Any downsides to .327 SS conversion?

[gak]

...other than cost of course. If you already have a .32 H&R, I'm assuming what you end up with in a Bowen/Clements/Harton conversion is a convertible with two cylinders, your original and the .327...with no other changes other than re-label/finish if you want? Or is the barrel re-installed/adjusted to address the new the cyl/barrel gap with the larger cylinder..rendering the old cylinder problematic/moot (or not needed anyway)?

Or,...to make things "easier," has anyone heard even a smidgeon of rumor lately that Ruger is on the verge of doing the right thing and coming out with this themselves? If this isn't truly in the works, again cost aside, it would seem a conversion on an existing H&R is a relative no brainer.

 

[Mark McWillis]

Your original cylinder won't work as the barrel as to be shortened in the throat area to accommodate the longer cylinder. Bowen is building one for me as we "speak" should be done next month.

 

[gak]

That"s what I started to recall from previous descriptions and visits to Bowens' and Clements' sites. Look forward to your report. I'm wondering about impact of new cylinder on accuracy with H&R when shot out of the .327 cylinder. Probably negligible and I imagine "no worse" than a comparable .38 or .44 Special out of their respective Mags.

 

[Boxhead]

Only downside I am aware of is lack of available brass.

 

[dougader]

And ammo... and when you do get those, you will be burning more powder...

 

[461]

While I don't have a Single-Six in .327, I had Mr. Harton rechamber my SP-101 from an H&R to the .327 and have had no issues at all. The H&R still shoots fine as do the longs and even the acp's. The cylinder on the SP-101 is long enough for the .327 so no new cylinder is needed.

I go back and forth over having my H&R Single-Six converted, but it's going to wait until I spend more time shooting and loading the .327 to see if I think I need it. I've also got a Marlin levergun in H&R that may have to get converted as well if I get more involved in the .327.

 

[gak]

I'm mostly interested in the SS but your SP101 conversion sounds nice too. Not to rain on your parade, but given the wide availability of 101s already in the .327 from the factory, was that a cost-effective route (incl wait, etc), vs just selling the H&R and buying a new one?

 

[2 dogs]

I have had a custom Harton SS for quite a while. It's a
dandy!

 

[mustang99]

gak, I'd wait....

 

[Robb Barnes]

I have no trouble with 32 H&R mags in my Single Six 327 that John Gallagher did for me. Both shoot great.

 

[Allen207]

I have no trouble with 32 H&R mags in my Single Six 327 that John Gallagher did for me. Both shoot great.

Wow what a beauty! The Bisley frame and oct barrel make for a very sweet .32

 

[Axehandle]

While that was a beautiful 5 shot 327 that Alan Harton did for 2 Dogs I think that even the Dawgs says that the 5 shot gun is overkill in the 327.. Hamilton Bowen describes his conversion and prices a simple full length cylinder fitting on his web site... That octagon 327 John Gallagher did for Robb is something special...

 

[Mark McWillis]

I should mention that I also have 2 FA 97's in .327 and like them a lot. I bought a couple of cases of ammo as soon as it was available so I'm set for brass. Mr. Bowen told me there is no reason to do a 5 shot cylinder. 6 is plenty strong. I have several other guns built by him and I'm really looking forward to getting this one.

 

[Boxhead]

So are folks finding brass available???

 

[Jeff Hoover]

Robb Barnes, That is BEAUTIFULL!!!!!

 

[JWhitmore44]

I had asked in another string why you couldn't load up the 32 mag to the same performance as the 327. I think I got the answer that the 32 mag cylinder wont hold up to the pressure of the 327. But yet I read on the custom makers web site that the single six cylinder is plenty strong even as a 6 shooter and that is is just not log enough. If the later is the case, then why go 327 in the single six except for the fact that you may be able to get a few extra grains of powder into the longer case. Maybe a heavier or longer bullet would work in the 327 where you wouldn't have room in the 32mag. Do they really heat treat the 327 cylinder different than the 32 (I have my doubts). I'm just not seeing the benefit of going from the 32mag to the 327 for the cost.

With that being said I probably wont try loading my 32's to 327 ranges. If I need something hotter than the 32mag I'm switching to something that starts with a 4

Now, I do think it would be a good idea for Ruger to make some more 32 (or 327) single six's I can always use it as an excuse to by another gun. If you are doing the conversion because you want something with some cool factor, then go for it. that I can understand.

 

[gak]

Part of the "answer" here lies with the likelihood of a production .327 SS, which I think eventually is quite high. To my knowledge, Ruger never simultaneously ran H&R adjustable and fixed (Vaquerito) sight guns. I would hope that they'd change that and build both!--but I'll take either. Sure have enjoyed my .32s of both ilk--equally. Given that they're doing neither at the present time, that may (?) be unlikely, but they've done that with the SS .22s so one can always hope!

I'm one of those that has always enjoyed the H&R for what it was, and was never really too critical that it wasn't more powerful off the shelf. That's what the likes of Georgia Arms or reloading is for. For one thing, the discontinued but great S&W 430 series Airweights apparently aren't suitable to the high-pressured .327 anyway...So it's a nice poppin' round just the way it is also in the platforms it's been sold in. Sure ain't no .22, but it's somewhat understandable that the bigger-is-better gun writer and readership crowd never quite warmed to it, sensing under-development (because of older/weaker H&R revolvers or whatever reason) and missed opportunity for something even more poppin'. Otherwise, especially since they have finally come along with the .327, it's now nice to have the (idea of a) choice of mild (but still decent) or wild--like the other two well-known Specials and their larger "truly" magnum brothers--out of the same gun.

 

[dougader]

I had asked in another string why you couldn't load up the 32 mag to the same performance as the 327. I think I got the answer that the 32 mag cylinder wont hold up to the pressure of the 327. But yet I read on the custom makers web site that the single six cylinder is plenty strong even as a 6 shooter and that is is just not log enough. If the later is the case, then why go 327 in the single six except for the fact that you may be able to get a few extra grains of powder into the longer case. Maybe a heavier or longer bullet would work in the 327 where you wouldn't have room in the 32mag. Do they really heat treat the 327 cylinder different than the 32 (I have my doubts). I'm just not seeing the benefit of going from the 32mag to the 327 for the cost.

With that being said I probably wont try loading my 32's to 327 ranges. If I need something hotter than the 32mag I'm switching to something that starts with a 4

Now, I do think it would be a good idea for Ruger to make some more 32 (or 327) single six's I can always use it as an excuse to by another gun. If you are doing the conversion because you want something with some cool factor, then go for it. that I can understand.

I asked the same question on the sixguns website, and the answer is pretty much what you've come up with. The pressure isn't really the problem, its the ability to load heavier bullets and get "magnum" performance from those heavier (and longer) bullets.

That said, I doubt if I'd ever load mine to 40k psi... may push the edges to 30-32k psi, much like I do with a 45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk/Bisley.