Schofield revolver clones

Fine pieces, though to me it took a bit of "getting used to" compared to a '51/73 Colt pattern grip. Might've just been me though.

98s1lightning said:

I might be interested in owning a schofield copy. Like a Uberti for example.

How is the nickel on these? I've never owned a gun finished in nickel and am concerned of its durability. I don't want it to chip or bubble like old motorcycle chrome does.......

Are these guns heirloom quality shooters?
I never even held a schofield, they look pretty blocky in comparison to a SAA they look like a brick!

Click to expand...

One of the best looking guns I own is a 1920s S&W topbreak and it still has about 90% of its finish. The only places that are marred are where it obviously got excessive wear and I believe it held up better than bluing would have. I wouldn’t question old nickel… new stuff I might want to read a bit about how the old processes and new processes differ and what the actual finish is that remains when the gun is shipped.

98s1lightning said:

I never even held a schofield, they look pretty blocky in comparison to a SAA they look like a brick!

Click to expand...

Howdy

I don't think they look like a brick, I kind of like the Schofield model, I have two originals, both made in 1875. Yes, the grip on a Schofield is quite different than a Single Action Army. And one has to reach a bit further with the thumb to cock the hammer one handed than with a Colt or clone. The reach is a bit farther to the hammer spur than with a Colt.






Not quite sure what you mean when you ask "Are these guns heirloom quality shooters?"

If you want to buy a modern Schofield replica, Uberti is the only company making them, although they are available from several different importers. But they are all made by Uberti. Years ago ASM was making a replica of the Schofield, but there were quality problems and ASM stopped making them years ago. Smith and Wesson reintroduced the Schofield model back in 2000, but those are long gone now and are only available used.

I wouldn't worry about the nickel finish on an Uberti Schofield, they have been doing it a long time and know what they are doing.

I have a pair, blued not nickel, and shoot them in SAS. They are well made and accurate. They handle differently than a Colt SAA and if that is what you are used to may not be your cup of tea.

On the one hand, anything Grandpa used can be a family heirloom.
On the other hand, these are mass produced modern revolvers, unlikely to appreciate in value.
On the gripping hand, if you want an instant collectable, buy a real one.

98s1lightning said:

I never even held a schofield, they look pretty blocky in comparison to a SAA

Click to expand...

For me, the hold on target is actually much more comfortable. The wrist is straighter and the grips fit more naturally along the thumb-forefinger line. They are more challenging to draw quickly for me, though, as that more elongated grip takes a two-step-jiggle from the belt to the extended arm to fall in line just right. And, as Driftwood says, stroking the hammer takes a little finesse. But, once you get the grip figured out, you'll find you can hold one on target without strain longer than with an 1873. At least, that's how it worked out for me.

I had an Uberti "Wells Fargo" Schofield replica a long time back. Bought it for a premium, shot it as much as it took to get bored and sold it for a pretty penny. I never could get used to carrying it and it didn't fit any of my holsters so it was a fun toy, not a working revolver. Those kinds of guns, no matter how nice, I turn a profit on when possible or hold until they go up in value so I can turn one - and they always do.

I love these guns. I started out with a 7" Schofield several years ago, added the Cimarron American and a #3 Russian a couple months ago. Last week I took possession of another Schofield, this time a factory engraved version. In my opinion, these guns are a little nicer than their Colt SAA replicas. Which is good because they cost twice as much. I've yet to shoot the Russian but have been threatening to shoot them all side by side and report back on the minor differences but have yet to do so. Now that I have the 2nd Schofield, it's probably time. Initial impression is that the American has more room for your digits but is the least comfortable to shoot due to the grip angle. The Russian is the most comfortable in the hand but in the shooting position, it's impossible to reach the hammer. The Schofield has the best overall handling. It's comfortable to handle and shoot, the latch is the most intuitive and easiest to work quickly and the hammer is within reach. Bear in mind none of them handle as fast as the Colt SAA and never will but I nevertheless thoroughly enjoy them.

Hi CraigC

I'll be interested to hear your report, especially after shooting the Russian model.

As you probably know, I do not like shooting the Russian model. I cannot reach the trigger spur with my thumb to cock the hammer unless I regrip and place the palm of my hand onto the sharp hump on the grip. Then I have to regrip again to get my hand under the hump. If I forget and shoot without repositioning my hand, the sharp point digs into my palm and it hurts, even with my relatively mild recoiling Black Powder 44 Russian ammo. The Russians insisted on the hump, S&W called it a 'knuckle', to prevent the grip from rotating in the hand under recoil. It does this very well, but presents the problem I mentioned when cocking the hammer.






My favorite to shoot of all five of the S&W #3 Models is the New Model Number Three. Smith and Wesson got everything right with this model. The grip shape is very similar to a S&W K frame revolver. Just a small knuckle on the grip, not much different than the modern shape. I do allow the grip to rotate slightly in recoil, just like I do with a SAA. That brings the hammer spur closer to my thumb for easy one handed cocking. Then a quick regrip, just like I do with Colt, to fire the next shot.

I have an Uberti Schofield, chambered in .45 LC.

Be aware that when Uberti redesigned these to take the .45 LC, instead of the .45 Schofield as in the originals, they had to make the cylinder longer. This in turn eliminated the gap around the base pin, that allowed black powder fouling to accumulate. So, the repro Schofields have a problem using black powder cartridges. They tend to jam up very quickly, sometimes with less than a full cylinder's worth of shots.

The answer is to use smokeless loads exclusively, or to use various tricks involving greasing the base pin. (Driftwood has experience doing this.)

Howdy Again

That is not quite correct. When Uberti redesigned the Schofield to accept the longer 45 Colt ammo, they did indeed lengthen the cylinder from the 1 7/16" length of the original cylinder. Not lengthening the frame in the area of the cylinder a similar amount wound up considerably shortening the gas collar pressed into the front of the cylinder.

This is the cylinder of an original Schofield. Notice the collar pressed into the front of the cylinder. Notice how far forward it protrudes from the front face of the cylinder.






With any Smith and Wesson Top Break revolver (the replicas too) the extractor rod fits inside the hollow cylinder arbor.





The gas collar remains on the outside of the arbor.






Once the cylinder is completely seated, the gas collar, being pointed to by the lower arrow in this photo, snugs up against the frame. The upper arrow is pointing out the barrel/cylinder gap. Notice there is a fair amount of horizontal separation between the b/c gap and the place where the gas collar butts up against the frame. When Black Powder fouling is ejected out of the b/c gap, it spreads out pretty much in a vertical plane. The gas collar shields the cylinder arbor from the fouling, so very little makes it onto the face of the arbor. Fouling blasted out of the b/c gap and deposited on the cylinder arbor is the main reason revolvers fired with Black Powder tend to bind up. Smith & Wesson's original design of the gas collar was brilliant. It effectively prevented fouling from being deposited on the surface of the cylinder arbor. With this design, I can shoot an original S&W #3 Top Break revolver all day long with cartridges loaded with Black Powder, and I get no binding. I also use special bullets that have a great deal of Black Powder compatible bullet lube on them, which helps keep my #3s rolling all day.






This is the similar area on an Uberti Schofield. What Uberti did was shorten the bushing on the front of the cylinder so the longer cylinder would fit inside the frame that had not been lengthened a comparable amount.

The cylinder was not snugged up all the way when I took this photo, but it is obvious how much shorter the bushing is on the front of the cylinder, leaving less horizontal separation between the b/c gap and the front of the bushing. This allows more BP fouling to be blasted onto the cylinder arbor than with the original design. That's why the modern replicas of the Schofield and other #3Top Breaks do not perform as well with Black Powder as the originals.






I hasten to add, there is another poster on this board, I cannot remember his name right now, who takes me to task about this. He shoots his Uberti Schofields with Black Powder in CAS and has good results. I'm not sure exactly what tricks he uses, but he does not suffer the usual binding that happens with replica #3 Top Breaks and Black Powder.

But for the most part, the replicas do not digest Black Powder ammunition as well as the originals did.

Driftwood Johnson said:

I'll be interested to hear your report, especially after shooting the Russian model.

Click to expand...

Judging by past discussions with other shooters, it would seem that I have longer or more dexterous thumbs than most. There's no way I can reach the Russian's hammer with my hand in a shooting position. It may very well prove to be the best shooter but if that happens, it would have to be two handed and cocking with the weak thumb. There's just no way to run it fast with one hand.

CraigC said:

There's just no way to run it fast with one hand.

Click to expand...

It would seem that that would be extra important for a Cavalry weapon. Maybe that's why the Schofield never supplanted the SAA in Cavalry service?

The Uberti Schofield runs fine on black powder. I shoot 6 -7 stage matches, 45 LC black powder without binding up. I’m sure the originals were better but the myth that you can’t shoot the Uberti with black powder is just that.

I am not sure about the Schofield not being as fast, one handed, as an SAA. I say that because in SASS, I am not fast with either, so can’t really say, but I find shooting the Schofield that if I allow that gun to rock back in my hand with recoil, my thumb is perfectly positioned to thumb the hammer at top of recoil, but then I do have to let the barrel lead the front sight down to settle on the target for the trigger pull, whereas there is much less movement in the hand with the SAA, it being more wrist movement than gun in hand movement. I certainly find it comfortable, but I can see why the SAA would be faster.

I would love one in 357 mag

American on top, Schofield center and Russian on bottom.

AlexanderA said:

It would seem that that would be extra important for a Cavalry weapon. Maybe that's why the Schofield never supplanted the SAA in Cavalry service?

Click to expand...

Howdy

Read all of what he said. CraigC was talking about the Russian model being difficult to cock and he might have to shoot it with two hands. He was not talking about the Schofield Model.

CraigC said:

There's no way I can reach the Russian's hammer with my hand in a shooting position. It may very well prove to be the best shooter but if that happens, it would have to be two handed and cocking with the weak thumb. There's just no way to run it fast with one hand.

Click to expand...

This is a 2nd model Russian. Notice that big, sharp hump on the grip. That is why it is difficult to cock the hammer on one of these one handed. One has to regrip and place the palm of the hand against the pointy hump to reach the hammer with the thumb, then regrip again to get the palm under the pointy part. As I said earlier, if one tries to fire this model with the palm against the pointy part, the recoil hurts.






This is the Schofield Model. Notice the nice smooth contour of the rear of the grip. I usually allow the grip to rotate in my hand in recoil, which positions the hammer spur nearer my thumb, so I can reach it. Then I flick the revolver down a bit to regrip for the next shot.






There were five separate S&W Top Break models built on the large #3 frame, and they were all shaped somewhat differently. Here are the other three.

This one looks just like the American model, but it is actually a 1st Model Russian. The 1st Model Russian looked exactly like the American model, except the American model was chambered for the 44 S&W cartridge that used a heeled bullet, and the 1st Model Russian looked exactly the same, but it was chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge. The 2nd and 3rd Model Russians had the hump on the grip and the spur on the trigger guard. The Russians took delivery on the 1st model, but for the 2nd and 3rd models they wanted the changes to the grip shape and the spur on the trigger guard.






This is a New Model Number Three, the best of all the big #3 Top Breaks. The grip had a very small hump on it, and this model had a rebounding hammer. I love shooting this model. Off the top of my head It was chambered for something like 13 different cartridges, 44 Russian was the most common.






The 44 Double Action was the only double action big #3 Top Break S&W made. This one is a target model, and it too is chambered for 44 Russian.





The Schofield model is the best known model, partially because it was featured in the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven. Official S&W historian Roy Jinks once said that after the movie came out, he got inquiries from lots of folks about their 'Schofields'. Lots of them turned not to be Schofields at all.

Anyway, the Schofield model did not supplant the Colt for a number of reasons. Colt had a jump start and secured contracts with the Army in 1873. S&W was busy producing over 150,000 Russian models for the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese governments and was flat out producing those. Not wanting to be left out of lucrative government contracts, S&W did not get their first contract to supply revolvers to the Army until 1875, when Colt already had a toe hold. Actually, back around 1869 S&W had sold something like 1000 American models to the government. These were the first cartridge revolvers the Army ever bought, not including cartridge conversion revolvers. Anyway, S&W had to persuade the Army to accept the shorter Schofield cartridge because the 1 7/16" long cylinders that S&W was tooled up for were not long enough to accept the 45 Colt cartridge. Any S&W Top Break was faster to shoot than a Colt, because when the barrel was rotated down al the spent brass was ejected automatically. One has to poke the empties out of a Colt one chamber at a time. The Schofield model was developed by Major Schofield specifically as a cavalry revolver. With his patented barrel latch, a mounted trooper could unlatch the barrel with one hand, brush the barrel against his leg to open it and eject the empties, then load all six chambers, all while riding. Much more difficult to do on a horse with a Colt.

There were only something like 7,000 Schofield models produced (working from memory here). The government inquired about another contract but S&W wasn't interested, they had other fish to fry.

By 1878 most of the Schofield models had been surplussed out and sold commercially. Wells Fargo bought a lot of them and cut most of the barrels down to 5 inches.

Scholfield held the patent on his improvement, and received a royalty payment for each gun produced.

His brother was head of the army procurement board, which may have been a factor in the army purchase.

Speedo66 said:

Scholfield held the patent on his improvement, and received a royalty payment for each gun produced.

His brother was head of the army procurement board, which may have been a factor in the army purchase.

Click to expand...

No! Say it isn't so. They wouldn't do anything like that back then...would they? LOL

Dave

PS: I believe I read in Graham, Kopec, & Moore (A Study of the Colt Single Action Army Revolver) that about 1877 or 1878 S&W refused to make spare parts available for the Schofield. Guess they didn't want to sell any more guns to Ordnance.

Speedo66 said:

Scholfield held the patent on his improvement, and received a royalty payment for each gun produced.

Click to expand...

And crafty old Daniel Wesson set his engineers to work to come up with a new latch to work around the patent so he wouldn't have to pay Schofield his royalty.

The Schofield was only in production from 1875 until 1877. My earlier estimate of the total number produced was wrong, there were 8969 of them made.

Anyway, as far as I know in that time the S&W engineers did not find a way around Schofield's patent and continued paying him.

It is notable however, that after Schofield production ended S&W went back to the earlier latch design for all their later #3 Top Breaks.

This is the Schofield latch.






The latch went across the frame and engaged a shelf on the piece mounted to the barrel. The top of the latch stood proud enough of the other piece that it could be grasped with the thumb and flicked back to open the revolver for loading or unloading.






This is the style of latch S&W had been using on the models before the Schofield, and the style they returned to after Schofield production ended.






There were two vertical posts on the frame. The shooter pivoted the latch up off the posts to free the revolver to break open for loading or unloading. It's possible to do this one handed, but it's much easier to do it with the thumb of the hand holding the grip pushing the latch up while simultaneously pulling the barrel down with the other hand.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Anyway, as far as I know in that time the S&W engineers did not find a way around Schofield's patent and continued paying him.

Click to expand...

Sadly, George Schofield took his own life with one of his patented revolvers in 1882.

His brother was a big shot in Army Ordnance, which might have had something to do with the adoption of his design.

Jim Watson said:

His brother was a big shot in Army Ordnance, which might have had something to do with the adoption of his design.

Click to expand...

Schofield's patent only covered the release latch for the barrel, nothing else.

Smith and Wesson were granted the contract to sell the Schofield model to the Army.

I suppose one could think about conflict of interest between the brothers, but most of the money for the revolvers went to S&W, not to Schofield.