SP 101 32 H&R rechamber to 327 Fed?

[S A Webbx1]

Any reason I couldn't rechamber my 4" SP 101 32 mag for the 327 Fed round?  I had adj. sights installed and  its a nice utility gun that could use a versatity upgrade.  And what can I expect to pay for the rechamber job?

[David Carey]

Cylinder length might be a problem.

Dave

[zasxcd]

I don't see why there would be any length problem, the SP101 is also available in  .357 Magnum, and the frames are identical. IMO, you might consider getting a spare cylinder for the re-chamber job, so that you can put it back if you want, later. Do a search on GunBroker for Ruger parts, or for SP101, parts kits show up there frequently.

[SHOOTALL]

there is an article about the 327 in SHOOTING TIMES that uses a SP!)! for the testing !

[SHOOTALL]

SP101

i can't type !

[S A Webbx1]

My 357 SP 101 cyl. is about .060" longer than the 32mag cyl., which would seem to still be enough based on case length.  Since I don't know the ctg. OAL, I'm not sure..  I'm not intereseted in a second cylinder only because the project won't happen unless it is simple and affordable.  Which is why I inquired about the cost of rechambering.  My idea was to get a "new" gun without adding to the bills that I pay for other guns I bought in the past.  I should probably be on a financial recovery site but I am not ready to quit.  Is anyone aware of an online source  for ctg. specs.?

[SHOOTALL]

check the ST article

[Heavy C]

My 357 SP 101 cyl. is about .060" longer than the 32mag cyl., which would seem to still be enough based on case length.  Since I don't know the ctg. OAL, I'm not sure..  I'm not intereseted in a second cylinder only because the project won't happen unless it is simple and affordable.  Which is why I inquired about the cost of rechambering.  My idea was to get a "new" gun without adding to the bills that I pay for other guns I bought in the past.  I should probably be on a financial recovery site but I am not ready to quit.  Is anyone aware of an online source  for ctg. specs.?

The cartridge specs were provided to you in the second post by David Carey.  I think a second cylinder might be the most cost effective approach.  In order to rechamber you'd have to first find a gunsmith that'll do the job and I'd be willing to be that it will bet more than a new cylinder.

[SHOOTALL]

A new gun might be less expensive if the new cyl. is longer and the bbl has to be shortened with regard to how much it sets back into the frame .
a re-chamber job might not be as costly but then you may have the same problem that the 357 max. had with frame cutting due to a short cyl. length on the Ruger .
if the old gun is traded it may be the most cost effective way to get what you want !

[S A Webbx1]

The second post graphic only showed case length rather than overall loaded length.  I do read and pay attention in spite of having FNG computer skills. The second cylinder idea would only help if I want to have interchangeable cylinders. I can't imagine that I can find a take-off 327 cylinder and if I got a 32 mag cylinder I would have to rechamber that.  I can't believe that stabbing my cylinder with a 327 reamer is is all that complicated. If I cant keep it simple and affordable,  I would do almost as well using loads published under Brian Pearce's byline for the 32 single-six.  If SAAMI specs had been set for this cartridge in Rugers in the first place no one would have ever bothered with the 327.  The 32 mag was hamstrung by coming out in the H&R platform.  With a case volume =/> than a 9mm and used in a platform that handles 357 rockets, why wouldn't a Barnes x-bullet do the job in the 32 mag at reasonable pressures any way?

[jcn59]

Why not buy a decimal size chucking reamer from Grand Tool Supply in NJ for about $12. & ream it out yourself?

See cat. SPO7B, page 5.

[Mikey]

S A Webbx1:  The only source I am currently aware of for cartridge specs for the new 327 chevy magnum is the Shooting Times article that introduced it and a copy of the photo comparing the various cartridge lengths is posted in this thread. 

But, as to your question of whether a Barnes X-bullet would do the job, even in a 32 mag, I would say Yes, it certainly should. 

But, one concern I have about just boring out a cylinder is the extraction platform for the 327.  I do not doubt the 32 mag uses the same type of extraction platform as does the 32 S&W, 357 and 38 spl.  However, if you take a look at the cartridge design, the case wears an extraction groove before the rim and the rim does not look as 'healthy' as do those rims on a 38/357 - actually, kinda looks like the piddlin' little 'semi-rim' of the 38 Super and this makes me wonder if the 327 isn't really a semi-rimmed cartridge and if that would make any difference in case extraction. 

Also, when you look at the stated length of the cartridge, the 'extraction groove' for lack of a better term, looks like it does little but cause the cartridge case to simply be longer without much real additional powder space.

I agree that I sort of doubt anybody really has a bunch of 32 mag cylinders around that you could modify or have reamed and I don't know what the cost might be.  Heck, you could probably load a 32 Mag to the same performance levels as the 327 as the case capacity between the two is probably less than that between the 38 and 357.  Mikey.

[Reed1911]

I did not see it said elsewhere so I will, the 327 case has thicker walls and is built to withstand higher pressures than the .32 H&R, so I think loading the H&R to the 327 level is pretty much out; at least I would not go that route. One could cut back the case, ream the interior to proper depth and then go about it, but that would be more work than it was worth in my opinion. Buying another cylinder and reaming it would be the best bet in my opinion. 

[Heavy C]

Here's another good article on the 327 you might enjoy reading.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SP101-327.htm

[S A Webbx1]

HeavyC, that was a great linked article.  As far as loading 32mag to 327 Fed max pressures, I wouldn't but there is a lot off territory above 20,000psi and well below 45,000psi.  Would it be to much to wish for a realistic field gun with fully adjustable sight and a longer barrel to put them on?  New vaquero/flattop size and in stainless so I can throw it in the dishwasher.