more than the 32 mag can deliver I'll just use a bigger gun.
HighValleyRanch
New member
A world of difference between .32 acp and .327!
Here's something from unblinkingeye that mentions the 6-shot H&R Mag, but I'm pretty sure it was on the Bulldog frame since it's called a "Police Undercover":
"In the 1985 issue of Gun Digest the first Charter Arms revolver chambered for the (then) new H&R .32 Magnum round was announced: a 6 shot Undercover. In the back of the issue it is more correctly identified as the Police Undercover, available with a 2 or 4 inch barrel. All of the 2” barrel guns were called the Police Undercover instead of Police Bulldog which at this point were 4” barrel only."
I believe their old 5-shot 32s were .32 S&W Long on the smaller Undercover frame. Their .22s only held 6, which is kind of lame imo.
"In the 1985 issue of Gun Digest the first Charter Arms revolver chambered for the (then) new H&R .32 Magnum round was announced: a 6 shot Undercover. In the back of the issue it is more correctly identified as the Police Undercover, available with a 2 or 4 inch barrel. All of the 2” barrel guns were called the Police Undercover instead of Police Bulldog which at this point were 4” barrel only."
I believe their old 5-shot 32s were .32 S&W Long on the smaller Undercover frame. Their .22s only held 6, which is kind of lame imo.
the older .32 Longs were 6 shots on the small frame. they later went with the same small frame of the 5 shot 38 and just made it a .32 mag. it could have easily been a 6 shot on that same frame.
This is really cool, the Bonnie and Clyde set on GB. The 32 Mag 6-shot appears to be on the small frame, 83 pics.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/803464147
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/803464147
Attachments
To me, with the 7 round cylinder, 3" barrel and the front sight this gun just looks more similar to the Ruger SP 101 4.2" in 327 than to all of the snub nose 32s and 327s.
Going up against the Ruger 4.2" would not be so bad. Just consider:
It is lighter and with the 32 Mag they were able to do 7 rounds instead of 6 for the Ruger.
I have the 4.2" Ruger. In this size gun, I really do not think that 32 mag is a bad choice at all. Some will not settle for less than a 327, but many will be just as happy with the 32 mag.
The MSRP for the Professional is $438.00, the MSRP for the Ruger is $769.00.
To compete with the Ruger, this biggest drawback I see in the design is the lack of adjustable sights. My Ruger has a big shift in POI with light vs. heavy bullets. I normally keep it dialed in for target loads, but like that I could easily adjust for heavies.
I am sure the CA will not shoot to the sights for the range of ammo that some folks will want to shoot.
Right now it is not quite a typical snub nosed and not quite a kit gun. If the gun shoots well and is reliable, it should be a fine gun and able to do decent at either role.
Going up against the Ruger 4.2" would not be so bad. Just consider:
It is lighter and with the 32 Mag they were able to do 7 rounds instead of 6 for the Ruger.
I have the 4.2" Ruger. In this size gun, I really do not think that 32 mag is a bad choice at all. Some will not settle for less than a 327, but many will be just as happy with the 32 mag.
The MSRP for the Professional is $438.00, the MSRP for the Ruger is $769.00.
To compete with the Ruger, this biggest drawback I see in the design is the lack of adjustable sights. My Ruger has a big shift in POI with light vs. heavy bullets. I normally keep it dialed in for target loads, but like that I could easily adjust for heavies.
I am sure the CA will not shoot to the sights for the range of ammo that some folks will want to shoot.
Right now it is not quite a typical snub nosed and not quite a kit gun. If the gun shoots well and is reliable, it should be a fine gun and able to do decent at either role.