Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,814
I have several 32 H&R magnum revolvers and a 32 long. The idea of the 327 sounded even better, so I talked myself into one of the new 4.2" SP101's when they came out recently.
The frame is smaller than medium-sized. The original grips are on the small side for my extra-large hands (so I got some larger wooden grips that fit me better). It is nice and solid without being too heavy. The sights are good. The single-action trigger is longer and heavier than average. The double-action trigger is heavy but smooth. You have to push down hard to cock the hammer. It balances okay, but is a little nose-heavy.
The stainless steel was polished, but not until the polishing marks were completely gone. There were no scratches or dings. The area near the back of the crane on the left looks a little crude. Overall the revolver is finished to the level of a quality product, but not a superior quality product, imho.
I have taken it to the range three times. I fired 100 or so rounds each time, reloads and various kinds of factory ammo.
I fired a box of factory 327 magnum ammo that felt kind of snappy. My FiL's milder 327 magnum reloads were easy to shoot. The various H&R magnum loads were mild. The S&W long had no recoil to speak of. The little revolver is stout and has a sizeable barrel with lug, so it is heavy enough to soak up some recoil compared to a 2" snub.
I could probably shoot it better if the trigger wasn't so uninspiring. The single-action is not so great. The double-action is smooth, but pretty heavy. Cocking it back for single-action starts off hard and gets worse as the gun gets hot and dirty. By the time I had shot a bunch of rounds through a bunch of handguns and broken a sweat, I used the double-action more because: a) it is smooth b) cocking the hammer is obnoxious with tired sweaty hands.
I can hit a paper plate every time at 7 yards with any ammo, no problem. But so what? Any handgun should be able to do that, really.
At roughly 10 or 15 yards I could keep them all on the smallish square paper targets, but that was about it. The spicier 327's seemed to be the most accurate. My FiL's mild 32 long loads were sort of centered on the paper target... sort of.
Overall I am mildly disappointed. I had hoped for better accuracy: brand-new, from a major manufacturer, nice heft and a longish barrel, and it was not what I call cheap.
So yeah, it shoots fine. The problem is that it really shoots no better than my Charter Arms, Taurus, or New England Firearms (H&R) 32 magnum snubs. In fact, the old NEF revolver that I got for $148 has such a superior trigger that I can easily shoot it better at most ranges, even with the little notch sights
I had hoped for more of a belt/range/plinking gun that was pretty accurate out to 25 yards or so. Maybe the trigger will improve over time. I will probably get more used to it. Your mileage will doubtless vary.
Here are some before and after pictures:
The frame is smaller than medium-sized. The original grips are on the small side for my extra-large hands (so I got some larger wooden grips that fit me better). It is nice and solid without being too heavy. The sights are good. The single-action trigger is longer and heavier than average. The double-action trigger is heavy but smooth. You have to push down hard to cock the hammer. It balances okay, but is a little nose-heavy.
The stainless steel was polished, but not until the polishing marks were completely gone. There were no scratches or dings. The area near the back of the crane on the left looks a little crude. Overall the revolver is finished to the level of a quality product, but not a superior quality product, imho.
I have taken it to the range three times. I fired 100 or so rounds each time, reloads and various kinds of factory ammo.
I fired a box of factory 327 magnum ammo that felt kind of snappy. My FiL's milder 327 magnum reloads were easy to shoot. The various H&R magnum loads were mild. The S&W long had no recoil to speak of. The little revolver is stout and has a sizeable barrel with lug, so it is heavy enough to soak up some recoil compared to a 2" snub.
I could probably shoot it better if the trigger wasn't so uninspiring. The single-action is not so great. The double-action is smooth, but pretty heavy. Cocking it back for single-action starts off hard and gets worse as the gun gets hot and dirty. By the time I had shot a bunch of rounds through a bunch of handguns and broken a sweat, I used the double-action more because: a) it is smooth b) cocking the hammer is obnoxious with tired sweaty hands.
I can hit a paper plate every time at 7 yards with any ammo, no problem. But so what? Any handgun should be able to do that, really.
At roughly 10 or 15 yards I could keep them all on the smallish square paper targets, but that was about it. The spicier 327's seemed to be the most accurate. My FiL's mild 32 long loads were sort of centered on the paper target... sort of.
Overall I am mildly disappointed. I had hoped for better accuracy: brand-new, from a major manufacturer, nice heft and a longish barrel, and it was not what I call cheap.
So yeah, it shoots fine. The problem is that it really shoots no better than my Charter Arms, Taurus, or New England Firearms (H&R) 32 magnum snubs. In fact, the old NEF revolver that I got for $148 has such a superior trigger that I can easily shoot it better at most ranges, even with the little notch sights
I had hoped for more of a belt/range/plinking gun that was pretty accurate out to 25 yards or so. Maybe the trigger will improve over time. I will probably get more used to it. Your mileage will doubtless vary.
Here are some before and after pictures: