.30 Carbine Blackhawk v. .327 Fed Mag Blackhawk

[Barry the Bear]

Never had any problem with rimless cartridges in a revolver. I noticed that S&W's marksman (Jerry Miculek) favorite revolver is a Performance Center Model 325, a .45ACP revolver.

That uses moon clips and is double action and has no relevance to the Blackhawk discussion. Also your history on the m1 carbine is only semi correct it's implementation had almost nothing to do with the 1911 it was for the Thompson and m1 garand, instead of those being issued to rear side troops they opted for a smaller option but as a primary rifle. No one gets issued a rifle as a sidearm.

 

[CoalTrain49]

As far as the Ruger 30C BH is concerned it might be dead. I say this because the company has a pretty nice package here in the 327 BH. Pistol cartridge rifles aren't very interesting to most shooters so I wouldn't expect a revolver using a cartridge designed for an auto loading carbine to be real popular, and it isn't. Ruger killed the 77/357 and the 77/44 carbines because of lack of interest. The same thing might happen here with the 30C BH.

I shoot a 625-8 with moon clips only because 45 ACP is my favorite pistol cartridge and I like to shoot revolvers. 45 ACP is a hugely popular cartridge so it lives on in both auto loaders and revolvers. 30 Carbine, well, it sort of fell by the wayside.

Full disclosure, I have a 43 Inland carbine that I shoot and load for. As a matter of fact I just loaded 100 rounds a few hours ago. I like the historical connection.

 

[jski]

That uses moon clips and is double action and has no relevance to the Blackhawk discussion.

Both are revolvers and both use rimless cases.

Also your history on the m1 carbine is only semi correct it's implementation had almost nothing to do with the 1911 it was for the Thompson and m1 garand, instead of those being issued to rear side troops they opted for a smaller option but as a primary rifle. No one gets issued a rifle as a sidearm.

In WWI those same logistics personnel would have been issued an 1911. I'm not talking about the actual weapon, I'm speaking of the role the weapon played. The M1 Carbine in WWII played the same role as the 1911 did in WWI.

 

[jski]

As far as the Ruger 30C BH is concerned it might be dead. I say this because the company has a pretty nice package here in the 327 BH.

Spoken like a true .327 fanboy, which is fine. I like to see people passionate about their babies.

 

[Fiv3r]

Spoken like a true .327 fanboy, which is fine. I like to see people passionate about their babies.

I dunno if it's fanboy speak, to be honest. Now, full disclosure, as I have said, I don't have a .30c and I do have a well loved .327.

That said, every year away from the Great War, the .30c has less top of mind awareness to the shooting public. While it is a fine carbine cartridge, it's simply not iconic enough in most folk's minds like the beloved .45 acp or the .45 colt.

I think the .327 is grossly underappreciated, honestly. I do realize the limitations and the perceived answer to a question most people didn't ask. However, as a value added firearm, the .327 does offer more than what .30 in terms of feeding the gun.

I realize this is a discussion on the ballistics between .30c and .327 out of a Blackhawk. I'm completely ignorant to the kinetics between the two. However, if I were buying a BH and wanted a little more bang for my buck, the .327 might seem a little more attractive.

I do wish the .327 would catch on a little bit more. Affordable plinking rounds would be very welcome.

 

[CraigC]

Never had any problem with rimless cartridges in a revolver. I noticed that S&W's marksman (Jerry Miculek) favorite revolver is a Performance Center Model 325, a .45ACP revolver.

Apples and oranges.

 

[CraigC]

Spoken like a true .327 fanboy, which is fine. I like to see people passionate about their babies.

How ironic.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Spoken like a true .327 fanboy, which is fine. I like to see people passionate about their babies.

I don't own anything chambered in 327 Fed. and probably never will. I'm old school when it comes to cartridges. 9 mm, 38 spl, 357, and 45 ACP is all I shoot. Those four do everything I want so no need for a 327 fed. I do however think it's an interesting cartridge and would lean that direction if I were buying a 6 or 7" revolver. I'm not exactly sure how someone can be a fanboy when they don't even have a desire to own one.

 

[mhblaw]

I have an OMBH in 30 Carbine, a NMBH in 327 Mag and a Single Seven in 327 Mag (and several other SA's in 32 WCF). To each his own, and I reload and shoot them all and have a lot of fun!

 

[Barry the Bear]

Both are revolvers and both use rimless cases.



In WWI those same logistics personnel would have been issued an 1911. I'm not talking about the actual weapon, I'm speaking of the role the weapon played. The M1 Carbine in WWII played the same role as the 1911 did in WWI.

You specifically stated sidearm which no rifle carbine or not is, Secondly not everyone in the rear was issued the 1911 my great grandfather was issued a 1903 Springfield and 1917 Smith and Wesson revolver. So no the role was not the same.

 

[Ed Ames]

This thread could be used to teach the "Narcissism of Small Differences" concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

Pragmatically, the only real difference is cross compatability. If you have an m1 carbine, the .30 carbine revolver makes sense. If you have other .32 revolvers, the .327 makes more sense. If you don't have either, choose based on which you'd rather have.

Ballistically, all the research I've done shows the .327 slightly ahead of .30 carbine in actual performance, but very close. The .327 is a higher intensity cartridge to begin with, and .30 carbine is 75+ years down the "weaken to account for old guns" curve as well.

From any practical point of view I can't see how something shot with one or the other would tell the difference.

Disclaimer: I own two .327 revolvers (and another handful of .32s with manufacturing dates going back to the 1880s), would buy a .327 carbine if available, and do not own any .30 carbine firearms.

 

[jski]

Ballistically, all the research I've done shows the .327 slightly ahead of .30 carbine in actual performance, but very close. The .327 is a higher intensity cartridge to begin with, and .30 carbine is 75+ years down the "weaken to account for old guns" curve as well.

A retired gunsmith and Ruger Forum moderator concerning the .30 Carbine Blackhawk v. .327 Fed Mag Blackhawk:

Raw power .... the 30 Carb wins hand down .... and it is also very accurate. Versatility in different platforms .... the 327 Fed Mag wins .... don't know about accuracy. I sold my 30 Carb Blackhawk .... it was a tack driver and would drive VERY LARGE tacks at a considerable distances.

From TAFFIN TESTS: THE .30 CARBINE:

Many sixguns shoot well with jacketed bullets; others do well with cast bullets. Happiness is finding one that does both. The Ruger .30 Carbine does both.

"The .327 slightly ahead of .30 carbine" REALLY?

 

[Ed Ames]

Well it isn't significantly ahead. Do you prefer moderately? I'm not sure what you are driving at. The two are within margin of error of each other, but the slightly larger piston 45kpsi cartridge is going to have a bit better acceleration in a handgun barrel than the (slightly) smaller piston 40kpsi (original, now down-rated to avoid blowing up 75 year old guns) cartridge.

 

[eldon519]

I don't think Iowegan is the end-all authority you are citing him as. And the Taffin quote doesn't even address ballistic performance. Are you ever going to be satisfied until we all unanimously hop on the .30 carbine fanboy bus with you?

 

[Fiv3r]

A retired gunsmith and Ruger Forum moderator concerning the .30 Carbine Blackhawk v. .327 Fed Mag Blackhawk:


From TAFFIN TESTS: THE .30 CARBINE:


"The .327 slightly ahead of .30 carbine" REALLY?

My question is that you keep quoting this retired smith. He states that the .30 wins in raw horsepower. I don't dispute this, as I have no first hand experience with .30c.

However he admits that he's not sure when it comes to accuracy between the two. Yes, his .30 was a tackdriver, but could the .327 also be on par with the .30c in this department?

From all that I have heard, the .327 is a hard hitting, flat shooting, and accurate round at reasonable distances. I don't dispute that the .30 may be slightly more powerful, but I would think accuracy may come out to be a wash.

My thought is that for what the .30 and .327 bring to the table, whatever you hit with either one isn't going to know the difference. It seems to me that if you have a gun chambered in .30 carbine, the .30 makes sense. if you have a .327, the .327 makes equal sense.

I don't have a BH in either, but, once again, beyond ballistics, for me, the versatility of the .327 outweighs the kinetic performance of the .30. Both are oddball cartridges compared to the vast majority of what most folks shoot.

Both seem to put an accurate thump on target when rolled to their potential. I just bought a .327 as a savvy just-in-case gun. It fires pretty much anything with a .32 on the box. Not the most common, but available when others seem to be snapped up in a panic.

 

[CraigC]

Are you ever going to be satisfied until we all unanimously hop on the .30 carbine fanboy bus with you?

Must be some strong Kool Aid.

 

[jski]

Eldon519, I just enjoy the debate. No need to jump on anyone's bandwagon. To tell you the truth, I've been intrigued with the .327 mag. ever since it was first announced. I'd love the opportunity to take one to the range.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think there needs to be some sort of context/bigger picture when you are comparing cartridges (well, not just cartridges...most things). You need to establish the why, because specifications and anecdotes are meaningless in isolation.

The biggest difference between .327 and .30carb is the why. When it comes to real world shooting, the variation between samples is likely larger than any fundamental difference.

The why of a .30carb blackhawk was...well, I assume it was that at some time in the past you could buy surplus .30carb ammo for less than the cost of reloading, and perhaps there were farmers/ranchers with surplus m1 carbines who would buy into the shared ammo idea.

I think in general the why of the .327 is to increase the capacity of revolvers while maintaining a performance level that is arguably comparable to the familiar .357 magnum. The sp101 and lcr go from 5 to 6 shots. My single7 is obviously 7 shots. The .327 Blackhawk is 8 shots.

I don't think the people who designed the .327 ever gave a thought to the 30 carbine. I have a suspicion that, if they had, they might have said, "Why don't we just slap a rim on that old cartridge and go home?"

I think that difference in perceived purpose, and how it influences the designer, is why even though the .30carb blackhawk could probably hold 8 rounds it was only given 6 chambers.

 

[Monac]

I don't think the people who designed the .327 ever gave a thought to the 30 carbine. I have a suspicion that, if they had, they might have said, "Why don't we just slap a rim on that old cartridge and go home?"

That would never have happened. The 327 guns were always intended to be "backwards compatible" with the 32 Magnum / 32 Long / 32 S&W cartridges. That way, somebody who bought a 327 revolver would still have had something to shoot in it, even if 327 flopped. Creating a 30 Carbine Rimmed round would have had exactly the same problem as the Charter Arms guns made for a rimmed 9x19mm cartridge ("9mm Federal") - if you couldn't get that ammo, your gun was pretty much useless, because it wasn't designed to use moon clips (IIRC).

Look, it doesn't matter if one cartridge has a tiny ballistic advantage over the other. The 327 was designed from the start to work in conventional swing-out cylinder revolvers, and it is far better at that than 30 Carbine, which was designed to work in semi-auto rifles. As a pistol round, 30 Carbine was never anything but a curiosity for that reason. What I would like to know is, which cartridge is better in a handy carbine? Has anyone made a rifle in 327? Should anyone, or is it a pointless idea?

 

[eldon519]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to make a .327 carbine, but I am not sure what it gains or what niche it fills. Compared to a .357 carbine, the capacity should be the same, and the recoil from a .357 carbine is already very managable. I think it would be a very, very narrow slice of the shooting population who could not tolerate the recoil of a .357 carbine but could tolerate a .327 carbine. There is no fundamental reason not to make a .327 carbine though. If someone cared enough, they could custom build a lighter, smaller action for it or perhaps there is another smaller action already in existence that could handle the .327. In that case I guess you could build a lighter rifle, but as it stands, a .327 in a 1892 or 1894 would actually be heavier than a comparable .357 carbine. Would be a nice small game rifle, but a .357 is already pretty good for that with something like a SWC bullet.

 

[GooseGestapo]

RangerPointPrecision is converting Marlin M1894's to .327Mag l/a carbines with 16.5"bbl's. About $1550 if they provide action.

I have a 1943 Saginaw .30Carbine, 1950's rebuild. Love it, shoot it in M1carbine matches and have medaled in every match I've shot. But it requires a relatively narrow range of ammo performance.

I also have a .327 Fed in a Ruger Single-7.
Realistically, the differences are moot, ballisticaly. Both loaded with the same bullets (I cast and load same in both) with same powder use close to same quantities, and in EQUAVALENT firearms, would yield similar results.
Actually, EdAmes was the closest in his assessment, IMO.

You can shoot any .311"-.314" bullet FROM ~60gr-125gr in the .327, loaded in cases from the .32acp, up to .327mag. Due to bullet weights and velocity differences, POI/POA will vary significantly. Obviously, a 125gr won't fit in the .32S&W or .32acp.
Interesting, though, is that some .32S&W (short) loaded with 1.2gr Bullseye under a 78gr .311" RN at 625fps, shoot to same POI as some 122gr FNGC loaded over 10.5gr Acc#9 at nearly 1,400fps (velocities from 5.5"bbl).
Utility goes to the .327mag.
BTW; I use .311" cast bullets in the .30Carbine, so I CAN use same bullets in both.

 

[Ed Ames]

That would never have happened. ... the Charter Arms guns made for a rimmed 9x19mm cartridge ("9mm Federal")

I like how you say it would never happen then give an example of basically the same thing happening.

Don't get me wrong... I agree that adding to the .32 legacy was the smarter move. Part of why i bought my .327s was to have modern guns that could share ammo with my old .32s. But I don't assume something would never have happened just because something else did happen.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to make a .327 carbine, but I am not sure what it gains or what niche it fills

Mainly the "I already have this ammo around and it would be sufficient for my needs" nich. It gains accuracy and energy over the handgun alone. Same reason I have a .454 casull lever gun, and other people have .357 long guns.

 

[CoalTrain49]

What purpose would a 327 fed carbine have?

Bullet weight seems to be a limiting factor here just like 30C.

100 grn bullet was all I could find. That isn't heavy enough for medium game with that velocity.

I'm sure some will disagree.

 

[jski]

This little puppy was offered in the .30 Carbine:

 

[Ed Ames]

I have a perverse desire to own one of those automags, but that's because I remember trying to convince myself that the grip was "manageable" when I held one when I was 13-ish years old.