Ruger Announces New Model Blackhawk and GP100 In .327 Fed

[REP1954]

The fact of the matter is that this thread proves that it is NOT a popular introduction!

You're not wrong but remember that it is human nature to express more negative or contrary opinions first. For me, I'm on the disappointed side. However, the members here represent one very, very small segment of the buying public. And, we tend to be more opinionated; one way or another.

Hittman, I dont remember hearing this much negative feed back on the midsize 44 special.

 

[DGW1949]

I got nothing against a hopped-up .32 , it's just that I got no practical use for one.
Far as "fun" goes, I can make cans dance with what I got. And if I want to load cheap, I can load 38's for that.
Hunting?.....naw....a hopped up .32 won't do a thing that a 357 or 45 won't do better.
SD?....No again. Gun writers and velocity-hype aside, I'll just keep my 45's thank you. And you can bet that my wife aint giving up her Smith-36 for an ear-splitting 32 magnum magnum.....aint going to happen.

But that's just me.
Everyone else is welcome to buy all the .32's they want and they're welcome to shoot them out of as big of a revolver as they want.

I hope Ruger sells a million of 'em.

DGW

 

[redoktober]

I like my guns like my cars: heavy and made of steel!

I applaud Ruger for this interesting offering. I kinda wish we could get the GP 100 in some other calibers like the 10mm, .41 Mag, .44 Special and .22 LR/WMR.

The .327 in the GP100 would be a great revolver for my wife to stow in the nightstand on her side of the bed, or for teaching my son the basics of pistol shooting. Be a nice woods companion for him once he's old enough to go looking for rabbits or squirrels. I think the Blackhawk model, if offered in the Hunter configuration with a long barrel and scope mounts, would be a lot of fun. I wonder how well that would work on turkeys?

Anyhow, I appreciate hearing from Jeff, and for his quality reviews on Gunblast.com.

 

[tek4260]

The fact of the matter is that this thread proves that it is NOT a popular introduction!

You're not wrong but remember that it is human nature to express more negative or contrary opinions first. For me, I'm on the disappointed side. However, the members here represent one very, very small segment of the buying public. And, we tend to be more opinionated; one way or another.

Hittman, I dont remember hearing this much negative feed back on the midsize 44 special.

EXCELLENT POINT!!

 

[falrifles]

I love Ruger guns. I love the Blackhawks and the GP100. However, I feel the .327 magnum was a marketing mistake. The .357 magnum already has this niche filled very well. If something a bit less is desired, the .38 special fills that bill.

I hope they sell several semi trailers full....but I doubt it. Could be good investment guns when they discontinue them.

I hope I'm wrong.

Best wishes Ruger.

 

[Anonymous]

When the 327 came out, I wondered why....now these two offerings make me really wonder why.

I can't think of anything that these guns do in this caliber that they could not have done with cartridges that existed prior to the 327's emergence. As I said earlier, it is dead simple to increase the performance of the 32 Mg. to 1200 fps with a 100 grainer in a 6" gun.

What is the point of hyper performance in a small caliber handgun? It is still not a pig gun or a deer gun and it is certainly not as effective as a personal defense weapon as a 357, regardless of what the paperwork says. It may be marginally better as a varmint handgun, than the 32 Mg., but it is no better than the .30 carbine.......which Ruger gave up on due--presumably--to a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the gun buying public.

It is novel, and all things novel get a certain amount of attention....like the new girl in algerbra class, but after the novelty wears off, these things are quickly forgotten....except for the collectors.

My advice, therefore, is to buy a couple of each and store them is a cool dry place unfired with the box and paperwork

Unfired specimens of these things will fetch a handsome price in about 20 years or so........remember the 256 Hawkeye? 8)

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Actually, all this thread proves is that many/most of us have WAY too much time on our hands . . . me included, apparently.

The opinions of a dozen or so 'net-posters, while perhaps interesting, will accomplish nothing more than add to Ruger's advertising, and for free at that.

While I cannot really see enough call for this particular chambering to warrant the introduction of two gun models to accommodate it, there must certainly have been enough to convince the Ruger marketing team . . . we would hope. One wonders how many gun sales are necessary to be profitable.

JMHO

 

[peyton]

I also wonder how long it will take to actually get to market. The S&W 632 took nearly 14 months to hit the shelf after Jeff or Boge Quinn did a write up on it. I search for 32 mag ammo all the time, it is not available, 327 seems to be in the same boat. I want this caliber to suceed, however I think Ruger should of done this with the single six. If Bowen and Harton are doing the conversion of a 32 mag to 327 on a single six I think they know what they are doing.

 

[Jeff Quinn]

I also wonder how long it will take to actually get to market. The S&W 632 took nearly 14 months to hit the shelf after Jeff or Boge Quinn did a write up on it. I search for 32 mag ammo all the time, it is not available, 327 seems to be in the same boat. I want this caliber to suceed, however I think Ruger should of done this with the single six. If Bowen and Harton are doing the conversion of a 32 mag to 327 on a single six I think they know what they are doing.

The guns have been in production for over a month now, and started shipping this week.

 

[Cordite]

I asked Mike Fifer about the availability of the .327 Blackhawks via the "Ask the CEO" link and he sent me an Email stating that approximately 2000 of them went out to the distributors this week. Lipseys already has a category for them on their website.

If you get your LGS to order one for you asap you should have it in your hands very soon.

 

[tulsamal]

But why no 32-20 cylinder? That seems so obvious!

Gregg

 

[peyton]

Does a 32-20 take more space up because of the tapered cartridge?

 

[gak]

Does a 32-20 take more space up because of the tapered cartridge?

-----
Yes it does, and therefore my guess in a 50th/NV frame would be a 6 shot in that, and maybe seven for the .327 cylinder. The limited run large-frame Vaquero convertible that came out several years ago--same basic frame as this new Blackhawk--shot 6 .32-20, but don't know if they even tried to fit seven in; doubt it. The companion H&R cylinder was only six as well, but it apparently could have been 8 had they so chosen. Was a heavy critter with all that extra meat.

 

[revhigh]

There must certainly have been enough to convince the Ruger marketing team . . . we would hope. One wonders how many gun sales are necessary to be profitable.

Ya know Ale, when I read the above statement, it made me think of something that occurs locally. I'm on the range committee at one of my local gun clubs, and I attend all the club's monthly meetings.

EVERY SINGLE year the club runs a raffle for a hunting trip in Maine. It is very unpopular and loses money every year to the tune of $1000+. Yet they keep doing it. Why ? Because there are several members of the board of directors that like to hunt in Maine, and THEY think the trip raffle is just fantastic, despite the yearly losses, which the club CAN NOT AFFORD.

My guess is that there are some 32 afficionados in the marketing research department at Ruger, and they have convinced the higher ups that this caliber will be a success. The good thing is, since they're using existing platforms, probably not much money was invested in the development of the new guns, so there's most likely not much financial risk to Ruger.

I'm glad that there's people excited about the new releases, but I can't consider myself one of them. I just don't get it ... I don't get the caliber, or the platforms chosen for it ... other than being 'neat', they just don't make any sense to me. Why wouldn't Ruger come up with guns that would have almost universal appeal, like the 22lr SP's, GP's, or bring back the 'Six' lines in some generic, popular, and available calibers ? If they did that, there would be almost universal cheering here rather than the almost universal scratching of heads ...

REV

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Almost every club of which I've been a member was ruled by a "clique" of folks who apparently had their own agenda, and the rest of the membership bedamned. Must be some sort of universal "management truth".

And I still believe many of us -- me included -- devote WAY too much time attempting to make an internet gunsite significant in the big scheme of things. Ruger will do whatever it chooses, like it or not. See above.

 

[revhigh]

And I still believe many of us -- me included -- devote WAY too much time attempting to make an internet gunsite significant in the big scheme of things. Ruger will do whatever it chooses, like it or not. See above.

Agreed Ale, while Ruger personnel may read the forums that pertain to it, I doubt very much whether they've ever given significant credence to what's said here.

REV

 

[Anonymous]

Does a 32-20 take more space up because of the tapered cartridge?

-----
Yes it does, and therefore my guess in a 50th/NV frame would be a 6 shot in that, and maybe seven for the .327 cylinder. The limited run large-frame Vaquero convertible that came out several years ago--same basic frame as this new Blackhawk--shot 6 .32-20, but don't know if they even tried to fit seven in; doubt it. The companion H&R cylinder was only six as well, but it apparently could have been 8 had they so chosen. Was a heavy critter with all that extra meat.

It is easy enough to figure out.

First, you need to measure diameter of the chamber circle in the revolver in question and multiply that by pi (3.14) and write down the results.

Next measure the diameter of a 32/20 case at it's widest point and multiply that by 7 (if that's how many cartridges you want it to hold).

Subtract the sum total of the seven cartridge diameters from the circumfrence of the chamber circle and divide that by 7.

That is the amount of steel between the chambers. (or pretty close)

Actually, on the smaller frame guns, such as the single six, the weak point is probably the forcing cone when the pressures get over 40K.

 

[jpdesign]

I would think there would be a problem making the same revolver frame shoot different cylinders with different numbers of shots. To change the distance the cylinder turns might cause problems. It also seems that it might be easier to take a blackhawk, without completely redesigning the lock, and make it shoot more rounds then fewer, as it would be easier to shorten the movement than increase the movement.

Jimmy

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Rev, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the marketing meetings are held at SRC.

"Did you see what those guys on RugerForum said ?!"

"Yeah, but . . ."

 

[tomiswho]

IMHO, those of us who frequent these type of bulletin boards, "avid enthusiasts", no doubt form a rather small potential market for Ruger. Of the millions of current and potential gun owners in the US, even rugerforum.com large member numbers is a drop in the bucket.

I've tried to point this out over on RFC also - when spending time looking at the 2245 forum - the participants talk constantly about changing grips, adding Volkquarten parts, sights, and other "mods." I'd put substantial money on the argument that a very large majority of 2245 purchasers leave them completely factory stock, and never search for an on-line bulletin board talking about them...