I have a Model 16-4, rechambered by Bowens to 327 Federal Magnum in 4" blue. It is a fantastic revolver. So I have one, and the new chambers have no effect on accuracy with the .32 Long wadcutters I use in my Pardini (either my handholds or Fiocchi commercial). Why a new gun. With the 327 Federal, a ported gun will be back on target faster. SS will be easier to clean.....All the benefits of a .32 Combat Masterpiece and more....

Attached Images

16-4_327 Mag.jpg (76.9 KB, 45 views)

__________________
Terry
SWCA, SWHS, IWLA, NRA

I'm all for a new k-frame revolver in .32 S&W Long, and there would likely be a fair amount of interest in one. I don't think the 327 Fed Mag cartridge would be nearly as desireable. I wouldn't port either, as I've never thought porting a revolver was a good idea no matter the cartridge, but that is just my opinion.

__________________
FBINA, 204th Session

I'll take mine wo the ports...........

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

I'd order one but without the porting.

I would not do the porting however I am not against porting per se. I have a 7.5-inch barrel Redhawk .44 Mag and I sent it to Mag-Na-Port myself for the four-port job and I’m thrilled with the results.

On the other hand, my only .327 Federal chambered revolver is my 4.2” barrelled GP-100 that I purchased used from a LGS and the previous owner had M-N-P do a two-port job on it. It works fine, I don’t particularly see the advantage of it and I have crusted lead all around the ports because I have used my share of cast lead in this gun and the ports wreak slight havoc with lead slugs.

I would ream the chambers of my “shooter grade” 6-inch Model 16-4 but I don’t have the reamer and I don’t know if Bowen still offers this service.

I would give extremely strong consideration to buying a 616, but it would have to meet the following criteria: 6" barrel, 3Ts, must chamber the 32 S&W Long round, and weigh in at 38.5 ounces. It would need to fit in with my K22 and the two K38s!

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

Had my 4” 16-4 re-chambered by Andy Horvath just like the OP did. The reamers were 75.00 to rent and Andy did it for the same amount. He is 35 minutes away. Have a .22 cylinder in the basement he did in .327 and a 4” 16-4 bbl waiting to be converted to a 3” round butt carry gun. Larry

I’m confused by this thread. Well, anyway, I guess the poll question was clear enough for me to vote, even though it says nothing about porting, caliber, or much specific of anything else.

If we’re talking about a ported stainless 16-4 in 327 FM, I guess no. I am no fan of ported revolvers. Leave out the porting, then yes, maybe. A lot would depend on appearance. If the finish ended up looking like that of an older Model 66, I’d probably be tempted - very tempted. Not too keen on the finish I see on the present 66s and 69s. Square butt would tip the scales further, as would easily interchangeable front sight blades, like on the 629DX. I’m sure what I’m hoping for is way too much to expect.

Looking at the results, I guess the fantasy 616 should have a 5.5" barrel with a removable port, like some PC models....Shooting .327 Federals, a port (or two) would really be beneficial, but could be easily removed like that on my .38 Super revolver.

Attached Images

627-4, 38 super .jpg (54.6 KB, 24 views)

__________________
Terry
SWCA, SWHS, IWLA, NRA

I’m confused about references to a stainless Model 16-4... AFAIK, that doesn’t exist. The mythical Model 616 (a term I believe originated with me) is a custom construct that has been done several times by those of us who assume Springfield, MA will never see the light. Certainly the proposed ported 5” gun or any other similar configuration is obtainable... it is a custom build, after all. My “616” barrel started life as a 4” Model 617 barrel and was simply rebored to 32 caliber, crowned, throated and installed... I’m in the camp that finds ports extraneous but that’s why we have custom guns built, to get what we want!

Froggie

I think it’s as simple as... we are in the Wish List area of the site. A Model 16 and a stainless one at that. If it were a new S&W creation and in stainless, it would not be a 16-5 — it would logically be a 616 no-dash.

Would love to have a “616” with two cylinders. A .327 Federal and a spare .32-20 cylinder. Why should Ruger have the convertible market to themselves? The only time S&W tried it was the Jet

pacecars,

Great call !!!

I have the Ruger Buckeye Convertible with the 2 cylinders. That gun is absolutely fabulous. You can shoot hot loads in that beast.

I love the 32-20 (135gr bullet at 1330fps) and the 32 H&Rmag is quickly becoming a favorite over the 327 federal magnum; a 135gr bullet at 1200fps can do what I need.

You must handload to get real- Accuracy, power, and not a dollar a round.

I would been in for a couple of 616s.


Prescut

I had Bowens makeup a 616 in .327 so yes.

The advantage of the .327 is it lets you shoot the .32 H&R and the long and shorter rounds

To get to the weight you want with the 6" barrel, would you prefer no underlug or that they slab the barrels like the PC guns?

A 3” full lug.327. Finally got the gun back from Andy Horvath today. Will round butt the gun, maybe bob the hammer and have it refinished. Couldn’t use the old front sight so we used a Weigand interchangeable front sight base. Early stages of a dream gun finally coming together. Shot it today and it’s shoots good, will ransom rest it next week to see what it is capable of. Larry

Attached Images

	D0838875-CD76-43CD-B0D6-AD71181E4423.jpg (68.1 KB, 12 views)
	D878705D-E2D5-4D2B-968A-599F60E3E947.jpg (67.6 KB, 12 views)
	FD21BA70-E51A-4363-8AE9-E8D66E991293.jpg (75.7 KB, 13 views)
	E85B7B79-04FD-4DED-BE50-9A695B4E1694.jpg (59.2 KB, 12 views)

Congrats Jebus35745 on another great gun by Andy! It seems like there certainly are a lot of personal touches that can make a 327 one’s own.

To the original theme of this thread, I would humbly suggest that Smith take a bunch of stainless 4” under lug barrels and 6” plain barrels (like they used on the 617 Mountain Gun) and bore them to .313 groove diameter. Then they would make up a like number of stainless cylinders chambered to 327 Fed Mag. Finally, they would dig out or forge anew the same number of non-IL stainless frames and build these parts into “the New Classic Model 616.” Use of MIM internals would be an acceptable compromise to current manufacture and tooling.

It would be made clear that this was to be a “Special Production Run” and not to be repeated, but when it sold out immediately, they could include the basic design in a regular production run, Hillary Hole and all. I’m retired and probably have more 32s than I need or can ever shoot regularly, but my name would be high on the list for a 6” version.

Having basic guns available would also enable the flights of fancy of our brethren who felt the need to customize.

Froggie

BTW Jebus35745, does Andy have a special place on his workbench with a big letter “J“ on it? You seem to be keeping guns rolling through his shop. Wish he was as convenient for me to visit... in my case it’s about a 5 hour trip each way!

Froggie