# Story on the 327 Federal Magnum



## Ala Tom (Apr 1, 2011)

Does anyone know the story on the 327 Federal Magnum? I was just looking at the ballistics in the Federal Calculator - pretty impressive for a small bullet of 80-100 gr.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

basically a 32 mag with a stretched case loaded to pressures that push the lead out with similar speeds of a 357 mag. 

so its kinda like the old 357 maximum of the 32 world. it has much more power than the 38 +p and slightly less than the .357 ....with the smaller bullet diameter it can safely fit 6 rounds in compact revolvers instead of the 5 rounds in a .357. 

the 327 federal mag revolver will fire 32 h&r mag and 32 s&w


----------



## Ala Tom (Apr 1, 2011)

Yeah, thanks. Just from the data I thought it might compare to the 380. But I see it's too long for a pistol. There's a nice Ruger Blackhawk in this caliber with an 8-round cylinder. But it can't be carried as it is 11.4 inches long and weighs 48 oz.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

Ala Tom said:


> Yeah, thanks. Just from the data I thought it might compare to the 380. But I see it's too long for a pistol. There's a nice Ruger Blackhawk in this caliber with an 8-round cylinder. But it can't be carried as it is 11.4 inches long and weighs 48 oz.


the cartridge was designed by ruger for this.....

Ruger® SP101® Double-Action Revolver Model 5759


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> the cartridge was designed by ruger for this.....
> 
> Ruger® SP101® Double-Action Revolver Model 5759


Yep, it allows for 6 shots in what is usually a 5 shot package.


----------



## 1jimmy (Jul 30, 2011)

nice round, i have ruger sp 101 great gun hardly no recoil, and speer does make a 115 grain bullet. the only problem with the whole deal is ammo is expensive if you can find it


----------



## XRacer (May 4, 2011)

Damn thing makes a racket. Sounds like someone is shooting a 44.


----------



## AirForceShooter (May 6, 2006)

Better learn to reload and have a source of brass.
Taurus and Charter have both stopped making them.

A great idea that may have failed

AFS


----------



## MISSALOT (Jun 30, 2009)

I have an sp101 in 327 federal and i really like it I use it a bug gun.


----------



## kerrycork (Jan 9, 2012)

The Ruger sp101 3" .327 is my choice to carry. I reload for it and use 85 grain hp . The ballistics are impressive. With Federal 100 grain factory loads it's a handful. Would not be without the C.T. laser grips. With an iwb holster it is well hidden under a tee shirt. I like this little gun and I can shoot it too.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

.327 Federal Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the April 2008 issue of the NRA's American Rifleman magazine, Field Editor Bryce Towsley summed up his review of the cartridge as follows:

" The .327 offers more 'real-world' energy than the .357 Mag., (at least in my test), better penetration and one more shot per gun load. It does all this with substantially less recoil and noticeably less muzzle blast than the .357 Mag. "

The cartridge ultimately won the NRA Publication's prestigious Golden Bullseye Award for "Ammo of the Year" (2009).[3]


----------



## Mazie (Mar 9, 2012)

I just purchased this exact revolver, and now I await my ten day background check. I have a gun buddy who reloads his own ammunition and he can set me up with the .327 federal magnum ammo to go along with my new Ruger SP101 .327 federal magnum revolver. I can hardly wait to shoot it! Here's a link to see it: Ruger® SP101® Double-Action Revolver Model 5759


----------



## gunfan (Jan 12, 2012)

Double Tap Ammuntion will soon be releasing a 115-grain hunting load for the cartridge. This load is being manufactured (and marketed) expressly for the Ruger revolvers.

Scott


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

hideit said:


> ...In the April 2008 issue of the...American Rifleman magazine...Bryce Towsley summed up his review of the cartridge as follows:
> "*The .327 offers more 'real-world' energy than the .357 Mag*....[and] *better penetration*..."...[emphasis added]


Now, why do I have trouble believing that?

First of all, what, exactly, is "'real-world' energy"?
And which .357 Magnum loads did Towsley use for comparison, and were they loaded to produce the highest safe "energy"?

This quote makes me wonder whether Towsley was thinking, "Well, Federal is an advertiser, and Ruger is an advertiser, so I'd better write something nice."

(When I was editing and publishing a practical-shooting fan-zine, I told my reviewers, "Always find something nice to say about the product, even if it's only the color.")


----------



## sonja (Sep 16, 2011)

I have a Taurus 327 Federal snubbie. Light weight, easy to carry, much more accurate than I expected. There are a variety of different loads made for it. Some of the "full house" loads - such as the American Eagle soft point 100 grain bullet @ 1500 FPS really are rather stout. At the same time Federal claims 500Ft/Lbs energy for that round. The Hydra-Shok 85 grain at 1400FPS is much easier to shoot. 

I tend to use 32 H&R ammo at the range -- finishing off with some 100 grain American Eagle.

I would really like a 4" Ruger in .327 in addition to the little Taurus. Last time I looked, CDNN was selling the little snubbies at very reasonable prices. 

I do carry it fairly often -- it's a good purse gun. Easy to access, surprisingly accurate, easy to shoot -- with energy levels, and penetration better than a 38 special (this according to ballistics tables).

I do not understand why it hasn't caught on. I do know some gun nuts who really favor this cartridge. A lot of them are looking forward to a 327 federal carbine -- out of an 18" barrel the 100 grain American Eagle JSP supposedly leaves with a muzzle velocity of 2186 FPS. That makes it a useful gun for critters and varmints. (Ballistics By The Inch).

By the way -- I've shot some heavy loads through the little Taurus and have not experienced any problems. It works quite well and (as I've said before) is far more accurate than I expected.


----------

