Shoot .327 in .32 H&R SP101?

[OldCowHand]

I just did a search on everything in the forum since the new .327 round was announced. Several folks seem to be angling toward this question, but nobody seems to have asked it straight out, perhaps because it's a dumb question and everybody already knows the answer. Since I'm already clear on my substantial ignorance about handguns, I'll just step up and ask it: given that

• (1) there's almost a quarter of an inch between the front of an H&R round and the front of the cylinder in the standard .32 H&R version of the SP101,
  (2) the .327 has the same OD as the H&R round and only about an additional 1/8" length and
  (3) the SP101 is built like a tank anyhow,

what would keep folks from just buying the new round and shooting it in their existing revolvers?

Not debating the merits of the round (that, at least, has been dealt with pretty thoroughly ), just wanting to know whether it's feasible to play with it in our existing .32 H&R, and maybe gain some guidance on why it might not be a good idea.

 

[freakshow10mm]

The .327 Fed Mag operates at a lot higher pressure than the 32 H&R. Almost double. I can't remember where I saw it but I think the pressure is into th 40K range.

 

[freakshow10mm]

The .327 is 40K psi the 32H&R is less than 20Kpsi. It would be like shooting a .357 Magnum in a 38 Spl chamber. Bad juju.

 

[Flash]

the bullets might be sticking out of the chambers. :roll:

 

[Leucoandro]

I do not believe that the that the 327 would fit into the 32H&R chamber as is. It would have to be bored out.

I am also not sure if the 327 and 32H&R use the same cylinder. I know at one time the 357Mag and 38SPL did, but I also know at certain times they used a slightly shorter cylinder in the 38spl than they did in the 357Mag.

 

[CraigC]

what would keep folks from just buying the new round and shooting it in their existing revolvers?

Uh...1/8" shorter chambers??? Ever tried to chamber a .357 cartridge in a .38Spl?

It just amazes me how shooters will stand up as quickly as a corporate lawyer to protect the idiots from themselves.

 

[OldCowHand]

Has anybody been able to do a hands-on comparison of the new .327 SP101 with the old .32 H&R? I'd guess offhand that the cylinder might be (very) slightly longer, but is the frame and/or cylinder actually beefed up more than the already very stoutly-constructed .32? Or is this more of a marketing thing, positioning a new release of pretty much the same product toward a perceived gap in the market?

 

[flatgate]

Ruger's Web Site makes no mention of anything different except the chambering.

Wikipedia says this:
While the .32 H&R Magnum is a near equivalent to the .38 Special +P, the .327 Federal Magnum reaches the levels of the .357 Magnum, with velocities of up to 1400 fps (420 m/s) from the short-barreled Ruger SP-101. The case is 1/8" (3 mm) longer than the .32 H&R, and the pressure (not yet published) is likely similar to the .357 Magnum to generate the published velocities. Since the .327 still shares all case dimensions, excluding length, with the other .32 caliber cartridges going back to the .32 S&W, it can safely chamber and fire all four cartridges.

So, if the chamber walls of an SP101 in .357 mag can handle "X" pressure why wouldn't the thicker walls of the .32 mag, rechambered to .327 Fed. handle the same "X" pressure?

Just thinking out loud. No facts!!!!!

flatgate

 

[CraigC]

The guns are the same, the SP cylinder was already long enough to accommodate the .327Fed. The Single Six will require a longer cylinder.

It is definitely NOT the same product. I wouldn't call doubling the working pressure and upping velocity several hundred feet per second a rehash of the same old thing.

I wonder if as many people boo-hoo'ed when the .357 came out??? :roll:


PS, the pressure is 45,000psi.

 

[OldCowHand]

The guns are the same, the SP cylinder was already long enough to accommodate the .327Fed ...
It is definitely NOT the same product. I wouldn't call doubling the working pressure and upping velocity several hundred feet per second a rehash of the same old thing.

Thanks for your reply. I'm assuming that the "not the same product" statement refers to the .327 Magnum cartridge not being the same as the .32 H&R Magnum. Very clear on that point.

Thanks, as well, for confirming my guess that the SP101 .32 H&R cylinder is already both long and wide enough to accommodate a .327 round.

I'm still not clear on whether your "The guns are the same" statement means that there is no actual difference between the SP101 in .32 H&R Magnum and the one in .327 Magnum, other than the inscription on the side of the barrel. If there is in fact no difference, then that would mean that the SP101 was capable of handling these pressures all along (several commentators have noted that the H&R was deliberately capped at relatively low pressures and suggested that it be redesignated as a Special rather than a Magnum), and we're only finding it out now. That would also speak highly of Ruger's engineering team, who designed the SP101 to accommodate a true magnum round years before it became available in the marketplace.

 

[OldCowHand]

Answering my own question, in part: comparing http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=5748 to http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=5759 shows that the .327 is 1/8" longer. Given that the .327 round is 1/8" longer than the H&R, it would be reasonable to assume that the cylinder is the source of that additional length. The weight is the same, however, so unless there has been some significant change in the metallurgy involved there doesn't appear to have been any significant additional reinforcing of the stress points.

 

[Pal Val]

I have respect for guns in the sense that they do what they're meant to do and do it safely. Anyone wishing to overstep that and load the wrong cartridge in a gun just because it can be stuffed in there, just let me know so I'm not around when the thing blows up.

'nuff said

Val

 

[OldCowHand]

let me know so I'm not around when the thing blows up.

Agreed, and if I did decide to perform the experiment on a nearly-$500 gun I'd probably do so as one of the posters noted on another recent thread, from a ways off via a string on the trigger.

But somebody at Ruger is sure to have thought this through before they joined forces with Federal to create a new round that can be (accidentally or otherwise) easily loaded into an older gun, right? The liability issues alone would give any weapons manufacturer the heebie-jeebies, these days.

 

[CraigC]

To reiterate, the .327Federal CAN NOT be loaded into a .32H&R chamber!

The .327Fed SP-101 is identical to the .32H&R SP-101 except for the caliber markings and corresponding chambers. The cylinder was already long enough. Since we are already seeing custom Single Sixes chambering the new round I am speculating that no special heat treating or exotic alloy was necessary. All the SP-101 needed was the longer chamber. Think .38Spl to .357Mag. :roll:

 

[rugerred44]

I don't know if this is relevant but I was reading in one of my new gun mags and they were saying the brass in .327 was thicker to account for the increased pressures, thus making the .327 unable to be loaded into H&R cylinder.

 

[OldCowHand]

The .327Fed SP-101 is identical to the .32H&R SP-101 except for the ... corresponding chambers. The cylinder was already long enough ... All the SP-101 needed was the longer chamber ...

Aha [insert light-bulb emoticon] -- I just probed a cylinder and found the slight dimple at the end of the chamber, then compared that depth with the length of the casing (not the entire cartridge) on the .32 H&R. Enlightenment occurred when I saw that the measurements were the same. I had never noticed that the cylinders were not cylinder-bored from end to end, and had always assumed that that the forcing cone was the first part of the bullet's path where the diameter was reduced below casing width. Live and learn ... did I mention above that I possess an impressive lack of knowledge about handguns?

Thanks to all for your patience with the dumb question and its equally dumb questioner!

Back to the Ruger-is-efficient theme for just a second, it sounds like the result of the .327 initiative with Federal is a new gun that can be built, for the most part, on the same production lines as several of their existing products with very little retooling required. They're basically building a .32 H&R with slightly deeper chambers in the cylinder, so even if it takes off slowly they haven't sunk huge production costs into the product line. Smart thinking!

 

[CraigC]

That explains a lot! About the only revolvers you'll find with bored-through chambers (i.e. no step) are those for cartridges that utilize a heeled bullet like the .22LR. Throw in the original .38Colt. .41Colt, .44Colt and I believe the .44 S&W American.

Back to the Ruger-is-efficient theme for just a second......Smart thinking!

Exactly! Which is why it's been like pulling teeth to get Ruger to finally produce a big bore five-shot revolver. They simply have not wanted to make that manufacturing change. Can't blame them for that, it's a small market.

 

[OldCowHand]

it's been like pulling teeth to get Ruger to finally produce a big bore five-shot revolver.

I like Ruger's six-shot revolvers in bigger bores, but [brief pause while hunting through ruger.com] about the only 5-shot model I see is the .480. Are you saying that folks have been lobbying for more 5-shot revolvers in other calibers?

That would be somewhat ironic, because one of reasons I like the .32 caliber is that it's possible to get that sixth round in the cylinder and still have a relatively packable gun. Come to think of it, if they were so inclined, Ruger could go completely retro and build a modern-day equivalent of the old Walch Navy 12-shot revolver in a frame about the size of the existing Redhawk. From a distance the Walch looked rather similar to the .44 Russians, a fact that is reputed to have led to a certain amount of overconfidence among some less-than-upstanding citizens who were very surprised when the seventh round found them.

Hmmm ... looks like a Redhawk, fires 12 rounds ... well, hey, I can dream, can't I?

 

[sthomper]

"The .327Fed SP-101 is identical to the .32H&R SP-101 except for the caliber markings and corresponding chambers. The cylinder was already long enough."


what was done different to the chambers??? did the hammer have to be changed in any way???

are other manufactureres .32 hr cylinders/pistols made the same way????

 

[contender]

Welcome to the Forum sthomper.
First,, I don't think they are identical. The metallurgy is most likely different.
Then,, there is the boring out of the chambers for the longer 327 mag round. I don't have either a SP-101 32 mag to compare them to.
I don't know squat about any other manufacturers.
Basically,, I'd suggest you avoid the idea of sticking a 327 mag in a 32 H&R mag cylinder anything.