You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
3 months later on the 327 1.87'
- Thread starter Doc Holliday 1950
- Start date
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
Actually, I found the 80 grain Hornady Flex tip at around $16/box of 25. This ammo is definately a self defense ammo & while not tagged as a magnum round,
if this isn't a magnum ammo, then i'm totally way off. I saw the reviews on Utube
by all of the experts & everyone had the same thoughts as I did about the 32 H&R Hornady 80 grain ammo. Who am I to argue with the experts? This isn't a knock on any other calibre revolver by any mfg. All this post is about a super easy carry that will protect you and your significant other. This is one of the easiest revolvers to shoot well by anyone especially those who are recoil sensitive.
if this isn't a magnum ammo, then i'm totally way off. I saw the reviews on Utube
by all of the experts & everyone had the same thoughts as I did about the 32 H&R Hornady 80 grain ammo. Who am I to argue with the experts? This isn't a knock on any other calibre revolver by any mfg. All this post is about a super easy carry that will protect you and your significant other. This is one of the easiest revolvers to shoot well by anyone especially those who are recoil sensitive.
Actually, I found the 80 grain Hornady Flex tip at around $16/box of 25. This ammo is definately a self defense ammo & while not tagged as a magnum round,
if this isn't a magnum ammo, then i'm totally way off.
It is a Magnum round. By definition, it is a 32 H&R Magnum. Therefore, it is a Magnum.
Cosmodragoon
New member
It is a Magnum round. By definition, it is a 32 H&R Magnum. Therefore, it is a Magnum.
Semantics can be funny. The .327 is a "super magnum" and an extension of the .32 H&R Magnum. The .32 H&R Magnum is an extension of the .32 S&W Long. The .32 S&W Long is an extension of the .32 S&W.
I still think calling it ".327" was a mistake. They tried to cash in on the fame of .357 magnum but all that really did was to invite unfavorable comparisons to .357 magnum. A better name, possibly including "super magnum", might have helped initial sales.
TruthTellers
New member
Yeah, but it's easy to distinguish .327 Mag vs .32 Mag.Semantics can be funny. The .327 is a "super magnum" and an extension of the .32 H&R Magnum. The .32 H&R Magnum is an extension of the .32 S&W Long. The .32 S&W Long is an extension of the .32 S&W.
I still think calling it ".327" was a mistake. They tried to cash in on the fame of .357 magnum but all that really did was to invite unfavorable comparisons to .357 magnum. A better name, possibly including "super magnum", might have helped initial sales.
Maybe .32 Ultra Mag could have worked, but .32 Super has a really nice ring to it.
Funny, too, how the .32 H&R was developed 25 years ago, never really caught on, and was on its way to obscurity. Then the .327 Mag showed up and people are interested in the guns but seem to shoot a lot more .32 H&R. And there seem to be a lot more folks now who think .32 H&R is just fine for personal defense.
TruthTellers
New member
I think it has more to do with knowing that the more powerful .327 option is there if they want it, but for self defense, yeah, I think .32 H&R is just fine.Funny, too, how the .32 H&R was developed 25 years ago, never really caught on, and was on its way to obscurity. Then the .327 Mag showed up and people are interested in the guns but seem to shoot a lot more .32 H&R. And there seem to be a lot more folks now who think .32 H&R is just fine for personal defense.
For me, I think .327 in a rifle is top notch, great velocity and power, but .32 H&R in a rifle is just not enough. Having a .327 in both rifle and revolver, it's nice that I can load .327 down to .32 H&R levels for the revolver, that same load would be okay in a rifle for small game, but have the option to use the full power .327 in both guns, but mostly the rifle.
I feel as tho .357 Maximum could find a similar use.
the more powerful .327 option is there if they want it
Yes, that is a major draw. When I was interested in bigger bores, I wouldn't buy a .38 Spl if there was a .357 Mag version of the same gun available. And then I'd shoot mostly .38 Spl with only occasional .357 "to clean the chambers" and to enjoy the blast.
I agree, too, about .327 Mag in a rifle. I don't have a .327 rifle, but it's a tempting idea. I do have a Marlin 1894 in .357 and the compatibility with my .357 handgun is great. I haven't convinced myself that I need the Henry .327 rifle yet. Maybe some day.
littlebikerider
New member
The .327 Henry Rifle will be my next firearm purchase.
TruthTellers
New member
I'll let you and everyone else know after I figure out what scope I want to put on mine. Whatever the case, I predict the "accuracy" load I make will be a 95 grain bullet going 950-1000 fps and be 1 MOA.Yes, that is a major draw. When I was interested in bigger bores, I wouldn't buy a .38 Spl if there was a .357 Mag version of the same gun available. And then I'd shoot mostly .38 Spl with only occasional .357 "to clean the chambers" and to enjoy the blast.
I agree, too, about .327 Mag in a rifle. I don't have a .327 rifle, but it's a tempting idea. I do have a Marlin 1894 in .357 and the compatibility with my .357 handgun is great. I haven't convinced myself that I need the Henry .327 rifle yet. Maybe some day.
I have no idea what full power .327 will yield, probably 3 MOA, but that's plenty good for deer at 100 yards.
Unfortunately, I don't see many others making a .327 lever action rifle, nor a single shot break action, but Ruger may someday come out with a bolt action in .327 and I think that would be excellent.
What would be even better is an updated Model 44 carbine that had a full length dual tubular magazine with a total capacity of 15 rounds.
Hey, a kid can dream, right?
For non-reloaders, the idea of a dual caliber revolver/rifle (e.g. .38 Spl & .357 or .32 H&R & .327) makes a great deal of sense...too, Marlins excellent 1894 lever gun would be ideal. In retrospect, I curse the day that I did not buy one of those long ago 1894's in .32 H&R as they've gone completely out of sight price wise. It would have made a great carry gun for chucks in the side meadow when paired with my pair of .32 H&R Ruger single-sixes or the Smith M16.
Reloading for my 1894CS in .357 has been enlightening: home cast LSWC's in .357 cases (Lyman's venerable 358156GC), will consistently give me 1-1/4" gps at 100 yds with a 2.5x scope with carefully screened bullets. Price per shot on this combination is less than 9 cents per trigger pull as the equipment needed has long since been amortized. I'd expect no less from the .32 H&R/.327 combination. Yes...a guy can dream... Rod
Reloading for my 1894CS in .357 has been enlightening: home cast LSWC's in .357 cases (Lyman's venerable 358156GC), will consistently give me 1-1/4" gps at 100 yds with a 2.5x scope with carefully screened bullets. Price per shot on this combination is less than 9 cents per trigger pull as the equipment needed has long since been amortized. I'd expect no less from the .32 H&R/.327 combination. Yes...a guy can dream... Rod
jetinteriorguy
New member
As soon as Ruger wises up and comes out with a 3" version of the LCRX I'll be on board. I think for me it would be a great everyday carry gun. Both concealed and in the car when on the road. But if I have enough money saved up for a Kimber 3" with the exposed hammer and adjustable sights and 6 rounds of .357, it will probably get the nod since I already load for .357 and have a ton of supplies.
HighValleyRanch
New member
As soon as Ruger wises up and comes out with a 3" version of the LCRX I'll be on board.
Ruger just came out with exactly that, a 3" version of the .357 LCRX:
https://www.ruger.com/products/lcrx/specSheets/5444.html
Last edited:
I'll let you and everyone else know after I figure out what scope I want to put on mine. Whatever the case, I predict the "accuracy" load I make will be a 95 grain bullet going 950-1000 fps and be 1 MOA.
I have no idea what full power .327 will yield, probably 3 MOA, but that's plenty good for deer at 100 yards.
What are you using to predict the accuracy difference with?
Cosmodragoon
New member
The Henry Rifle is fantastic for the price. The 100-grain American Eagle soft points, which have been among the hottest and most affordable commercial loads, perform admirably with a 20" barrel. I haven't hunted in years but I'd have no concerns about using those for deer within 100 yards.
littlebikerider
New member
And IL has bill HB2783 in the house right now. It is a bill that would allow rifles for deer hunting, with the same cartridge restrictions that now apply to handgun hunting for deer. If this passes (a big "if" in Illinois, the Henry rifle with American Eagle ammo, I believe, would fill the bill quite nicely for those sub-hundred yard shots.
TruthTellers
New member
Max loads in any handgun cartridge typically don't have the same accuracy as weaker loads do. While .32 is larger than .22, it will still benefit from a subsonic load so the transition doesn't destabilize it in flight.What are you using to predict the accuracy difference with?
As to the full power loads, I've seen one review a year or two ago that was getting about 4 inches at 50 or 100 yards with American Eagle .327, but that was with the stock sights. I'm sure a scope would tighten up those groups, so I'm guessing 3 MOA.
Ruger just came out with exactly that, a 3" version of the .357 LCRX:
I wish the 3" barrel variant could be had with a concealed hammer.
HighValleyRanch
New member
I wish the 3" barrel variant could be had with a concealed hammer.
Kimber has one.