.327 Federal Magnum

I too was disappointed in the American Rifleman article on the .327 Federal.

Even though Ruger is trying to sell the SP101 as a “belly gun,"  it weighs 28 ounces, has a 3-inch barrel and adjustable sights, so it really isn't.  It is a “sort of” carry piece, which is a bit too large, a bit too heavy, with too many projections and sharp corners for a smooth draw.  It's more of a wannabe “kit gun.”

So doing the accuracy testing at SEVEN YARDS is a joke!  Who are they kidding? In the old days the only reason we'd shoot at 7 yards was because the gun was such a dog that showing 25 yard results would be embarassing to the manufacturer.  It was a nice way of saying, “this thing is really a piece of crap and nobody in their right mind should buy it." 

To treat a quality Ruger product in that way is an insult. If I were Ruger's advertising manager I wouldn't be too pleased.  I'd be sure they had enough ammo and support to do a thorough test which showcased the product in its best form.  Nothing quick, dirty and slapdash as was done here.  

So, the author's excuse was “not having enough ammo."  When I was on the Tech staff we dealt with this problem all the time.  

First, you can RELOAD the empty brass!

Second, you test other ammos which people can actually GET, and which the manufacturer says will work in it: .32 HRM, .32 S&W Long, .32 S&W.  I'd try .32 ACP too, just because I want to know.  Potential users will want to know what they can expect for accuracy and velocity with these ammos too, compared to the .32 HRM SP101?  I would have done that, especially since there is only one source of ammo and no other brass yet.  This is kind of basic, duuhhhhhhhhhhhh.

So what if there's no load data?  A competent technician experiments carefully.

You chronograph the factory load.  You pull a factory round down.  You weigh the powder charge. You examine the powder under a microscope and make your best guess as to how much they loaded of "something like..." 

Then you carefully assemble a few test reloads using the “best fit” of off-the-shelf components you can get.  Gee, you might even try cast bullets? 

You put the revolver in the Ransom Rest, shoot a few over the chronograph, grab some accuracy data while you do this, so you don't waste any ammo.  For the first “guess and by God” rounds, good safety procedure requires using a long string to pull the trigger until you know you won't blow anything up.  Then you adjust the charge to approximate factory ballistics, if you can without adverse indicators.  You then party on...

When I was on the NRA Tech Staff tech we were faced all the time with a situation where there was not enough factory ammo in a new caliber to conduct a thorough test or no Ransom rest inserts which fit the new gun.  We never let that deter us. 

We improvised reloads as best as we could.   We took blank Ransom Rest inserts, froze the rubber in liquid nitrogen so that it could be inlet them in a milling machine, then bedded them tightly to the frame with Brownell's Acraglas gel and shot the darned thing.  No brainer!

These so-called “field editors” they use today (with one or two notable exceptions)  are “amateurs.”  They do try, but most really don't have adequate resources and they are not allowed enough time under advertising pressure publication deadlines to do a “proper” write up in the way I would have been tasked to do so back in the 1970s and 80s.  That is the fault of today's NRA which is more interested in fund raising and advertising dollars than publishing an informative technical magazine.

The NRA no longer wants to support an in-house Tech staff of mechanical engineers, ex law enforcement and military people who understand small arms.  It would rather pay much less money to well meaning, enthusiastic, but less competent “wannabe writers” who work cheap.  They don't obtain adequate industry support, or permit adequate turn around time on articles or reimburse enough in support expenses for field editors to “do it right,” that is, presuming they know how.

The news stand gun rags today are whore mongers whose mission is to sell the advertisers product.  Only The Fouling Shot can be completely honest because it doesn't depend upon advertising revenue for its very survival and our publication is by the members and for the members, being responsible only to the members - like the NRA used to be before it changed from a membership organization to a fund raising engine. If this seems cynical, it is, because I've seen it happen before my eyes, been here and done that, and left the collective to resume life in the real world.