Taurus 327

[supton]

And that matters how? If you cannot find it, you cannot find it.

A Ford Model T is also a century old. Can I go buy one reasonably easily or maintain it easily or use it easily? Probably not.

Well, my original question was pertaining to the last 50 years. Using 100 year old rounds was outside that scope. I curious just how many in the last 50 years had come and gone, I can think of a few but not that many (25NAA, 32NAA, maybe some "Ruger only" rounds?). Have to figure, niche round will always pop up, and occasionally they might even stick around.

I agree with you about issues finding ammo. But straight wall cartridges are quite easy to reload, so buy a few boxes of defense loads, shoot sparingly, buy more when on sale. Reload the empties to save a buck. Done. A number of shooters do that with commonly available rounds.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I agree with you about issues finding ammo. But straight wall cartridges are quite easy to reload, so buy a few boxes of defense loads, shoot sparingly, buy more when on sale. Reload the empties to save a buck. Done. A number of shooters do that with commonly available rounds.

So I have to become a reloader in order to shoot esoteric calibers? No thanks, not interested in sitting at a press reloading ammo. And, shells are only safe to reload a few times IIRC. So it's a temporary fix. And many guns advise against reloads.

I'd rather just, more efficiently and economically, buy pallets of the common stuff when on sale and be done with it. Let factories worry about quality control, liability, R&D, etc. Other things I also don't make - motor oil, circuit breakers, transmission fluid, gasoline, vitamins, shoe laces, etc. There's not enough time in the day nor storage facilities to house and fabricate everything I use.

 

[supton]

So I have to become a reloader in order to shoot esoteric calibers? No thanks, not interested in sitting at a press reloading ammo. And, shells are only safe to reload a few times IIRC. So it's a temporary fix. And many guns advise against reloads.

I'd rather just, more efficiently and economically, buy pallets of the common stuff when on sale and be done with it. Let factories worry about quality control, liability, R&D, etc. Other things I also don't make - motor oil, circuit breakers, transmission fluid, gasoline, vitamins, shoe laces, etc. There's not enough time in the day nor storage facilities to house and fabricate everything I use.

Fair enough. I wouldn't have an issue doing so, but I'm not everyone else. I figure, a set of used Lee dies are what, $100? forget what I spent on my 38's but I got 'em used. After that it's the price of non-reusable components. A couple boxes of commercial loads will likely yield cases I can use for years.

IIRC 9mm was wasn't really economical reload, toss the problem of policing your brass from an auto-chucker and it probably doesn't make sense, especially if you don't have to police your brass. In a revolver though, it's pretty easy to grab empties. outside of 9mm I do believe the economics change, although to be honest I kinda got out of shooting and haven't paid attention.

38spl cases can be reused just shy of infinite times. Pressures are too low to stretch the brass out; unless if you anneal the case eventually you'll get some splitting of the case and the brass is cheap enough to toss. Not sure about 9mm or other rounds around that pressure level, but given how easy it is to lose that brass I'm not sure it's a real issue. High zoot rifle rounds are a different story but I was never into those.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

IIRC 9mm was wasn't really economical reload, toss the problem of policing your brass from an auto-chucker and it probably doesn't make sense, especially if you don't have to police your brass. In a revolver though, it's pretty easy to grab empties. outside of 9mm I do believe the economics change, although to be honest I kinda got out of shooting and haven't paid attention.

I collect all my brass so it still repays me in value. When I get buckets full, I take it to reloaders who will buy it, give me silver, etc. Collecting brass for reuse, is not exclusive to reloaders.

 

[Astro14]

I would reload .38 spl in a heartbeat. My one S&W Model 15 fully supports the brass. .41 Magnum? Sure, why not. I'll add .45 Colt while we're at it. .41 and .44 Magnum are very expensive to buy, .45 Colt only a bit less, but the components aren't that expensive. A good savings can be had in those calibers. Probably worth my time and investment in a press. I also plan to get into it for .45-70 for my trapdoor. Someday...

I wouldn't reload 9mm, though. I own, and shoot, enough Glocks, and other guns, with an unsupported chamber that I cannot trust reloads in them. Fully supported chamber, like a S&W 3rd generation auto? Sure, perhaps. But I don't want any specific caliber ammo that is OK for some guns, and not others.

Too many ways to get that wrong.

When ammo prices return to normal, and they will, 9mm will once again become so cheap to buy that you can't actually reload for less.

I'll stock up again when that happens.

I've got a friend who used to run a local reloading/manufacturing (all new components) business, even sponsoring local shooting competitions, and the incredibly low prices of ammo drove him out of business about 4 years ago. He tried to get back in about 2 years ago, but couldn't get components. Primers, in particular, were nowhere to be found. I've got some of his .300 BLK, all made from new components, but he hasn't been able to make anything recently. A shame, since I can't find .300 BLK anywhere at a reasonable price.

 

[4WD]

.38 SPL is already down 20% from the highest I paid …

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's too much of a vague statements. Too much depends on the loads, bullet weight, bullet design, barrel length, and so forth.

And, as I stated before, shot placement is king so much of this is academic. A .22LR to the head is more effective than a .44 mag to the finger. So while people overly fixate on the nonsense idea of "stopping power," accuracy is king by a big margin. You also have to factor weapon reliability. Both of these go to USER ABILITY which is directly related to training. Training is generally fixed to ammunition costs (less expensive ammo means more training time). (This does not factor rifle calibers, range, etc.)

It's an ecosystem, and claiming one bullet is "ballistically superior" ignores the far more important aspects, which I summarized.

You're going off track in the original comments on ballistics between those rounds. If you simply look at the ballistics between a standard load 38 Spl, 9 mm and 357 Mag it's quite clear the how they rank. If you shot all 3 of those rounds through the same gun barrel length the ballistic ranking would also show the same correlation. Going down the road of "shot placement" is a whole different adventure into the weeds and not really relevant to the ballistics.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I love the 327 Magnum.

Years ago, I had an SP101 chambered in it and stupidly sold it.

When I heard a few years back that Ruger was making a Single 7 chambered in it, I called every gun store in town and fortunately one came through. I still have that one and never intend to sell it.

This is a great little cartridge-as much kinetic energy as a 357 Magnum but softer shooting and an extra round in a given sized gun.

Depends on the load. You can get 357 Mag that has around 750-800 ft-lbs of KE, but you won't find 327 Mag that high.

 

[nomas]

ZERO interest .

 

[CharlesInCharge]

You're going off track in the original comments on ballistics between those rounds. If you simply look at the ballistics between a standard load 38 Spl, 9 mm and 357 Mag it's quite clear the how they rank. If you shot all 3 of those rounds through the same gun barrel length the ballistic ranking would also show the same correlation. Going down the road of "shot placement" is a whole different adventure into the weeds and not really relevant to the ballistics.

Ballistics does not exist in a vacuum, but in ecosystem. SEE above comments, as to why cops have shifted from 10mm or .40 cal to 9mm, easier to use, less expensive, and so forth. It's sufficient to do the job.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ballistics does not exist in a vacuum, but in ecosystem. SEE above comments, as to why cops have shifted from 10mm or .40 cal to 9mm, easier to use, less expensive, and so forth. It's sufficient to do the job.

You're still in the weeds. There is no arguing about the ballistics comparisons when all other factors are held constant.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

You're still in the weeds. There is no arguing about the ballistics comparisons when all other factors are held constant.

So then why don't military and police forces issue .500 magnum caliber sidearms? The ballistics would be far superior to the 9mm that most issue.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So then why don't military and police forces issue .500 magnum caliber sidearms? The ballistics would be far superior to the 9mm that most issue.

You're going down the strawman road. Why not hunt Grizzly bear with a .22LR ? I mean if the "shot placment" is good then there's really no difference.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

You're going down the strawman road. Why not hunt Grizzly bear with a .22LR ? I mean if the "shot placment" is good then there's really no difference.

I asked a legit question and you refuse to answer it b/c it checkmates you. We all know the reason, which is because there often are MORE IMPORTANT equations than ballistics. Those are shot placement, accuracy, cost, and picking the right tool for the job. You want to pretend ballistics exist in a vacuum, and I've shown you they don't in a simple question that boxed you in. Checkmate.

As to your silly example, I believe I wrote or implied humans. Nobody serious minded would choose a .22LR, for a bear, although it could get the job done. Here's 20 examples of bears being dispatched by the lowly .22LR. Again, more checkmate on your silly argumentative position.

Bear Attacks & 20 Instances of .22 Rimfire Used for Survival

The .22 rimfire caliber is often underestimated. I has the power to consistently kill large animals. Here are 20 incidents where .22 rimfire firearms were used against bears.

www.ammoland.com

Part of the skill of guncraft is to pick the right tool for the job, and I've more than proven that shot placement trumps ballistics, which does not even exist in a vacuum since the shot has to hit the target in a lethal area to be effective, whereas a miss negates any ballistics whatsoever.

 

[JimPghPA]

Yeah I thought someone put a Chevy 327 in a Taurus.

+1 on that one. I also thought someone managed to squeeze one of those good old screaming Chevy 327 V8's into a Ford. I still have fond memories of driving a 68 Camaro 4 speed with one of those nice 327's. Man they were fun.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I asked a legit question and you refuse to answer it b/c it checkmates you. We all know the reason, which is because there often are MORE IMPORTANT equations than ballistics. Those are shot placement, accuracy, cost, and picking the right tool for the job. You want to pretend ballistics exist in a vacuum, and I've shown you they don't in a simple question that boxed you in. Checkmate.

As to your silly example, I believe I wrote or implied humans. Nobody serious minded would choose a .22LR, for a bear, although it could get the job done. Here's 20 examples of bears being dispatched by the lowly .22LR. Again, more checkmate on your silly argumentative position.

Bear Attacks & 20 Instances of .22 Rimfire Used for Survival

The .22 rimfire caliber is often underestimated. I has the power to consistently kill large animals. Here are 20 incidents where .22 rimfire firearms were used against bears.

www.ammoland.com

Part of the skill of guncraft is to pick the right tool for the job, and I've more than proven that shot placement trumps ballistics, which does not even exist in a vacuum since the shot has to hit the target in a lethal area to be effective, whereas a miss negates any ballistics whatsoever.

You have "checkmated" anybody, lol. What question are you referring to?

Yes, Grizzly bears have been killed by .22LR ... but would YOU rather have a .22LR on you or a .357 Mag when a Grizzly bear is charging you? Really, you think either one is just as good and ballistics don't really matter because some guys got real lucky with a shot placement ... ?? You must be trolling or joking.

Ballistics trump placement if the shot placement is exactly the same - that's the part you're strawmaning. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand that with all other factors constant that ballistics do matter. Would you rather be shot in the guts with a .22LR or a .357 Mag? And if those Grizzly bears where hit in exactly the same spot with anything more powerful than a .22LR they would have been put down with way more headroom due to the ballistics. If you say it doesn't matter because ballistics don't matter, the you have zero credibility in this subject matter.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

You have "checkmated" anybody, lol. What question are you referring to?

Yes, Grizzly bears have been killed by .22LR ... but would YOU rather have a .22LR on you or a .357 Mag when a Grizzly bear is charging you? Really, you think either one is just as good and ballistics don't really matter because some guys got real lucky with a shot placement ... ?? You must be trolling or joking.

Ballistics trump placement if the shot placement is exactly the same - that's the part you're strawmaning. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand that with all other factors constant that ballistics do matter. Would you rather be shot in the guts with a .22LR or a .357 Mag? And if those Grizzly bears where hit in exactly the same spot with anything more powerful than a .22LR they would have been put down with way more headroom due to the ballistics. If you say it doesn't matter because ballistics don't matter, the you have zero credibility in this subject matter.

Then why are global militaries and police DOWNSIZING calibers? Hmmm? There has been a remarkable global trend to move DOWN the ballistics scales from .50+ caliber, to hunting sized .30 caliber, into the ~.23 caliber range for rifles, and DOWN the ballistics scales from ~.45 caliber to about .35 caliber in handguns...
Answer the question.
If ballistic was king this makes no sense. It's not king. It's not even that important, as long as the caliber can get the job done. The critical components are shot placement, which are also directly tied to costs, capacity, weight, logistics, controllability, and so forth.

Civilians have taken note and generally followed suit, if for no other reason than logistics/costs (see the trend from .3006 to .308 to 5.56 [probably the most prolific US rifle caliber now], and from .45acp to 9x19, and similar).

Globally, Russia and China have switched from the .30 caliber 7x62x39 to 5.45x45mm (about .23 caliber) in their main infantry rifles for decades, and dropped their .30 caliber Tokarev rounds for smaller calibers (not sure about China, but pretty sure Russia uses 9x19). All Western nations primarily use 9x19 and 5.45mm in main sidearms and long guns, and so forth. The GLOBE has rejected the "ballistics" arguments in favor of shot placement, controllability, costs, training budgets, weight, etc.

 

[ZeeOSix]

... Don't really know how you've twisted this whole conversation into what you have, it's pretty funny actually. I make a simple and completely accurate statement in post #25 that "9 mm is ballistically better than 38 Spl. And .357 Mag smokes them both", and you somehow start going down some twisted rabbit hole like you think I believe shot placement doesn't matter. Sure it does, BUT so does ballistics when all other factors are held constant. In other words, if the same basic bullet type was used, the rounds were all shot through the same barrel, and all impacted the Grizzly or whatever in exactly the same place, I'd bet on which one would do the most damage and have the best chance of doing a more effective job. I don't think you can really keep up with the discussion, and instead just start pivoting in every direction possible to deflect the original focus that ballistic can and do matter. The discussion is NOT about shot placement or proficiency of using a firearm. It's about the effect of ballistics given that all the other factors are constant. It's really not hard to grasp.

So do you really think you'd do just as well with a Grizzly with a .22LR instead of a .357 Mag just because some guy had lucky shots with the .22LR? ... because that's how your agrument comes across.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

... Don't really know how you've twisted this whole conversation into what you have, it's pretty funny actually. I make a simple and completely accurate statement in post #25 that "9 mm is ballistically better than 38 Spl. And .357 Mag smokes them both", and you somehow start going down some twisted rabbit hole like you think I believe shot placement doesn't matter. Sure it does, BUT so does ballistics when all other factors are held constant. In other words, if the same basic bullet type was used, the rounds were all shot through the same barrel, and all impacted the Grizzly or whatever in exactly the same place, I'd bet on which one would do the most damage and have the best chance of doing a more effective job. I don't think you can really keep up with the discussion, and instead just start pivoting in every direction possible to deflect the original focus that ballistic can and do matter. The discussion is NOT about shot placement or proficiency of using a firearm. It's about the effect of ballistics given that all the other factors are constant. It's really not hard to grasp.

So do you really think you'd do just as well with a Grizzly with a .22LR instead of a .357 Mag just because some guy had lucky shots with the .22LR? ... because that's how your agrument comes across.

No real world scenario are "all things equal," and in fact it's rarely such. My point remains that your point is an irrelevant academic statement. The real discussion IS IN FACT shot placement and proficiency, no other discussion trumps it. I'm done with this discussion, however. It's fruitless.

 

[ZeeOSix]

No real world scenario are "all things equal," and in fact it's rarely such. My point remains that your point is an irrelevant academic statement. The real discussion IS IN FACT shot placement and proficiency, no other discussion trumps it. I'm done with this discussion, however. It's fruitless.

Yes, it is fruitless, and you can't seem to understand where ballistics come into play. It is NOT all about "shot placement" ... it's about shot placement AND ballistics, which you seem to discount quite a bit. If ballistics didn't matter much, then maybe the police should all be using .22LR and guys should feel comfortable with a pump .177 pellet gun hunting Grizzly bears. I mean, it "could" be possible to kill a Grizzly bear with a .177 pellet IF the shot placement is perfect.