Talk:.327 Federal Magnum

Six in a 5-shot sized cylinder
I suggest that the article explain that there is interest in the cartridge because its chambering allows six rounds in cylinders that hold five rounds of .38/.357, such as S&W J-frames and the Ruger SP-101. The introduction does indicate that the round is designed to fit in a six-shot compact revolver, but it should be made clearer that six .32 cartridges can fit into a five-shot .38/.357 sized cylinder. After all, what other reason is there really for this round?--Ana Nim (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a bit in the into paragraph. That enough, or do you think it's worthy of more discussion in the body?  scot (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that makes it clear. Thank you.--Ana Nim (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the parent cartridge from .32 S&W to .32 H&R Magnum. Anharmyenone (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Shameless advertising
I removed the Ruger ad copy that was found under the 'firearms' section. Also, I don't see any mention of this round's well-known ability to put cancer into remission and revive the recently dead. Perhaps someone could work that in somewhere. --71.54.208.211 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you did not fail to see that Federal designed this from the ground up with computers, to come up with the highest impact values with the lowest recoil values. This involved gun weight to bullet weight, diameter to propel distance, different powders, etc. It was the most extensive research ever done into the 'perfect' self defense load. What they came up with was very close to the .32 round size. They then decided that switching to the .32 caliber only took 3% off the model, so they used it to come up with a gun that shoots .32 shorts, .32 longs, .32 H&R mags, and .327 Fed mags. I don't think you will ever see this attention to design again, since Federal already has done it. Maybe someone will do it for small rounds, and for large rounds, but it is done for medium sized rounds already. It cannot cure cancer. The dead are dead. It is the first super round designed by computers and physics.... Msjayhawk (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the dead, as of December 2013, Ruger no longer offers ANY gun chambered in 327 Federal. An email I received from them in December 2013 stated that they made a marketing decision to discontinue the GP100 in 327. It is possible that no GP100's were actually shipped from Ruger after February 2013, even though they continued to show it available on their website until early December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why does the Ruger SP101 web page claim on January 23, 2014, that the gun is chambered for .327 Federal Magnum, if no gun is made for this caliber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.5.239 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like their own SP101 web page contradicts their available models web page, which is linked to the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.5.239 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done!
This is an above average quality article! Only gripe is the oft quoted "free lunch" statement which usually implies a particular (favorite) round hits harder while simultaneously has less recoil & muzzle blast. Perception is one thing, laws of physics quite another. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified ('hit harder' may imply a bullet expends all it energy in the target while a compared round's bullet may over penetrate leaving much energy effectively unharnessed), but statements like that are always overly optimistic.

Still, it is a great article! It covers the material well.

sbryant 69.226.99.253 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember, true ballistic push is delivered by the barrel length divided by the diameter. That is why the US Navy ballistics terms stuff such as 5"/50 caliber, 54 caliber, etc. It is how far the powder has to push the projectile. So shooting a .327 (.312" dia.) out a 4 inch barrel, is like shooting a .357 out of a shorter barrel, and the loading pressure is higher on the .327 mag... Msjayhawk (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What's "true ballistic push"? Tex (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm calling shenanigans
1874 fps for a 100grain load?! I wanna see that go over the chronograph! Unless it's coming out of rifle, there is NO way a 327 is going to clock nearly 1900 fps. Surely not out of a 5 1/2 inch Blackhawk. Real world guns, not some lab pressure barrel.

Plus if it does clock that fast, the blast must be something. Physics demand it. No free lunch. But I also love how you quote an author that says, for the recoil sensitive you can use 32 S&W long at 700fps. .38 Special is a hot rod by comparison. Make up your mind. Trying to make the .327 Magnum into a death ray does no one a service.

Overall the article isn't bad, but smacking around another cartridge with unsupported claims is not the way to write one. I like the idea of the .327 Magnum, but it's not the end all be all. Plus the .357 Magnum is more versatile with a much wider selection of bullet weights.

I must go along with the above statements. The facts appear to be plain wrong. Ruger itself won't allow for the kind of velocity from the 5 1/2 inch barrel blackhawk that this article puts forth. I would edit the section but I don't know how to access it. Can't someone fix this section and put the true muzzle velocities and the requisite foot pounds of energy? The 100 grain load when fired from the Blackhawk travels about 1655 feet per second; that's a long ways off from 1874! Otherwise, the article has some nice data and good references.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferkeundigung (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

bullet head
True enough, it's a hollow-point... but it's actually a hydrashok bullet-head. 112.208.115.237 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on .327 Federal Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000000/http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm to http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st327_110707
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1369&cid=24
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Ruger%2BSP101.327%2BMagnum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

.30 Carbine greater than .32 WSL and .32 WSL greater than .32-20
"The .30 Carbine was essentially the same ballistically as the .32 Winchester Self Loading, which was itself basically a rimless .32-20."

The problem with some gun talk is that it is as bad as barber shop babble. A quick review of ballistics data from published reliable sources shows:

1941 .30 Carbine, 110 gr bullet, 1970 fps velocity, 948 ft/lb energy

1905 .32 WSL, 165 gr bullet, 1392 fps velocity, 710 ft/lb energy

1884 .32-40 WCF, 165 gr bullet, 1440 fps velocity, 760 ft/lb energy

1882 .32-20 WCF, 115 gr bullet, 900 fps velocity, 207 ft/lb energy

"the same ballistically"? Actually the .32 WSL using smokeless powder in a rimless case developed from the black powder .32-20 WCF case gave similar ballistics to the black powder .32-40 WCF, and the .30 Carbine developed from the .32 WSL with improved powder driving a lighter bullet at higher velocity gave about 30% more impact energy than the .32 WSL. Nowhere near the same ballistically. The statement is inaccurate and irrelevant to discussion of .327 Fed Mag. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The question of the .30 Car round in a handgun against the .327 Mag bears examination. How does it perform in the T/C Contender, frex? I doubt it develops 1970fps there.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  18:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Can It Shoot Five Cartridges, or Only Four?
"Since the .327 still shares all case dimensions, excluding length, with the .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .32 H&R Magnum, revolvers chambered for the .327 Federal can also safely chamber and fire these shorter cartridges. This makes the .327 Federal unique, as it can fire five different cartridges from the same gun with no modifications."

The article mentions four cartridges, but says the .327 Federal can shoot five. If that's true (and I don't know), the fifth one should be called out. Especially because it claims that shooting five cartridges is unique. I am thinking the fifth might be the old .32 Colt Police Positive, but that's just a guess.

Firearms chambered for the 327 Federal Magnum
I would like to add one more firearm. The Ruger LCRX is also chambered. Yes, it is similar to the LCR but is a distinct model nonetheless.

"Ruger also offers the similar LCRX with an exposed hammer in this chambering."

9/30/2019 MrGoodCat2001 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Too much Chuck
While Chuck Hawks may be a popular Internet writer his authority on the subject does not rise to the level appropriate for reference material. 108.26.226.158 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)