View Single Post
 
Old 03-26-2013, 04:33 AM
gunfan gunfan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 228
Likes: 27
Liked 98 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalapombu View Post
I was just contemplating swapping out the 638 that's on my next to buy list for a 632 with the fluted barrel for use as a primary ccw weapon. Now I hear this. I guess I am way too late to the party.

Then again it seems like the 327mag is not a round that you are going to go and shoot a couple hundred every other week. More like shooting a couple cylinders every month or so to maintain your skills with your carry weapon.

I don't know the ballistics or the performance of the round and how it compares to the 38 special, 9mm or the +P loadings in either, but if it's close then having 6 rounds to 5 is certainly enough of an advantage to keep it as a ccw weapon. Is it not?

I'd still like to have one for my j frame go-anywhere at anytime gun, but I don't think I'd pay $800 for one of the fluted barrel models or the PRO, which is what they go for. That could buy me an M&P revolver or a Scandium 357 which I would carry 38+P in. An 11 ounce revolver with +P ammo trumps a 25 oz, 6 shot revolver chambered in 327 federal magnum. My thinking anyway.

Nalajr
Look up Ballistics By the Inch and how well the .327 Federal performs from the shorter barrels. It isn't a .357 Magnum (we already have that.) The .327 ends to be a bit more "blasty" than the 9mm or .38 Special, but it doesn't have the recoil of either. From what I can see in videos and read in personal reviews, is that it 'snappier' than the standard .38 Special/9mm bunch.

From what I understand, I think that you would like it. I, for one, believe that the .327 will penetrate more deeply then the .35 caliber rounds due to sheer velocity and bullet weight. A .312" 100 grain RNFP bullet screaming along at 1515 fps will "keep on truckin'" where the other rounds with greater frontal area tend to shed their velocity. With the smaller bore rounds, penetration is your friend!

Scott
Reply With Quote