Is the .327 Federal Magnum dead? -POLL-

Is the .327 Fed. Mag. Dead/Obsolete?

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 47.8%

  • No

    Votes: 96 52.2%
  • Total voters
    184
327 Federal

I am not ready to dig a grave for the 327 just yet and I would agree that the way it has been marketed was a major disaster.Almost any round out there that it is compared to has been around for ages.Ponder this the 9mm,45 acp,38 spl,and 44 spl all have been around for over 100 years.Even the 357 mag has been with us going on 80 (1935).Some seem to think that if it doesn't go to #1 right out of the box its a flop.I think it needs some time to find its identity.
Having said that I don't own one it just doesn't do anything for me.I handload so I can load either a 9mm or a 357 mag and 38 spl up or down to give the same or better performance.If I didn't already have these then maybe it might get me thinking on it but doesn't give me a strong enough desire to go get one.I think a lot of others feel the same way.
 
Well, I knew I would get some flak for my comments. While I have not done research and don't have any market analysis in front of me, I've never seen someone look at or buy a revolver other than myself, and I spend a fair amount of time hitting up the local gun stores. The revolvers don't move. Maybe its just a localized thing?

And I don't think by any means that revolvers aren't selling. I just think the market is shrinking. But I could be completely wrong as a few of you have attested.

In either case, the overarching point is that it is not a healthy market in which to introduce a new round. I think a new round in the auto world has a much better chance of success just because there's a better chance of getting more guns out there. When the total number of guns sold is relatively small, it becomes that much harder to justify production of the round.
 
I also doubt flooding the market with "very cheap" handguns chambered in .327 will do anything but make true gun enthusiasts identify the caliber with POS firearms.
Click to expand...

I did not mean cheap quality, I meant inexpensive. You'll note I said very cheap or free. I meant companies taking a loss on the guns to get them in people's hands. Similar to what inket printer companies do, or at least used to do, so they could sell the ink cartridges. Or videogame consoles use the same formula, they are all sold at a loss vs. what it costs to make them.

I was suggesting this as a temporary measure to get the round accepted, and then increase prices reasonably. Thinking about it again, I think the "free" gun is probably the better approach. Donate them to the NRA and others to give away, just get them out there, and gain some good press in the process. This assumes that someone making guns has a stake in the round though; I'm not sure who has a stake in the round (Federal?).
 
I have a 632 SS J frame- compensated. I put fiber optics on it. With 32 Longs it is a sweetheart to shoot. With 327s, it is just fine for a SD revolver. My little hands like the Js has compared to my SW M19.
 
You can't fit 6 rounds of .357 in the cylinder. And, you REALLY can't fit 6 rounds of .44 Mag or .45 Colt in a revolver anywhere near that size.
Click to expand...
And why do you need six? Why not 7,8,9 then? My Bulldog has 5 and seems quite serviceable for CC... For 'sport', really you only need a single shot. and for woods SD my Six Shooters loaded with 5 is plenty.... and I wouldn't be carrying a .32 anything around in these woods (if I have a choice).... Just saying :) .
 
327 magnum is one of the few pistol rounds I can find on the shelves at the lgs's. It's a great round, but it's a revolver round and they're just not as popular these days. I'd love to see a lever gun in 327 federal magnum.
 
I have 2 guns in 327, a Taurus and SP101. I like the round. 32's have been around for a long time and its good that 32 finally has a modern magnum level round in a handgun. A lever gun in 327 would be great. Revolvers can fire .32 s&w, 32 s&w L, .32 H&R, 327, 32 ACP.
The SP101 is practically a collectors item now unfortunately. The muzzle blast/recoil is very stout.

Been looking for a BH or GP100 but haven't seen any.

They ought to make a Redhawk with 8-10 rounds and a lever gun in .327.
 
I think it would make resurgence if the gun companies would see its best potential. That's NOT as a defense round, but a round for the outdoorsman.
If Ruger and S&W would make light slim revolvers in the 327 FM with 4 and 6 inch barrels and with adjustable sights many outdoorsman would buy them I believe. I know I would.

We are just overrun with personal defense, police and military handguns. What the market needs is some good old fashioned guns for the hunter, fisherman and backpackers.

For every cop, and every military man in this country I’d bet there are 100 outdoorsmen.
That’s not to say that an avid outdoorsman can’t use military or police handguns, but I should also point out that many military and police are also outdoorsmen. S&W and Ruger (and maybe even Colt) would do well to make a few revolvers for that market.

S&W used to make the “K-32” and Ruger made some Single Sixes in 32 H&R. Both sold well enough to justify their manufacture. Rugers SP101 with a light 5" barrel and adjustable sights would sell very well I think.

If these companies would make a few thousand revolvers a year in slim barreled version I am sure they would sell all they made.

They will never sell in the numbers that 9MM and 45 autos will, or even 357 magnums, but I am SURE that they would vastly outsell 327 magnums in 2-3 inch defense type guns they already tried. The 38 spl is always going to be ahead of the 327 in sales of comcealment guns. But most of us would love a flat shooting light kicking field gun for small game hunting and plinking that we can reload and shoot cheaply. The 327 is a perfect shell for that kind of thing, and the factories are missing the boat on its best market.
 
If Ruger and S&W would make light slim revolvers in the 327 FM with 4 and 6 inch barrels and with adjustable sights many outdoorsman would buy them I believe. I know I would.
Click to expand...
Yep. Make an SP101 with a 4.5" barrel, and I'll buy two. (I also really like the idea of a S&W Airweight with a ~4" barrel, but I don't buy new S&W products. :()

Kick out an 77/327 based on the 77/22 Hornet, and I'll fly to Singapore to sell a testicle, so I can afford to buy half a dozen rifles and 10 years' worth of American Eagle 100 gr SPs.

I would thoroughly enjoy a .327 Federal "Super Bearcat" (skip the Single Six), but that's so far into fantasy land, that it's just a mythical creature.
 
the .327 is the red haired step child of modern pistol cartridges. It does have interesting ballistics, but those are surpassed with normal ammo from a 38 special or 9mm.

yes you can put 6 rounds into that cute pretty scandium alloy snubnose revolver, but you end up with a light weight scandium alloy snubnose firing 6 rounds of light 357 magnum ammo.

no one likes that. and the big guns that fire this cartridge, that easily tame MAGNUM style recoil, already come in magnum cartridges. its slightly self defeating.
 
I think the .327 suffered three problems:

1. poor marketing,

2. poor timing,

3. not enough platform support.

There isn't much that can be done about number 2 but 1 and 3 suggest the need for changes in the marketing departments at Ruger and Federal.

In an ultimate marketing fail, they came out of the gate muddy by naming it the ".327". That automatically forced a dubious comparison with the .357. That also helped to bolster the popular charge faced by many new "middle calibers": that it is an answer in search of a question. This should have been released as a novel, stand-alone, small-caliber round with exceptional power (which can effectively fire all those other .32 revolver calibers).

After coming out of the gate with that burden, they went on to pidgeon hole it as a self-defense caliber in the marketing. That immediately sucked potential from bigger or longer platforms where this round can really shine, such as 4-6" revolvers and lever guns. The latter is an especially helpful draw for niche calibers which can both cement the round in the market and promote double sales. It also caused it to pass over hunters and range shooters who could have gotten excited about it. These folks are an important and long-established part of the firearms market. Once passed over, the languishing caused negative press like the topic of this thread and now that's what they see in their future considerations of getting into this new caliber.

What's worse is that even as a self-defense pitch, they missed the target. With a little more effort, they could have effectively driven home the premise that this round means small-frame six-shooters with real power. Like a farmer who half-tills a field, they just didn't put in the energy necessary to follow through, show it off, and make it cool. They also failed to develop this out to medium-frame seven-shooters or a larger-framed 8+ gun in preparation for launch.

Given the proliferation of calibers and the ground covered by time-tested favorites, companies need to realize that the successful launch of a new one requires committing to substantial investment and embracing big risk. I am still hoping that this caliber can be saved since I love it. I'm just disappointed that it is even in a position where it needs to be saved.
 
I actually saw some .327 ammo on the shelf at the local Cabela's this week. They had several boxes of it, but I have no revolvers that shoot this caliber. I had not seen any on the shelves anywhere in a couple of years before this.

Joe
 
After coming out of the gate with that burden, they went on to pidgeon hole it as a self-defense caliber in the marketing.
Click to expand...

I think that may have had a little to do with it. This happened too far back for many to remember, but the .327's predecessor, the .32 mag was introduced in 1983 as an outdoorsman's caliber, but it proved too underpowered for that, so it foundered.

The defense market is over-saturated with defense handgun calibers, but if the could have christened the .327 as a featherweight do all cartridge like the .357, (maybe a "baby brother" type roll out?) it may have gained more initial footing.

Ruger did an OK job with platform roll out on both defense and hunting niches, but Federal was unable (unwilling?) to provide readily available ammo. That ultimately shot it out of the sky before full flight was achieved.

That's my take, anyway.

Regardless, I have my SP101 .327 and a lot of brass, so :rolleyes:.
 
Farmboy wrote:
... the .327's predecessor, the .32 mag was introduced in 1983 as an outdoorsman's caliber, but it proved too underpowered for that, so it foundered.
Click to expand...

I was too young to see that play out. Even now though, my favorite use of .32 H&R Magnum is in a light six-shot J-Frame. :rolleyes: How funny that they made the opposite mistake this time. It isn't as large a mistake since the .327 really does whack like a champ. It's just that it can do so much more. As you said:

The defense market is over-saturated with defense handgun calibers, but if the could have christened the .327 as a featherweight do all cartridge like the .357, (maybe a "baby brother" type roll out?) it may have gained more initial footing.
Click to expand...

It really should have sold as a high-power/low-caliber do-all. As I said above though, any explicit comparison to the .357 opens up the door for trouble. A cartridge like the .327 should have been launched to proudly create its own place. It should have been given a more unique name and probably one that implies its "super magnum" status. I feel like Smith and Wesson handled this better with their similar .45 Colt -> .454 Casull -> .460 S&W which shoots in revolvers named "XVR". Of course, that "super magnum" extends into the ridiculous end of the power spectrum where it lacks the incredible versatility of the .327 Federal.
 
If it is not dead it should be. .32 S&W Long is a very useful target/plinking/small game cartrridge. The .327 Federal however, fills a nich that does not exist. Not as good as the .32 S&W for target/plinking/small game, too light of a bullet compared to .357 for self-defence. Bigger is not always better. It will fade away like so many of the other new/better cartridges de jour (8MM Magnum, .256 Winchester, .32 Magnum, .357 Ultra Magnum, .221 fireball, 5MM Rimfire, .307 Winchester, etc., etc.) that no one hears of anymore, or chambers any new guns for it.
 
My .327 Fed. Mag. thinking. I have yet to see any "street" data on it's effectiveness, but I have also yet to see physics lie. With the ballistics being what they are, one of my carry guns is a SP101 in that caliber.
 
It will fade away like so many of the other new/better cartridges de jour (8MM Magnum, .256 Winchester, .32 Magnum, .357 Ultra Magnum, .221 fireball, 5MM Rimfire, .307 Winchester, etc., etc.) that no one hears of anymore, or chambers any new guns for it.
Click to expand...
Assuming you meant .350 Remington Magnum by ".357 Ultra Magnum", and .32 H&R by ".32 Magnum" (rather than .32-20)...
Every one of those has been chambered in a new firearm, over the last 8 years. Some of them, by multiple companies.

Remington chambered the 8mm Mag, .350 Mag, and 5mm Mag.
Ruger chambered 8mm Mag, .256 Winchester, .221 Fireball, and .307 Winchester.
Marlin chambered .256 Winchester and .32 H&R.
CZ chambered .221 Fireball and 5mm Mag.
Winchester chambered .307 Winchester in a commemorative 1895.
And, the list goes on, with more imports and companies along the lines of Cooper, Kimber, Montana Rifle Works, and more...

Many of those were limited runs or "distributor exclusive" type sales. But, they still got produced and sold. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top