Should S&W reintroduce the Schofield/Model 3 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jski

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
2,292
Location
Florida
S&W has their "Classics" offerings. In that "Classics" group should they include the Schofield or late Model 3? It is arguably the best single action revolver of its age. And yes, that includes the venerable 1873 Colt SAA.

BTW, it would be S&W's only single action offering. But, it is unarguably one of their finest designs and an icon of American history.

Obviously, chamber it in .45 Colt (a bit of irony).
 
Aside from your questionable assertion regarding "best", it'd price itself out of the market.

If they did it right (AKA NO MIM parts), too expensive to produce & too expensive for most to buy.
If they did it with MIMs to save productions costs, it could be more affordable, but the howlers would not be happy about the MIM parts. :)

Not enough demand.
Denis
 
Aside from your questionable assertion regarding "best", it'd price itself out of the market.

If they did it right (AKA NO MIM parts), too expensive to produce & too expensive for most to buy.
If they did it with MIMs to save productions costs, it could be more affordable, but the howlers would not be happy about the MIM parts. :)

Not enough demand.
Denis
The ease of reloading I believe justifies it as the best. But I did say arguably the best and not unarguably the best.
 
The ease of reloading I believe justifies it as the best. But I did say arguably the best and not unarguably the best.
YES!

But make mine a .357/.38 please. Even now, I think it would rankle S&W to make a gun in .45 COLT, lol.

As far as construction and price go, the current DA Classics are pretty pricey, even with their MIM bits, yet apparently they sell well enough to justify their continued production. I don't know how, really, as there are still plenty of nice old pinned and recessed Smiths around for comparable prices (or less) than the new ones.

At least a new Schofield would something exciting since vintage ones are usually found in rough shape or weird calibers- can't get .44 Russian at Walmart!

Make a .38spl Schofield, price it under a grand, and watch them fly off the shelves! Maybe even a polymer framed .22 to hook the kiddies, or, if you wanna get REALLY crazy, a 9mm or .45 with moon clips.....:)
 
S&W tried that 18 years ago.
Price was high, sales were low.
A Uberti copy is now over $1000.
A .38 No 3 is heavy and poorly balanced, kind of like a .38 SAA.
The S&W top break action is not strong enough for hotter rounds. Maybe Driftwood Johnson will comment on the durability of Uberti .45 Colt topbreaks in frequent use.

Sorry, guys, I don't think you can get there from here.
 
The Smith Top Break action simply works and Uberti is selling guns so it seems there is a market. If the original stood up to some of the loads of the day it's likely a modern one would as well.

But I'm happy enough with just my 4th. model DA.
 
Why couldn't they use current manufacturing methods? After all if they'd had CNC machines and MIM back then, I'm sure they'd have used them . (That's a Model 19-9 "classic" in my avatar, BTW.)

Now rather they could make one at a price that would sell, or even if there's a market for it, I have no idea. I might be interested in one I suppose. I've come close on a Uberti a couple of times. I thinkI'd like a 38, with a 5" barrel. I came really close on one of those. (Walked way, I'll come back tomorrow....You know the deal. It was gone.)
 
I'd be more interested in something newer rather than older out of S&W.

How about a poly service sized revolver? Or some new night guards.
 
No! It just wouldn't be worth it.
I bought a 5 inch .45 Colt caliber copy and quickly discovered I had made a big mistake. Nice gun but I just never could warm up to it.
That's probably why they didn’t reach the popularity of the Colt model P.
 
A gen-u-wine Smith& Wesson top break, as in a No. 3, proved too expensive for the market. Uberti did, maybe does, make a copy, which is also quite expensive. The market for replicas seems to have leveled off some, so any future sales are not assured.

As to durability, the top break has some faults as to durability. The locking lugs on the frame tend to wear down in use, and the frame stretches slightly, so high pressure modern cartridges are out.
Certainly there are ways to circumvent these problems, but, in doing so, the historic authenticity is lost.
 
Last edited:
While I wouldn't mind seeing S&W make a Model 3 Top Break, I doubt if the market would support it and/or that it would probably be priced well above the $1000 mark.
 
As noted, the top-break action is not strong enough for .357s.
I've had several Uberti repros here, in various calibers.

I've had the Smith repro here, and regret not being able to keep it at the time.

The designs are vulnerable to loosening up at the hinge.
They will wear (sooner or later) at the latch, either the latch itself (which is why it's a replaceable part) or on the frame there.

The ejector system is nowhere near as reliable as the simple Peacemaker's.
When it works, it's great.
It does require more maintenance to keep it functioning, and it can't be serviced for regular maintenance as easily as a Colt or Ruger single-action.

The position of the thumb relative to the hammer is quite different from the Colt, not as quick or easy for many hands to reach without shifting from a firing grip.

They're neat designs, on the surface, but they faded for good reasons.
Uberti makes passable repros at high prices, and I'd like to see Smith bring out a better quality one, but not enough market.
Denis
 
A few years ago, when demand was at it's zenith, it may have been a profitable venture. Nowadays, demand is such that even the most popular platforms/calibers are sitting on the shelves. While there are a few folks that would jump on the boat if they were produced, I'm guessing it would not be enough to make a profit after R&D/machine&production setup.


As noted, the top-break action is not strong enough for .357s.

My understanding is that the pressure they are capable of tops out under 20,000 psi. Quite a ways below the 35,000 psi created by max .357 ammo.


They're neat designs, on the surface, but they faded for good reasons.

Yep, similar to exposed hammers on shotguns and rifles. Iffin it weren't for the revived interest in lever actions I wonder if there would be any produced with them anymore.
 
Hickok45 says the confusion of cartridges was the main thing that did the S&W Topbreak in: .44 American, .44 Russian, ... and eventually the .45 Schofield, which is incompatible with the .45 Colt.


 
While I wouldn't mind seeing S&W make a Model 3 Top Break, I doubt if the market would support it and/or that it would probably be priced well above the $1000 mark.
My thoughts exactly.

Give me one in 44 mag that won't come apart and I'd be in heaven.

Pipe dream, nothing more.
 
.44 Mag, no possibility. :)

Any domestically-produced break-top would START at $2000, and I'm probably being too low there.
Denis
 
The market is limited at $1000 guns. Double it and it will shrink to nearly nothing. The Uberti is a good gun and if you want something like it, there's no reason not to get one.

As far as the best, I find that easy to argue. What I can say is that it's the quickest to dump empties out of, much like a modern DA, as long as the rims don't slip under the extractor star. As I've said many times before in comparison to a modern DA and been called a liar or worse for it, loading is another matter entirely. Cartridges must be deliberately inserted into each chamber and the most you can do is two at a time. Whereas on a Colt SAA, they can be simply dropped into the loading port with gravity handling the rest. Once you rotate the cylinder to the next chamber, the previously inserted cartridges are held captive. Not so with the top break. The idea that they're so much quicker to reload sounds good in theory but in practice, not so much. Of course, if you have it cut for moon clips it's a whole different story. Plus the fact that NOTHING handles like a Colt SAA. It'd be an uphill battle to convince any seasoned sixgunner that the S&W was the "best" single action revolver of its day. I enjoy the hell out of mine but it ain't the best.
 
Maybe Driftwood Johnson will comment on the durability of Uberti .45 Colt topbreaks in frequent use.

Howdy

Well, since you ask, all my experience with Smith and Wesson #3 Top Breaks is with originals.

This 1st Model Schofield shipped in 1875. It was refinished at the factory in 1957, that's why it looks so good.

schofield01_zpse1ff6025.jpg




This 1st Model also shipped in 1875, but it has not been refinished. There really is not any blue left on it, all the steel has faded to a pleasing gun metal gray.

Schofield%20SN%202254%2001_zpszxqiqyow.jpg



Regarding the Schofields made today by Uberti, and yes they are still in production, I don't know too many Cowboys who shoot them regularly. I do have one pal who lives in Texas and he shoots a pair of Uberti Schofields at every match. I don't know how light or heavy is loads are, but they are certainly not mouse farts. I have know him for several years now and have never seen him have a problem with his Schofields.

Current list price on the Uberti Schofield and Russian models is $1049.


NOTE! All Schofields are #3s, but not all #3s are Schofields. I can explain that further if anybody cares.

I bought a 5 inch .45 Colt caliber copy and quickly discovered I had made a big mistake. Nice gun but I just never could warm up to it.
That's probably why they didn’t reach the popularity of the Colt model P.

The reason the Schofield did not 'catch on' is because Smith and Wesson was up to their eyeballs producing the Russian model for Russian, Japanese, and Turkish contracts. They eventually produced over 150,000 of them. Colt already had a contract with the Army in 1873 for I forget how many thousand. In 1875 S&W sent out a feeler to the Army and eventually sold about 7,000 Schofields to the Army. The Army wanted more, but the Russians were paying up front in gold, so S&W went where the money was and did not make any more Schofields. But they made over 40,000 New Model Number Three revolvers, which were the premier target revolver of the day. Yes, there were not as many made as Colts, but there were still plenty made, and they certainly did 'catch on'.

new%20model%20number%20three%2002_zpsczb4qqj3.jpg


At least a new Schofield would something exciting since vintage ones are usually found in rough shape or weird calibers- can't get .44 Russian at Walmart!

The Schofield was chambered for 45 Schofield, not 44 Russian. Yes, neither is available at many Walmarts, but both are very easy to reload.

My understanding is that the pressure they are capable of tops out under 20,000 psi. Quite a ways below the 35,000 psi created by max .357 ammo.

It is not so much the pressure the cylinder sees as the beating the frame takes from the pounding of recoil. A solid frame revolver such as the Colt Single Action Army, with a top strap, will always be stronger than a Top Break. You just can't make a frame in two pieces that will be as strong as a one piece frame. I have examined lots and lots of old Top Break Smiths, and I own quite a few now. More common than the hinge getting sloppy is the latch getting worn. Mostly because as somebody said the frame will tend to stretch over time from recoil, and the 'ears' that the barrel extension latches over will have wear on them.

Case in point: This 44 Double Action had some play in the frame where the arrow is. When latched shut, the barrel could wiggle up and down a couple of degrees.




latchwitharrow_zpsc4ce2fe8.jpg




A very skilled gunsmith was able to tighten it up by pressing in some steel pins, then filing them down just enough to tighten up the joint.

44DAlatchlockuprepair_zps7b9ba18e.jpg




However I only shoot it with Black Powder 44 Russian loads, which by their nature to not recoil a whole lot. Certainly not as much as a full house 45 Colt Black Powder load.

Notwithstanding, even with modern materials, a Top Break could not stand up to the abuse of the 357 Magnum cartridge for long.





Finally, let's talk about the Smith and Wesson Schofield Model of 2000 for a moment. I keep hearing how they did not sell well, and other such talk. Let's be clear about this. They were produced from 2000 to 2002 and every single one of them sold. I don't know how many were made in total, but every single one sold, there were none left in inventory. Yes, it was a niche gun and they were not for everyone. But just like the Colt Single Action Army, and the new single action replicas of the Colt being made by Standard Manufacturing that rival the Colt in quality, every one produced will sell. Of course they are not for everybody when one can buy an Uberti for 1/3 the price. But there will always be a market for niche guns like this.

Interestingly enough, I was just examining Model of 2000 Schofield today. I knew it was one of the new ones because S&W put a frame mounted firing pin on them and I spotted that right away.

http://www.amoskeagauction.com/119/detail.php?id=287

No, I did not write down what it sold for, but the estimated price was $1200 - $1800. I seem to recall it did not reach the high number. As I said, there will always be a market for these, just as there will always be a market for beautiful L. C. Smith shotguns. But they certainly are not for everyone.



While there are a few folks that would jump on the boat if they were produced, I'm guessing it would not be enough to make a profit after R&D/machine&production setup.

Finally, lets talk about machining processes. S&W made the 2000 Schofield series before they started relying heavily on MIM parts, The parts were made with conventional CNC milling equipment. If they were to make another run, I doubt they would use MIM, because the cost savings does not come into MIM until you are making a large number of parts. So if S&W were to make them again today, I suspect they would be made with modern CNC milling equipment. Having been a CNC programmer and machinist in a past life, I can assure you that CNC machining can be very profitable when done correctly. You start with a 3D model in the computer, then you send the file to the machine shop and they generate the CNC program from that. Some fixtures to hold the parts in place, and a few tweaks to the program (you always have to tweak something) and you are off and running.




Oh, yeah, one more thing. I shoot CAS with Colts all the time. Last year I ran into a second New Model Number Three, so I have shown up with the pair a couple of times this year.

New%20Model%20Number%20Three%20Blue%2031022%2004_zpswkeypr1s.jpg




At the unloading table one day, the guy watching the table said I shoot real slow, but nobody unloads as fast as I do.

unloading-1.jpg




P.S.:CraigC

I surprised myself the other day when I timed myself unloading and loading a Single Action Army. I think I was able to do a complete reload in about 30 seconds. Really surprised myself. Of course I was standing at the dining room table and not fighting off hostiles. I'll have to try it with one of my Top Breaks now. I will still be able to dump out the cartridges faster than with a Colt, it will be interesting to see how fast I can reload.
 
Last edited:
Hickok45 says the confusion of cartridges was the main thing that did the S&W Topbreak in: .44 American, .44 Russian, ... and eventually the .45 Schofield, which is incompatible with the .45 Colt.

With all due respect to Hickok45, there was no confusion with the 44 American and 44 Russian cartridges. The Army only bought about 1000 American Models, about 1869 if memory serves, and those would have been the only revolvers the Army bought using the 44 American cartridge. The Army never bought any revolvers that chambered the 44 Russian cartridge.

Regarding the often reported story of Army units that had been issued the Schofield revolvers receiving 45 Colt cartridges, although this is often speculated about, I have never seen any evidence of it actually happening. Even so, the Frankford Arsenal stopped issuing 45 Colt cartridges, to prevent such an event from happening, and standardized on the 45 Schofield round for much of the time both revolvers were in service, to prevent such a calamity from happening.
 
In that "Classics" group should they include the Schofield or late Model 3?

Not until they release a "Classic" Model 16 in 32 S&W Long first.:)

A modern Model 3 would be cool but with folks today wanting to hot rod the ammunition they shoot in their guns, I'm sure the company lawyers would not be happy.
 
Howdy

Well, since you ask, all my experience with Smith and Wesson #3 Top Breaks is with originals.

This 1st Model Schofield shipped in 1875. It was refinished at the factory in 1957, that's why it looks so good.

View attachment 801160




This 1st Model also shipped in 1875, but it has not been refinished. There really is not any blue left on it, all the steel has faded to a pleasing gun metal gray.

View attachment 801161



Regarding the Schofields made today by Uberti, and yes they are still in production, I don't know too many Cowboys who shoot them regularly. I do have one pal who lives in Texas and he shoots a pair of Uberti Schofields at every match. I don't know how light or heavy is loads are, but they are certainly not mouse farts. I have know him for several years now and have never seen him have a problem with his Schofields.

Current list price on the Uberti Schofield and Russian models is $1049.


NOTE! All Schofields are #3s, but not all #3s are Schofields. I can explain that further if anybody cares.



The reason the Schofield did not 'catch on' is because Smith and Wesson was up to their eyeballs producing the Russian model for Russian, Japanese, and Turkish contracts. They eventually produced over 150,000 of them. Colt already had a contract with the Army in 1873 for I forget how many thousand. In 1875 S&W sent out a feeler to the Army and eventually sold about 7,000 Schofields to the Army. The Army wanted more, but the Russians were paying up front in gold, so S&W went where the money was and did not make any more Schofields. But they made over 40,000 New Model Number Three revolvers, which were the premier target revolver of the day. Yes, there were not as many made as Colts, but there were still plenty made, and they certainly did 'catch on'.

View attachment 801162




The Schofield was chambered for 45 Schofield, not 44 Russian. Yes, neither is available at many Walmarts, but both are very easy to reload.



It is not so much the pressure the cylinder sees as the beating the frame takes from the pounding of recoil. A solid frame revolver such as the Colt Single Action Army, with a top strap, will always be stronger than a Top Break. You just can't make a frame in two pieces that will be as strong as a one piece frame. I have examined lots and lots of old Top Break Smiths, and I own quite a few now. More common than the hinge getting sloppy is the latch getting worn. Mostly because as somebody said the frame will tend to stretch over time from recoil, and the 'ears' that the barrel extension latches over will have wear on them.

Case in point: This 44 Double Action had some play in the frame where the arrow is. When latched shut, the barrel could wiggle up and down a couple of degrees.




View attachment 801163




A very skilled gunsmith was able to tighten it up by pressing in some steel pins, then filing them down just enough to tighten up the joint.

View attachment 801164




However I only shoot it with Black Powder 44 Russian loads, which by their nature to not recoil a whole lot. Certainly not as much as a full house 45 Colt Black Powder load.

Notwithstanding, even with modern materials, a Top Break could not stand up to the abuse of the 357 Magnum cartridge for long.





Finally, let's talk about the Smith and Wesson Schofield Model of 2000 for a moment. I keep hearing how they did not sell well, and other such talk. Let's be clear about this. They were produced from 2000 to 2002 and every single one of them sold. I don't know how many were made in total, but every single one sold, there were none left in inventory. Yes, it was a niche gun and they were not for everyone. But just like the Colt Single Action Army, and the new single action replicas of the Colt being made by Standard Manufacturing that rival the Colt in quality, every one produced will sell. Of course they are not for everybody when one can buy an Uberti for 1/3 the price. But there will always be a market for niche guns like this.

Interestingly enough, I was just examining Model of 2000 Schofield today. I knew it was one of the new ones because S&W put a frame mounted firing pin on them and I spotted that right away.

http://www.amoskeagauction.com/119/detail.php?id=287

No, I did not write down what it sold for, but the estimated price was $1200 - $1800. I seem to recall it did not reach the high number. As I said, there will always be a market for these, just as there will always be a market for beautiful L. C. Smith shotguns. But they certainly are not for everyone.





Finally, lets talk about machining processes. S&W made the 2000 Schofield series before they started relying heavily on MIM parts, The parts were made with conventional CNC milling equipment. If they were to make another run, I doubt they would use MIM, because the cost savings does not come into MIM until you are making a large number of parts. So if S&W were to make them again today, I suspect they would be made with modern CNC milling equipment. Having been a CNC programmer and machinist in a past life, I can assure you that CNC machining can be very profitable when done correctly. You start with a 3D model in the computer, then you send the file to the machine shop and they generate the CNC program from that. Some fixtures to hold the parts in place, and a few tweaks to the program (you always have to tweak something) and you are off and running.




Oh, yeah, one more thing. I shoot CAS with Colts all the time. Last year I ran into a second New Model Number Three, so I have shown up with the pair a couple of times this year.

View attachment 801165




At the unloading table one day, the guy watching the table said I shoot real slow, but nobody unloads as fast as I do.

View attachment 801166




P.S.:CraigC

I surprised myself the other day when I timed myself unloading and loading a Single Action Army. I think I was able to do a complete reload in about 30 seconds. Really surprised myself. Of course I was standing at the dining room table and not fighting off hostiles. I'll have to try it with one of my Top Breaks now. I will still be able to dump out the cartridges faster than with a Colt, it will be interesting to see how fast I can reload.
Fascinating! Thanks for the ARTICLE!!! I read & enjoyed every word of it.
 
No! It just wouldn't be worth it.
I bought a 5 inch .45 Colt caliber copy and quickly discovered I had made a big mistake. Nice gun but I just never could warm up to it.
That's probably why they didn’t reach the popularity of the Colt model P.

My problem was that it just didn't fit my hand and wasn't comfortable to use.
Oh! And there's something about the C-click, O-click, L-click, T- click that has that satisfying sound over a plain old click.
 
My problem was that it just didn't fit my hand and wasn't comfortable to use.

Yes, the grip shape on a S&W #3 Top Breaks is quite different than the grip shape of a Colt. In addition, there is more of a reach for the thumb to reach the hammer spur than with a Colt or replica.

Worst of all is the Russian Model. The Russians wanted that big hump on the grip to prevent the gun from rotating in the hand under recoil. It does that very well. However in order reach the hammer spur to cock the hammer, I have to regrip, placing the palm of my hand against the hump. Then I have to regrip again, to get my hand under the hump again. If I make the mistake of pulling the trigger with my palm in contact with the hump, recoil shoves the pointy hump into my palm, and it hurts, even with a relatively mild recoiling cartridge such as the 44 Russian. For this reason, I don't shoot this one any more.

Russian02.jpg




I shot a bunch of photos recently for another discussion illustrating how I grip a revolver. With a Colt I always curl my pinky under the grip. I learned a long time ago that holding it this way opens up a slight gap between the knuckle of mu middle finger and the trigger guard. If I try to cram my entire hand onto the grip, that places my knuckle in contact with the trigger guard, and with a stout recoil such as my 45 Colt Black Powder rounds, the trigger guard whacks my knuckle, and it hurts after a while.

Holding%20a%20Colt%2001_zpsyicgwc9e.jpg




Gripping the Colt this way I have no trouble reaching the hammer spur, and I maintain the gap between trigger guard and knuckle.

Holding%20a%20Colt%2002_zpsx2mqjvq8.jpg




The Russian model is a whole 'nother story. Sorry these photos are a little bit blurry, I was holding the gun in one hand and my phone in the other. Had trouble keeping everything in focus.

Gripping%20Russian%2001_zpsoehwfkga.jpg




In order to cock the hammer, I have to choke up on the grip, placing the pointy hump directly against my palm.

Gripping%20Russian%2002_zpsiirfxkqw.jpg




Then I have to regrip again to get under the hump. If I don't, and shoot like this, it hurts.

Gripping%20Russian%2003_zpsjtk86kbd.jpg




With the Schofield, curling my pinky under the grip keeps my knuckle away from the trigger guard.

Gripping%20Schofield%2001_zpsqafls47t.jpg




But I have trouble reaching the hammer spur when gripping it this way.

Gripping%20Schofield%2002_zpsbj5nsuhv.jpg




So, again, I have to regrip to get a good purchase on the hammer spur. But with the nicely curved grip of the Schofield, if I hold it lightly enough, recoil will allow the grip to rotate enough in my hand that I can reach the hammer spur. To tell you the truth, I don't shoot my Schofields much and I can't recall if I just choke up on them to reach the hammer, or if I regrip after recoil to curl my pinky under again.

Gripping%20Schofield%2004_zpsj7bwpucj.jpg




In my opinion, the best grip shape of the S&W Top Breaks was on the New Model Number Three. These had a slight hump on the grip, not much different than the grip shape of a modern S&W.

Gripping%20New%20Model%20Number%20Three%2001_zpsujr2zoim.jpg




Again, I have a bit of trouble reaching the hammer spur with the pinky under grip.

Gripping%20New%20Model%20Number%20Three%2002_zpssngradry.jpg




Shifting my grip slightly allows me to reach the hammer spur.

Gripping%20New%20Model%20Number%20Three%2004_zpshqozxmlq.jpg




To tell you the truth, I shot my New Model Number Threes in a cowboy match recently, and I tried to keep track of how I was gripping them. But that was too distracting during a match, so I stopped paying attention to that and just concentrated on hitting the targets. It turns out that cramming my entire hand onto the grip of a New Model Number Three maintains enough distance between the trigger guard and my knuckle, plus with the relatively mild recoil of the 44 Russian cartridge nothing hurts.

Gripping%20New%20Model%20Number%20Three%2003_zpshoesskuz.jpg



Regarding the four clicks of a Colt, with my earplugs in place, I don't hear the clicks. Plus, you have to cock it pretty slowly to hear all four clicks. I don't cock a Colt that slow when shooting a match. It's only when sitting home, playing around taking out bad guys on the TV that I can hear the clicks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top