16.5” or 20” Barrel which would you pick for .327 Federal Magnum?

[Oninotaki]

Ok gentlemen I have decided to try to add a Henry in .327 to my collection of .327 and .32 H&R magnum revolvers. However as this is a harder to find rifle I want to avoid just buying whichever model I come across for fear of never getting one. So I come to you all looking for advice on which of the various models you would hold out for and why. The models available from Henry are as far as I can tell the following:

Classic -20” barrel, 10 round capacity, Overall length 38.5”, weight 8.6lbs
Carbine -16.5” barrel, 7 round capacity, Overal length 35”, weight 7.7lbs

Both models seem to have been made in both steel and brass.

How I intend to use the rifle:

1: This will be a field gun used in forested areas where the biggest game is deer.
2: It will be paired with my Ruger Lipsey GP100 while I am out in the field.
3: I will primarily be using American Eagle .327 100 grain ammunition with it as I acquired a large stash of it when I got my GP100
4: I will not be backpacking/hiking/deep wilderness traveling on foot with this, it will be used on 100 acre max lots that have access to cabins and good trails.
5: Heavy snow and mud are seasonal factors.
6:There is no intention to use this as a home defense or other two legged critter situation.
7: There will be opportunities to enjoy outdoor ranges with 100 and 200 yard stations.

Any advice and experience with .327 out of a rifle platform would be greatly appreciated.

 

[mongoslow]

considering how fast the powder burn rate of the .327 is I would get the lighter. shorter carbine and call it good enough, that carbine will just handle a little better in the brush, I would also choose steel receiver over the brass for better durability and less likely to scratch up the finish

 

[jmr40]

16"

I can't imagine a levergun in a pistol cartridge weighing almost 9 lbs with irons. They need to find a way to get that rifle closer to 6 lbs.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Shorter is better with PCCs. Most handgun rounds gain virtually nothing after 12", some even start to slow down, so going longer than 16" really only serves to quiet them. But I suppress all the things anyway.

 

[js8588]

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/327mag.html

 

[horsemen61]

I’d get the 16 for your purposes

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Given the Henry tubular magazine platform and your chosen ammo, go 16".


Had this been a single shot, I personally would be tempted to see whether the rather long .327 case has the handloading potential for a more effective rifle loading out of a 20" barrel -- something akin to the dual 32-20 loadings. That might be a long shot (pun intended), but it would also allow you to do the ballistics by the inch method and cut it back later.

 

[silicosys4]

For woods work i'd want a rifle/pistol combo that together makes greater than 1500ft/lbs at the muzzle if deer were a possibility. I consider the .327 to be suitable for animals no bigger than coyotes at close ranges.

For your purposes, 16".

 

[CraigC]

A magnum revolver cartridge will typically peak around 18-20". That said, velocity is not the biggest factor in deciding barrel length. IMHO, 16" barrels on leverguns are overrated. For me a 20" is default for a carbine or short rifle. However, in this case, I'd go 16" for weight alone. 4" of barrel length should not add a pound, maybe a few ounces. Is the 20" an octagon? Henry goes way too heavy with their octagon profiles.

 

[MachIVshooter]

A magnum revolver cartridge will typically peak around 18-20".

Nearly every .357 and .44 load BBTI tested started losing velocity after 16".

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

 

[CraigC]

Nearly every .357 and .44 load BBTI tested started losing velocity after 16".

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

Every set of levergun load data I've ever seen, going back long before BBTI, did what I posted. IMHO, BBTI is too limited in its scope, oft quoted and misunderstood. Of the four .44 loads tested, which is FAR from comprehensive, only one was slower from 16" to 20". One of four is not "nearly all".

As I said, it's far from the only consideration and after actually using the guns, I prefer longer barrels.

 

[R.W.Dale]

This is 2023. While we like to think we still have the option to carefully select a platform and or sub model exactly to our tastes after much careful deliberation

in reality you are probably going to be limited to whichever 327 Henry you can find first with neither option being a realistic outcome.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Every set of levergun load data I've ever seen, going back long before BBTI, did what I posted. IMHO, BBTI is too limited in its scope, oft quoted and misunderstood. Of the four .44 loads tested, which is FAR from comprehensive, only one was slower from 16" to 20". One of four is not "nearly all".

7 of 8 .357 loads slowed down, making the aggregate there 8 of 12, and the average gains from 16 to 18 where there were any are less than typical SD; 8, 8, 21 and 24 FPS respectively.

The only advantages of longer barrels when there are no further ballistic gains are greater sight radius and less noise at shooter's ear, and maybe a couple extra rounds with a full length tube magazine levergun. Single plane optics and suppressors completely mitigate both of the first two. I suppress nearly everything, so like to keep barrel length as short as possible since I'll be adding 5 to 9 inches.

I certainly don't begrudge anyone for just preferring longer barrels, but from a purely practical standpoint, there's little reason to go longer than the point at which the round achieves over 90% of it's ballistic potential.

 

[CraigC]

And I have to look at the loads themselves, not just the numbers that say what I want them to. Those are nearly all light bullet defensive loads. As I said, the BBTI numbers are often misquoted and misinterpreted. Other sources with more comprehensive testing implies that 18-20" is optimum. To reiterate another point, been there and done that. I don't see the advantage. In fact, I'm about to start on a project based on a Marlin 336 I found years ago that was cut to 16" and I wish it was still a standard 20" carbine.

Also as I said, there are considerations other than velocity, practical and otherwise and I put more significance on them. Balance is certainly a factor, as is sight radius and noise. Red dot or not, all of my leverguns are going to wear a set of peep sights. Yeah, I suppress a lot of stuff too. I'm the guy that thinks a 10.5" AR is perfect but it's a different tool for a different job.

Hunting with muzzleloaders with 40" barrels taught me that uber-short rifles have little advantage in the field.

 

[CraigC]

Either way, I really don't think a couple inches in either direction is worth worrying or arguing about.

 

[chicharrones]

Classic -20” barrel, 10 round capacity, Overall length 38.5”, weight 8.6lbs
Carbine -16.5” barrel, 7 round capacity, Overal length 35”, weight 7.7lbs

Which model?

The Big Boy Steel versions are 7 lbs. and 6.6 lbs. respectively.
https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/henry-big-boy-steel/

 

[d2wing]

In my opinion you will like the shorter and lighter more. I would for sure. The possible advantage of a slightly longer barrel isn't enough to make that round any more effective, marginal that it is already. The heavier load, which is the one I would use, actually is faster at 16 inches anyway.

 

[Frulk]

20 Inch Henry Steel .327FM driver here:

As someone already mentioned those rifles are somewhat hard to come by in either barrel length in today's environment.

The OP's quoted weight is for their HEAVIEST BRASSLITE version. I just weighed my STEEL rifle and it was exactly at 7 pounds. Now, Henry does have some nicely figured wood and could be that weight varies a couple to maybe 3 ounces (if that) but the 20-inch round barreled STEEL rifle does not weigh 8 pounds 6 ounces. That's a whole 'nother' discussion point with Henry sticking to non-profiled barrels in that brass configuration adding unnecessary weight to what should be a great field gun to carry around the woods.

I picked the 20-inch STEEL version for the extra ammo capacity plus I just thought it looked better in profile that the 16-incher. I'm not clearing a house room by room or walking through northern Maine pine bogs with it, so the extra length is irrelevant to me as are the 4 ounces of weight when I 'weigh' it against the increased magazine capacity.

You said you might shoot whatever you get out to 200yards. In that case you might like the extra barrel length if you plan to use open sights...the ones being on the gun at that distance will challenge you at that range. If you're going with a scope then the barrel length may be a wash except for the truncated magazine capacity.


Looking at some of my personal rifle chrono data:

American Eagle Factory .327FM load out of 20-inch barrel: 2,076 FPS average. Spread was 2062-2089 FPS.

Handload Hornady XTP 100grain .327FM: 1,929 average.

Handload 115 Gr SWCGC .327FM: 1978FPS average. Spread was 1945-2027 FPS.

Handload 120gr LRNFPGC .327FM: 1866FPS average. Recorded mild primer flattening.

.32 H&R:

120 grain RNFP: 1070 average. Notes: Primers good, gun cycled fine.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Every set of levergun load data I've ever seen, going back long before BBTI, did what I posted. IMHO, BBTI is too limited in its scope, oft quoted and misunderstood. Of the four .44 loads tested, which is FAR from comprehensive, only one was slower from 16" to 20". One of four is not "nearly all".

As I said, it's far from the only consideration and after actually using the guns, I prefer longer barrels.

Same here.
Sighting radius is my most important consideration with iron sights.
I've found true Magnum powders gain from longer barrels. Medium burn rate ones don't.
If it's an octagon barrel. It would have to be 16" they're heavy.

 

[codytrucker]

I'm still not understanding how or why the Italian or Brazilians aren't making model 92's in this round .It just begs for a light handy carbine .

 

[js8588]

I'm still not understanding how or why the Italian or Brazilians aren't making model 92's in this round .It just begs for a light handy carbine .

As Jeff Quinn said, it would make for a dandy carbine!

 

[Oninotaki]

Thanks for the advice everybody. Looks like I will be keeping an eye out for the 20" steel version.

I totally get that it is a rare enough find that it will be tempting to just grab whatever I come across, but finding out that the 20" steel is only 7lbs really swings it, and that's why I asked you all. I knew collectively you guys would catch a detail I was missing.

My next question is if I every hypothetically find one would replacing the wood furniture with ranger point precision aluminum skeletonized furniture reduce the weight further or increase it.......

 

[Frulk]

^^^Ranger via their customer service department or FAQ should have that answer.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Thanks for the advice everybody. Looks like I will be keeping an eye out for the 20" steel version.

I totally get that it is a rare enough find that it will be tempting to just grab whatever I come across, but finding out that the 20" steel is only 7lbs really swings it, and that's why I asked you all. I knew collectively you guys would catch a detail I was missing.

My next question is if I every hypothetically find one would replacing the wood furniture with ranger point precision aluminum skeletonized furniture reduce the weight further or increase it.......

Aluminum is lighter than wood for the same strength.

 

[ditmo]

I wanted the 16" but found a 20" and bought it. Very happy with it. It is a little porky, but I doubt I'll ever find an 1894 marlin for a reasonable price. I also bought a Henry in .41 mag because they made it. That's a 20" as well.