Could the .327 be the "new" .32-20?

[Rusty]

I was looking on the Ruger forum where someone had taken pictures of the new GP-100 and the newBlackhawk in .327 at the SHOT show. They're claiming 1600+ FPS with the 8 shot Blackhawk. IIRC that's about what a .32-20 will do out of a handgun. Someone please feel free to correct me if that's wrong.

My next question would be, What could the .327 do from a longer barreled levergun? A longer barrel plus the lack of a cylinder gap?

[TedH]

Hopefully Marlin will come out with a 327 soon. I think it would be a dandy little levergun.

[missionary5155]

Good morning I could see popping groundhogs in the ditches, racoons off the yard with a handy light weight lever gun. A 16 .5 " barrel would be about right. A Winny 92 frame would really make a nice pachage. I like Marlin´s in calibers that start with a "4" But that is just to much fat weight for little itty bitty cartriges.

[TedH]

I like Marlin´s in calibers that start with a "4" But that is just to much fat weight for little itty bitty cartriges.

Then I suspect you've never handled an 1894CL? There's nothing fat or heavy about them. That would be the perfect platform for a 327.

[jdad]

From what I recently read and I could be wrong, but the pressure of the 327 exceeds what the Marlin 1894 is designed to handle.

Personally, there is no replacement for the 32-20.....just like the 327 is not a replacement for the 357.

This is just my .02


(*

[jlchucker]

Good morning I could see popping groundhogs in the ditches, racoons off the yard with a handy light weight lever gun. A 16 .5 " barrel would be about right. A Winny 92 frame would really make a nice pachage. I like Marlin´s in calibers that start with a "4" But that is just to much fat weight for little itty bitty cartriges.

This is precisely the reason I just bought a Rossi 357 Trapper model 92. Its handy, and feeds both 357 and 38 specials (I've only tried cast SWC's in the latter). Right now it's being smoothed up a little, and I'm going to replace the plastic follower with one from NKJ as soon as I can order one. I'm in no hurry to do the latter because my EMF 44 mag is about 4 or 5 years old now and its plastic follower is still working fine. I'll change out both at the same time, when the time comes. The Rossi's aren't too pricey, and appear to be pretty well made. Many who post on these websights praise them. They already come with a slender forend, unlike the Marlins-- and there's no cheap-looking machine-cut checkering.

[Bogie35]

...Personally, there is no replacement for the 32-20.....just like the 327 is not a replacement for the 357...

+1

It seems that whatever use you have for a cartridge, there is already a perfect fit available out there. So, new cartridges are merely marketing ploys. You name it, there was already a great cartridge for it.

Like most everything else in the world today, there are no new "classics" being made, just clever reiterations of past designs.

bogie

[O.S.O.K.]

I was looking on the Ruger forum where someone had taken pictures of the new GP-100 and the newBlackhawk in .327 at the SHOT show. They're claiming 1600+ FPS with the 8 shot Blackhawk. IIRC that's about what a .32-20 will do out of a handgun. Someone please feel free to correct me if that's wrong.

My next question would be, What could the .327 do from a longer barreled levergun? A longer barrel plus the lack of a cylinder gap?

The general rule for straight cased pistol cartridges moving to levergun carbines is that you get about a 20% gain. That's proven itself for me with larger bore cartridges. That would put that load at 1920 fps from a levergun. Like you say - 32-20 basically.

I do think that the .327 Mag is an improvement on the 32-20 in that the straight wall brass eliminates several issues and makes it much easier to load - you can use carbide dies for example. Its a neat little cartridge.

[Old Savage]

I second the straight wall case improvement.

[gak]

+3 straight wall case improvement. I'd like a 92 also. Hope the case isn't too small for the 92-type loading gate/port, as I'm a traditionalist (on the old lever designs) and don't care for the tube feed as seen on the H&R Marlins and aborted (never to market) Taurus lever. But...whatever it takes to get a levergun in the .32__'s again! Here's also hoping for a convertible--as in a Ruger mid-frame NV--like USFA just had (intro'd?) with a holiday special.

[O.S.O.K.]

A Rossi 92 with 24" octagonal barrel, cressant butt, cch receiver and that brazilian walnut - yeah.

[scarville]

The general rule for straight cased pistol cartridges moving to levergun carbines is that you get about a 20% gain. That's proven itself for me with larger bore cartridges. That would put that load at 1920 fps from a levergun. Like you say - 32-20 basically

I don't know about the .327 but the 20% doesn't seem to hold for 357. For example, the Federal 158 gr JSP exits my 686 at about 1200 fps. The same load leaves the Marlin 1894 at just over 1800 fps. That's a 50% gain in velocity. I've seen almost as much improvement from the the 140 gr Barnes bullet -- 1350/2000 or about 48%.

[Sarge]

To the original question, I'd say 'yes'. If I needed or wanted a .32 for all around use, the .327 would do it as well as anything. The chambering is versatile and will permit the use of several other cartridges; I won't belabor the advantages straight-wall cases other than to add my name to those who strongly favor them.

[Travis Morgan]

FYI, this same stuff is what's awesome about a .357 carbine; it'll do darn near what a .30-30 will in the same bullet weight, but with less weight, less recoil, and carry almost twice as much ammo.

[AJMD429]

I figure the .327 Fed Mag could do anything the .32-20 could and be easier to reload, and compatible with the 'lesser' straight-wall rounds as well. Plus, it would have a 'standard' bore-size, vs. the various versions called ".32-20" you find.

As far as the Marlin 1894 being not strong enough, I'd think that the smaller-diameter round would make lots of difference (more steel around the chamber), and while I know the locking-lug angles and such would still create limitations, I'll bet it would be doable with but little re-engineering. EVEN if it is just 'impossible' I'd settle for a Marlin in .32 H&R, because it is a straight-wall case, and I could use those cartridges in a .327 Fed handgun for 'light' loads...

[COSteve]

As far as the Marlin 1894 being not strong enough, I'd think that the smaller-diameter round would make lots of difference (more steel around the chamber), and while I know the locking-lug angles and such would still create limitations, I'll bet it would be doable with but little re-engineering.

I think the issue with it in a Marlin is one of excessive 'bolt thrust' caused by the significantly higher operating pressure of the 327mag (45,000psi) vs the 32-20 (16,000 CUP [about 18,000psi]).

I think a better candidate for it would be a Rossi M92 clone with the much stronger Win '92 action. That said, I think that in leverguns, one chambered in 32-20 and one in 357Mag makes more sense than one in 327Mag and 357Mag. YMMV

[L_Kilkenny]

Factory ammo for both the .32HR and the .32-20 are held back by older guns that will not shoot loads that modern guns like the Rugers will eat all day. That, together with the straight wall case and the ability to shoot 4 other cartridges, makes the .327 better than the .32-20. Historians/Traditionalist may not like it but from a business stand point the .327 makes a lot more sense for ammo and gun makers.

Would I buy a .327 lever? I doubt it. But then again I definitely wouldn't buy a .32-20. I shoot both the .357 and the .32HR. The deciding factor on a lever gun is the "possibility" of Iowa following in Indiana's foot steps and allowing pistol caliber rifles for deer hunting. No way will the .327 or .32-20 make the list, the .357 would be a shoe in. So a .357 it is.

IMO, There is no way that a .32-20 gun would out sell a .327 in the same model gun (lever or revolver). If I was a betting man (who am I kidding!) they will sell ten fold the number of New .327 Blackhawks than the .32-20's they offered before.

LK

[Sarge]

....I think a better candidate for it would be a Rossi M92 clone with the much stronger Win '92 action....

In this I agree...I prefer the handliing and smoothness of the Winchester pattern, hands down.

[piller]

I like my Puma 92 clone, and I like the .327 Mag. That little cartridge in a 92 clone would probably be a great gun for 100 yards or less on just about anything smaller than a deer. I can testify to the ease of reloading the .327 with carbide dies. Yes, there are a lot of cartridges available, but some of the older ones are not as easy to reload. If the current manufacturer of the Puma would produce it, I'd like to buy one. I reload for some bottleneck cartridges, but I strongly prefer the straight wall cases for ease of reloading.

[Noah Zark]

From what I recently read and I could be wrong, but the pressure of the 327 exceeds what the Marlin 1894 is designed to handle.

Personally, there is no replacement for the 32-20.....just like the 327 is not a replacement for the 357.

As far as the Marlin 1894 being not strong enough, I'd think that the smaller-diameter round would make lots of difference (more steel around the chamber), and while I know the locking-lug angles and such would still create limitations, I'll bet it would be doable with but little re-engineering.

I think the issue with it in a Marlin is one of excessive 'bolt thrust' caused by the significantly higher operating pressure of the 327mag (45,000psi) vs the 32-20 (16,000 CUP [about 18,000psi]). [/quote]

I think a better candidate for it would be a Rossi M92 clone with the much stronger Win '92 action. That said, I think that in leverguns, one chambered in 32-20 and one in 357Mag makes more sense than one in 327Mag and 357Mag. YMMV

No offense, guys, but if what you're saying is the case, how does Marlin get away with chambering the 1894 in 44 Magnum? Sure, the 44 Magnum's SAAMI pressure is 36,000, but the dimensions of the cartridges also play a part w.r.t. bolt thrust. Pressure x area = force, and area increases as the square of the diameter. Assuming the diameter of the .327 case head as 0.35" and the diameter of the 44 Mag case head as .45" (no time to look them up now), and calculating the respective areas as 0.096 sq in for the 327 and 0.159 sq in for the 44 Mag, multiplied by their respective pressures yields a bolt force of 4,320 lbs for the 327 and 5,725 lbs for the 44 Mag. Even if I'm mixing CUP and PSI values, the projected area of the 44 Magnum case head is more than 60% greater than that of the .327.

But I could be wrong.

Noah

[Doc Hudson]

I can't help remembering "Skeeter" Skelton's comment when the .32 H&R Mag was introduced back in the mid-'80's>

Who the hell needs a .32 Magnum when they've got a .32-20.

i suspect he'd have the same opinion of the new .327 magnum.

However, i don't have a .32-20 and I detest handloading small bottle-necked revolver cartridges! I not read much on thi little cartridge so I don't have a strong opinion of it, other than the ccertainty that is is no .357 Magnum as a manstopper. So if performance matches the brag, I'd be willing to grant the .327 magnum equal status with the .32-20.

However, again, be careful who you say stuff like that around. It might inspire some of the older members of the .32-20 Club to become apoplectic.

[tube_ee]

Remember that the structure of the gun must resist force, not pressure.

Force = pressure * area, and area = pi * (r^2), where r = rim diameter / 2.

So, for the .327 Federal we get:

((.375/2)^2 * pi) * 45,000 psi = 4970 pounds

and for the .357 Magnum,

((.440/2)^2 * pi) * 35,000 psi = 5322 pounds

So, even though the .327 Federal operates at higher pressures, it actually produces less force on the action than the .357 Magnum does.

So it seems that no re-engineering is needed, we just have produce the required dimensions and it should work.

Isn't math fun?

--Shannon

[jhrosier]

Who was it that said "Specialization is for insects."?

I don't see anything compelling about yet another cartridge, for its' own sake.
The .38Spl/.357Mag seems to have the territory well covered.

However, choice is a wonderful thing....

Jack

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

If it's ever made the Marlin will most likely be the base gun. Or at least the 92 won't be used. The 92 action won't work with the smaller rim dia. of the 327 or 32 H&R mag. Even with the 32-20 with it's larger dia. rim the lower part of the bolt still has to be clearanced to go between the cartridge guides of a 92.

What is the standard OAL of the 327? That will play into the marlin action as well. You do know that Marlin did a 32 H&R mag rifle. IIRC those guns seem to work better with the S&W long rather than the 32 mag. It was a tube loaded 20" octagon barrel gun that was just too front heavy. I never did understand why they didn't make it as a round barrel carbine. With the front heavy oct they missed the whole CAS lady shooters market. The CAS gals had a hard time holding it up. A carbine stock and 20" round barrel would have been more desirable for them.

[Noah Zark]

Remember that the structure of the gun must resist force, not pressure.

Force = pressure * area, and area = pi * (r^2), where r = rim diameter / 2.

So, for the .327 Federal we get:

((.375/2)^2 * pi) * 45,000 psi = 4970 pounds

and for the .357 Magnum,

((.440/2)^2 * pi) * 35,000 psi = 5322 pounds

So, even though the .327 Federal operates at higher pressures, it actually produces less force on the action than the .357 Magnum does.

So it seems that no re-engineering is needed, we just have produce the required dimensions and it should work.

Isn't math fun?

--Shannon

Shannon: Glad to see that your figures agree with my estimates posted above, and quoted below:

No offense, guys, but if what you're saying is the case, how does Marlin get away with chambering the 1894 in 44 Magnum? Sure, the 44 Magnum's SAAMI pressure is 36,000, but the dimensions of the cartridges also play a part w.r.t. bolt thrust. Pressure x area = force, and area increases as the square of the diameter. Assuming the diameter of the .327 case head as 0.35" and the diameter of the 44 Mag case head as .45" (no time to look them up now), and calculating the respective areas as 0.096 sq in for the 327 and 0.159 sq in for the 44 Mag, multiplied by their respective pressures yields a bolt force of 4,320 lbs for the 327 and 5,725 lbs for the 44 Mag. Even if I'm mixing CUP and PSI values, the projected area of the 44 Magnum case head is more than 60% greater than that of the .327.

But I could be wrong.

Noah

[Hobie]

My view is that the .327 Fed IS a modern straight case .32-20. However, it was created at such a time, it is loaded such and it has a rationale for existence that is such that its factory loadings will exceed the ballistic output of the .32-20. If that floats your boat, all well and good. I have a .32-20 1894 Marlin CL that will do what the .327 Federal will do and I'm happy enough with that. Also, I believe that while Marlin MIGHT sell some 1894s so chambered, they might not sell enough to justify the effort. I think they feel the same way. People just don't see the .327 Federal cartridge in that way.

[bcp]

Force = pressure * area, and area = pi * (r^2), where r = rim diameter / 2.

So, for the .327 Federal we get:

((.375/2)^2 * pi) * 45,000 psi = 4970 pounds

and for the .357 Magnum,

((.440/2)^2 * pi) * 35,000 psi = 5322 pounds

The diameter to use is the inside of the case head, not the rim diameter. Kind of like a hydraulic jack-the area of the base does not determine the lifting capacity, only the inside diameter where the pressure is located.

Bruce

[tube_ee]

The diameter to use is the inside of the case head, not the rim diameter. Kind of like a hydraulic jack-the area of the base does not determine the lifting capacity, only the inside diameter where the pressure is located.

Bruce

But the surface applying force to the gun is the entire rear of the case. If it wasn't, the "inside" would move relative to the rim, and it doesn't. You don't get a setback of the center of the case relative to the rim, even in the extreme case of case-head separation. It is the area of the surfaces in contact that matters, at least when we're talking about isotropic materials like metals.

And even if you're right, (I can't see how, physically, you are, but I could well be wrong,) the inside diameter of the .327 case is still smaller than for the .357 case. Let's do the math:

.327 Federal

((.337 / 2)^2 * pi) * 45000 = 4014 pounds

.357 Magnum

((.379 /2)^2 * pi) * 35000 = 3949 pounds

and the argument still holds, assuming an adequate safety margin in the original design. we're talking about a difference of 1.6%... it's just not an issue.

--Shannon

[BenT]

Doesn't the weight of the bullet have something to do with bolt thrust ? Heavier the bullet the more the bolt thrust.

[tube_ee]

Doesn't the weight of the bullet have something to do with bolt thrust ? Heavier the bullet the more the bolt thrust.

Physics says no.

Force = pressure (pounds / square inch) * area (square inches)

Bullet weight only comes into play to the extent that it effects pressure, and guns are designed around a maximum pressure.

--Shannon

[bcp]

From:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

One cartridge issue affecting gun design is bolt thrust. This is the rearwards push on the gun's bolt or breechblock caused by the cartridge firing. This depends on two factors: the chamber pressure, and the inside diameter of the base of the cartridge case.
-----------------------------------------
From:
http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/cu ... rength.htm

Bolt thrust is easy to calculate. Only two inputs are required. They are peak chamber pressure in PSI and as mentioned, the inside area of the case head that the gas pressure can work on. The formula then is:

THRUST=AREA*CPSI Where:

AREA=3.1416*(HS/2)^2

HS=the diameter of the inside of the case head.

[gak]

Nate, regarding the 92, that's sad to hear but what I feared. Here's hoping Marlin will introduce a .327 patterned after its 1893 saddle ring carbine (which did a darn good Win 92/94 SRC imitation from butt to ladder sight to fore-stock)--complete with carbine butt, saddle ring, slim fore-wood, accompanying round barrel/dual band configuration,...and topped off with real wood. That'd be Marlin I could get into!

[Travis Morgan]

Also, I believe that while Marlin MIGHT sell some 1894s so chambered, they might not sell enough to justify the effort. I think they feel the same way. People just don't see the .327 Federal cartridge in that way.

I think most of us see it for what it is; an answer to a rhetorical question. It was meant as a handgun cartridge for women that wanted power but objected to a .357. Surprise, surprise; nobody cared enough to buy them.

[Noah Zark]

From a practical standpoint, consider that exactly ZERO of seven local and nearby gun shops stock the .327 Magnum ammo. Six of seven stock Winchester 32-20. Since the 327's introduction, I've seen TWO boxes of ammo for sale, at a price point in line with that of 32-20.

Noah

[L_Kilkenny]

From a practical standpoint, consider that exactly ZERO of seven local and nearby gun shops stock the .327 Magnum ammo. Six of seven stock Winchester 32-20. Since the 327's introduction, I've seen TWO boxes of ammo for sale, at a price point in line with that of 32-20.

Noah

Here in lies the problem. What would of happened to the 30-30 if ammo availability was this poor and cost was higher than other ammo when the 94 came out. Maybe this would be a bolt gun/krag board today..... .

My first reaction is that Federal has really screwed the pooch on this one. But let's face it, timing was awful due to the ammo crunch for the last couple years.

But the .327 has zero chance to succeed unless Federal gets lots of ammo on the shelf quick with varying power levels and cost. Just tossing out a few boxes of personal defense ammo ain't gonna cut it. Think "Winchester White Box" type/cost ammo to go along with their current offerings.

LK

[Travis Morgan]

The .327 is a turd... time to flush. (I can buy .357 ammo anywhere that will do the same job.)

[scarville]

The .327 is a turd... time to flush. (I can buy .357 ammo anywhere that will do the same job.)

I think the .327 is good idea but it's time is not now. It is a new revolver round that ups the capacity of a small frame snubbie by one in a market where everyone wants autoloaders with infinite capacity magazines.

[Travis Morgan]

It's an awful lot like the problem of trying to sell .44 spl models; .44 mags are everywhere, and easier to resell because they're more versatile. A lot of people have never heard of a .44 spl, and won't bother to learn.
That's why we can occassionally find a mint .356 on a gunrack at junk prices; nobody knows or cares what it is, they just know what a .30-30 is, and where to get ammo for it, so they stick with what they know.

[TX Gun Runner]

32-20 can be loaded in modern gun to blow the 327 in the weeds , bottle neck case feed better in a lever gun , wider range of powders can be used in reloading , brass is cheaper and easy to find and more ACCURATE in rifle or any pistols that I've seen so far . 32-20 or 327 will never make it in a gun fight or in the cop business . The 327 nothing more then a rimmed 30 carbine with a .311 bullet ........