Smith and Wesson Model 632

Smith & Wesson 632

The modern Smith & Wesson 632 revolvers are a pair of J-frame revolvers chambered for the high-pressure .327 Federal Magnum cartridge.  One of the 632 revolvers was discontinued within two years of introduction, while the other has been in continuous production since 2009.

Both revolvers target the concealed carry market but from different angles.

S&W 632 PS

Officially introduced at the 2009 SHOT Show, details on the 632 PS leaked out in January 2008.  It is a small-framed revolver that holds six rounds in the cylinder.

Smith Wesson 632PS

The 632 PS has a 3″ ported barrel using the Smith & Wesson PowerPort technology.  The port is on the top side of the barrel, forward of the front sight ramp.  Because of this, the sight radius on the gun is about 1/2″ shorter than one might expect on a 3″ barreled revolver.

Unlike some of the other J-frame revolvers, the 632 PS has a full-length extractor rod.  The underlug is long enough to fully protect the extractor rod

Similar to the NightGuard line of revolvers, the S&W 632 PS has a matte black finish.  The front sight is a pinned ramp.  The rear sight is an adjustable, target-style sight.

This model 632 uses an exposed hammer, which allows the owner to shoot in double-action or single-action mode.

Smith and Wesson 632 PS

At the 2009 SHOT Show, I got a chance to handle this gun.  I had been hoping to see a J-frame in .327 Magnum, but this was not the gun I envisioned.  I was hoping for something more like the 642 revolvers, and this was not it.  However, I found myself liking the gun more that I thought I would.

The first thing that struck me is the cylinder seemed much thinner than what I was expecting.  I thought I would pick up the gun and see a cylinder roughly the same size as a Model 10 in .38 Special.  Not so.  The cylinder is definitely less bulky, and it still puts six of the magnum rounds at your disposal.

It had a decent trigger, good sight picture, and felt good in my hand.

However, I had a serious problem with this gun. Like most modern Smith and Wesson revolvers, it has the internal lock.  There have been demonstrable problems with the internal locks, and I cannot recommend any of the company’s guns that have one installed.

I left the show thinking that if S&W made this revolver without the lock and with a non-ported plain 2″ to 2.5″ barrel with the internal hammer, they would not be able to keep up with demand.  As it turned out, I had to wait until the 2010 SHOT Show to see the gun I wanted.

At the time I am writing this (September 2013,) this gun is still in the Smith & Wesson catalog.  It is listed as the “632” though it is also referred to as “632 Pro Series – PowerPort.”

S&W 632 Pro Series – Night Sights

The 632 was a J-frame, “hammerless” revolver with a 2 1/8″ barrel.  The cylinder held six rounds of the potent .327 Magnum.  The frame was stainless steel and the guns weighed only 23 ounces (unloaded).

Smith Wesson 632

Unlike many other J-frames, the model 632 had tritium, three-dot sights which made for a good sight picture.  Additionally, the sights were dovetailed, meaning adjustment or replacement was feasible.

This model 632  did not have an internal lock.

Smith & Wesson literature alternately referred to this gun as 632, 632 Pro, 632 Pro Series and 632 Night Sights.  These various names caused an unfortunate amount of confusion.  When talking about the 632, no one knew which gun you meant.  For an added layer of complexity, there was another Smith & Wesson 632 revolver that saw production in the early 1990’s.  Those guns were chambered in .32 H&R Magnum, and marked “.32 Magnum.”

Smith and Wesson 632

The 632 felt good in my hand, as do all of the 640/642 style revolvers Smith & Wesson makes.  The three-dot sights are a vast improvement over the fixed ramp front and narrow rear notch that many of the J-frames wear.

A lot of people are skeptical of the .327 Magnum cartridge, but I think this round has a lot of possibilities as a defensive load.  This model 632 is exactly what I hoped S&W would introduce in 2009.  MSRP was $916.

Unfortunately, this gun is no longer in production.  I do not have an exact date the gun was pulled from production, but it looks like it was pulled in 2012.

Smith Wesson 327 magnum

Smith & Wesson 632 Information Sheet

By Richard Johnson

Richard Johnson is a gun writer, amateur historian and - most importantly - a dad. He's done a lot of silly things in his life, but quitting police work to follow his passion of writing about guns was one of the smartest things he ever did. He founded this site and continues to manage its operation.

28 replies on “Smith and Wesson Model 632”

I too was hoping S&W would come out with a .327 Mag. I don’t care for the porting in this caliber and would have preferred a 2.5″ barrel, but I do want to try it out at my dealer .

make it in stainless steel and come out witha 7 round cylinder and it will sell like hot cakes!,put me down for one!..

I like it! Very versatile and the porting makes it ideal for my daughter’s use as a personal defense weapon. She can dial in the recoil by shooting .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R, or .327 Federal.

four problems for me. the price is more than what i expected. a 2.5 barrel and stainless steel options.

and most importantly, its 24 oz. weight. i was expecting its weight to fall between my S&W 640 .357 mag 2″ 23ozs & my 637 .38+p, 1 & 7/8″ .15 ozs

I like it ! However, 3″ barrel, nix the porting and make it in stainless. Less maintance. Better yet a black finish.

I have been praying for S$W to chamber a revolver in .327 Magnum-but this isn’t quite what I envisioned. How about in stainless with a 7-shot cylinder and lose the porting? If not, I can always get someone to re-chamber my older S&W Model 632(.32 H&R Magnum).

I have a 640 that my wife uses and think that a combination of the new M&P 340 in the .327 Magnum 6-shot cylinder weighing in at 11-12 ounces would be the best ankle or boot gun ever!

Close but no cigar. 1] loose the port. It causes too much vision interference in low light situations, 2] Produde with a 7 shot cylinder, 3] Make in stainless steel with black polymer or ceramic finish on frame barrel, brushed finish on cylinder, 4] Get rid of the internal lock and 5] LaserGrips.
Also offer a Performance Center model (?? 632PC ??) with
K frame,
8 shot cylinder,
no internal lock,
DA/SA, Master Revolver Performance Center package,
Hogue/Rist/et al custom stocks or LaserGrips,
Novak/Mepro/S&W night sites or adjustable target sites with front gold bead,
Stainless construction with brushed/beaded or polished finish or
Stainless barrel/frame with black finish or NP3 finish and cylinder stainless with
brushed/beaded finish.
Offer accessories a DeSantis/Milt Sparks/Knoll/5 Shot holsters in IWB and OWB, Speed Loader holders to match the holsters,
They wouldn’t be able to produce the 632 or the 632PC fast enough,

I recently purchased a Tauras 327 mag and I must say that I am very pleased with the weapon over all. I do not regret my purchase.

Well S&W is making the Model 632 Pro Series Revolver with night sights. All they need to do is change that from all stainless 23 oz. to Scandium Alloy, Frame, Barrel shroud/Matte Stainless cylinder and barrel insert about 14 oz. and I think they will have it covered.

I hope Smith and Wesson is listening. The public is interested in personal defense and products that solve problems will be supported, big-time. S&W is getting closer and I think USA citizens would rather buy American than overseas. The .327 has much potential but S&W will need to take chances to develop more configurations (i.e. shorter barrel, 7/8 shots, lighter weight, etc.). Porting for a personal defense weapon is quite questionable.

They may have been listening! In their latest catalog, product #178046 is the Model 632 Pro Series revolver. Stainless, dovetail night sights, 23.0 oz., 2.125″ barrel. These are some crucial carry gun improvements I’d say.

I am hoping for a 5 round cylinder for a narrower profile and easier draw from deep concealment. I agree, lose the porting and black finished stainless with laser grips would be ideal. Also, they need to lose the internal lock. I have had the .38 5 shot model lock up. Not what you want to have happen when you really need it!


I got a chance to handle the ‘new’ 632 Pro that S&W was showing at the 2010 SHOT Show. It is a lot more like a 640/642 in size/profile, with very good sights, and no internal lock. It is a six shot instead of five, but I think it hits everything else you might like. I’m pretty sure any of the Crimson Trace J-frame grips would fit this, but CT could confirm that.

I really like this new gun.


I bought it and I love it. The port gas has not been a problem. It is fun to shoot. Soon, there will be brass for it, so shooting will get cheaper. Perfect for what I wanted: a fun-to-shoot handgun, easy to carry when hiking and camping, black, good grips and sights. I don’t use the lock, but it doesn’t bother me. Someday I might want to use it. I don’t know how I’d improve it.


Thanks for sharing your experiences. I imagine the larger, ported version would be a lot of fun to shoot. As a trail gun (except bear country!) that is probably a great choice.


Great caliber, I own 2 rugers and a taurus. Problem is lack of ammo at the big box stores that carry the .327 Fed. Mag. and expense and rarity of HR Magnum and S&W long. The SP 101 is the answer to many of the above requests save 7 shot, and you must have Smith..

I bought one and I love it. It is perfect for what I want to do with it, e.g., shoot 50 rounds for fun, carry when hiking/camping. The recoil is light enough to still be fun to shoot, but there is enough stopping power to inspire some confidence. The porting has been no problem for me at all. I suppose you can invent a scenario in which it wouldn’t be the best gun; same is true for every gun. As for the lock, I just ignore it. The lack of brass is the only negative I can think of.

Just ran into the 327 fed mag looking for a slim wheel gun (reliability, concealability, capacity and confidence). I also like “6 shooters” and 25oz loaded would be sweeet. just to bad the plinking rds aren’t cheaper or readily available.

I have a Tarus total titanium in 38 special. I like the magna ported barrel. I also own a Marlin 1894CP with a ported barrel. I don’t understand why people complain about them. It tames the recoil of lightweight guns and makes them shootable. If the flash bothers you use an airgun. As for the lock, don’t use it if it bothers you. Maybe you should take the time to understand how it works.

I cant believe all the people submit a review without knowing the details. The gun is a stainless gun with a black finish. I just bought one and can’t get over how perfect it is. My hole family can choose a round that is comfortable to shoot from light 32 s&w to full power magnums. I will be removing the porting myself no big problem.

just got one in stainless, as Doug mentioned the “black” gun above is stainless. the gun is a blast, good power, little recoil, a six shot cylinder the size of my five shot .38 j frame. plus it shoots .32auto, which can be good for young shooters.

I love my 632, its black stainless and am getting ready to buy the plain stainless version. People don’t like the locks, I have never used, nor had an issue with a lock on any of my S&W’s? I chrono 1375-1400 fps with 100 grain Federal Magnum rounds. I put away my 637 .38 plus p and now carry this power house.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *