Cimarron S&W American Model 3 44WCF black powder and BlackMZ video

Outstanding video! I guess I'll havta load some black for my 45 LC Schofield and give it a whirl.

Just curious, what made you choose Graf's 2F over 3F?
Excellent video by the way. Very impressive, that S&W.

Bibbyman said:

What I had. I normally load BlackMZ for cowboy action shooting.

Yes, it held up to shooting black powder loads much better than I was lead to expect. I'll likely shoot it in next match. I think I'll do some cleaning of the cylinder face between stages. It should work fine.

Click to expand...

You could use 3F and reduce the charge by about 10% to achieve the same velocity but foul less and get maybe a couple of extra shots.

Interesting history there. The Army adopted the .45 Colt in 1873. In 1875 the Schofield Boys had enough pull to get Smiths bought with their own round and the Army ended up with compromise ammo for use in both makes.

In 1885 S&W saw enough sales potential to lengthen the frame and cylinder for .44-40 (and a whopping 74 guns in .38-40). Not many sales, and a number of them were converted to .44 Russian and the long parts were used for .44 Russian and even on .38-44 Targets. Never made a .45 LC, though.

Most of the foreign copies were made in .44-40, marked as .44 1873 or Winchester.

Howdy

Very nice video.

A couple of comments.

First, please forgive me for putting my school marm hat on, but the proper name for that revolver is the American Model. Yes, I know Cimarron is calling it Model Number Three, 1st Model American, but that is incorrect. Smith and Wesson built five separate models on the large #3 size Top Break Frame. The American Model, the Russian Model, the Schofield Model, the New Model Number Three, and the 44 Double Action.

What you have there is a very good replica of the American 1st Model. It is important to list the word 'American' first when describing that model.

School Marm hat off.

This is a photo of a Russian, 1st Model. Completely identical to the American Model, except the American Model was chambered for the 44 Smith and Wesson American cartridge, which used a heeled bullet. The Russian 1st Model was chambered for the 44 Russian round, which used a conventional bullet that was the same diameter as the inside of the case. (Later, the 2nd and 3rd Model Russians had the big bump on the grip and the spur on the trigger guard) Notice on this revolver there is a swell, or bump, in the frame around the trigger pin. The 1st Model American did not have that bump. You will notice on your revolver there is more of a straight line where the frame blends into the trigger guard. The 2nd Model American had a larger diameter trigger pin, which resulted in a bump around the frame just like on the 1st Model Russian. Kudos to Uberti and Cimarron for including the bug screw with the frame pivot screw. It would have been much easier to ignore that.






Early in your video you mention you think the originals had a latch under the extractor housing for removing the cylinder. That is incorrect, no S&W Top Breaks had a latch under the extractor housing for removing the cylinder. What they did have was a latch under the pivot screw for the barrel. This latch allowed the revolver to be broken open without the extractor lifting up the empties. Interestingly enough, on most of the #3 Top Breaks this function was engaged by pressing the latch in. On the 1st Model Russian, and I assume on the American Model, the latch was slid back to prevent the extractor from rising while breaking open the revolver. I would be interested to know if the latch works the same way on your replica of the American Model.






It appears to me the screw on the top strap of your revolver is identical to the originals. Removing this screw allows the small piece under the latch that retains the cylinder to be removed, so the cylinder can be removed. This screw was replaced by a knurled thumb screw on the 3rd Model Russian, and completely done away with on later #3 Top Breaks replaced by an easier way to remove the cylinder.






Rear sight and hammer, that's the way they were. I am not aware of any 'target' hammers with a wider spur ever being made for any of the #3 Top Breaks, although I suppose perhaps customs ones may have been made at some point, but that was not a factory option. As far as the rear sight is concerned, the two little nubs on top of the barrel latch were standard with all the #3 Top Breaks except the Schofield Model, it had a different rear sight arrangement.






However there was an adjustable rear sight that S&W put on some of these revolvers, but I doubt if you would like it. This is the adjustable rear sight on a target model 44 Double Action. A small blade with a small groove in it. The standard rear sight was still on the latch, but the front sight and the adjustable rear sight blade were taller so the sight picture 'looked right over' the non-adjustable rear sight. This style of sight was only adjustable for windage, not for elevation. To adjust, the two screws were loosened, then the rear sight was nudged to a new position, then the two screws were tightened again. A number of years ago Beretta was selling a replica of the New Model Number Three that had this type of rear sight. I am told the latch with sight attached could be mounted on Uberti's version of the #3 Russian revolver. I have no idea if it would fit on Cimarron's new replica of the American Model. I doubt you would like it much anyway.






Don't forget, some pretty amazing target shooting was accomplished with the relatively unsophisticated, by modern standards, sights on target versions of the New Model Number Three. I had the chance to buy this one a few years ago and I'm still kicking myself that I passed it up.






Here is the rear sight, the same as the one shown in my photo from my 44 Double Action.






The front sight was taller than the standard 'half moon' front sight and had a small bead on top. Clearly, very good eyesight was required to shoot accurately with these sights.






Anyway, thanks for the video, I hope you enjoy your new revolver.

I have a S&W Model of 2000 Schofield, chambered for the 45 S&W cartridge. Starline makes brass but mislabels it "45 Schofield".

I was anxious to try it with black powder, hoping the use of Big-Lube bullets would over come the reported problems shooting BP through the Model 2000. It didn't. I loaded 27g of Olde Eynsford FFg behind a BL 200g RNFP. I could not get through 5 rounds before the cylinder bound so tightly I had to open the gun, then reposition the cylinder and close it so I could fire the fifth and final shot.

Like Bibbyman I eventually tried Black MZ since I had a bit over a pound of it left after it was taken off the market. The same volume of Black MZ as the OE, again with the Big-Lube bullet because I didn't have any 230g cast bullets on hand, worked much better. It shot very low but once I figured out where to hold I hit my 10" plate at ~ 12 yards with regularity. And it continued to shoot and function through 25 rounds. I'm going to eventually find some cast 230g RN so I will be shooting the same bullet weight as the original 45 S&W. I won't worry about bullet lube as Black MZ doesn't seem to care. If I can ever find some I think APP powder would work as well.

I must say, despite S&W's claims back in 2000 about this thing being an accurate copy of the original, between the Safety Nazi floating firing pin and their failure to reproduce the original Schofield's cylinder bushing to deal with black powder, this revolver is a disappointment. It has proven to be a pain to load for, only working with the wrong powder. I've found a way to make it work but the bloom is definitely off the rose with this one.

Dave

That’s a nice looking revolver, congratulations.

Dave T said:

Starline makes brass but mislabels it "45 Schofield".

Click to expand...

The cartridge designed for the 45 Schofield revolver went by various different names over time.

The military designation of the original copper cased, folded rim, Benet primed cartridge was simply Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1875. The case was made of soft copper and there was no head stamp on them at all.

A later Boxer primed version was designated Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1882

A slightly shorter version was the Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1896.

For a time Remington was head stamping this round 45 S&W, and Remington-UMC also head stamped it as 45 S&W. Remington-UMC even head stamped the same round 45 Colt for a while.

Winchester Repeating Arms company also head stamped the round both both 45 S&W and 45 Colt over time.

Peters added to the confusion by head stamping the same round 45 C GOVT. (45 Colt Government)

I have an old United States Cartridge Company poster which labels the same round 45 Schofield.

Personally, I think 45 Schofield is the best name for the cartridge as it makes it very plain exactly which firearm the round was designed for. Also, 45 S&W is the name that the 45 S&W American cartridge, which was what the American model fired, with its heeled bullet, was often labeled. In my humble opinion 45 Schofield is the best name for the cartridge.

Just for the fun of it, here is a 2nd Gen Colt SAA cylinder with a two 45 Schofield rounds at the top and two 45 Colt rounds at the bottom. I always buy Starline brass, that is what the two stars on the head stamp are for. The two copper cased rounds are a copper cased, folded rim, Benet primed 45 Schofield cartridge at the top and a copper cased, folded rim, Benet primed 45 Colt cartridge at the bottom. The Benet primed rounds look like rimfire cartridges because the priming was internal.






By the way, a local shop has not one, but two S&W Model of 2000 Schofield revolvers in stock. I examined them very carefully, and as you say, the cylinder bushing is almost non-existent. There is one, but it is so tiny it would be just about useless for deflecting Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap away from the cylinder arbor. Because I am only interested in shooting ammunition loaded with Black Powder from #3 Top Breaks, and the fact that they want $2800 each for them I decided not to buy one.

Interestingly enough, the cylinders are the same 1 7/16" long that the originals were, so there would have been plenty of room for S&W to duplicate the cylinder bushing configuration the originals had. Clearly, the Schofield Model of 2000 was designed to shoot Smokeless powder only.

Bibbyman said:

So.. What was the reason for the long rib under the barrel? Just added weight?

Click to expand...

It is the extractor housing.

The extractor mechanism for the #3 Top Breaks underwent several design changes over time. Over time the extractor mechanism got shorter and so the extractor housing got shorter.

The extractor housing on my 1st Model Russian (which is the same as your American Model) is the same length as a 2nd Model Russian because they both had similar extractor mechanisms.








The extractor mechanism on the Schofield model was shorter, hence a shorter extractor housing.






By the time the New Model Number Three and the 44 Double Action were made, the extractor mechanism was very short, so the extractor housing was very short too.








I don't know if you have tried removing the cylinder from your American Model yet. In order to do so you unscrew the screw at the top a few turns. There should be a small screw on the side of the extractor housing. I'm using this photo of my 2nd Model Russian as an example.






Once you have unscrewed the screw at the top you can open the barrel latch and pull out the piece that retains the cylinder. Again, demonstrating with the 2nd Model Russian.






When you pull out the cylinder, the long extractor mechanism and its associated spring will come out with it. At least if your American Model is the same as the originals.






DISCLAIMER: When reinstalling the cylinder it is a royal pain getting the extractor 'teeth' lined up properly with the rotating ratchet in the hinge. It usually takes me about 10 tries to line them up again. That is one reason I do not like shooting the Russian Model. The other is the big hump on the grip, but that's another story. I suggest you do not even try to remove the cylinder of your American Model for cleaning, clean it as best you can with plenty of your favorite water based BP solvent, and plenty of Q-tips and canned air.



It is much simpler to remove the cylinder on the Schofield Model. Removing one screw on the barrel latch piece allows the latch to rotate up, freeing the cylinder to be removed. Notice how short the extractor rod and its spring is compared to the American and Russian models. Reassembling is simple, just insert the extractor rod into the cylinder arbor, lower the barrel latch piece, and replace the screw.






By the time the New Model Number Three came out, S&W had really perfected removing the cylinder. Notice the interrupted thread at the tail end of the cylinder arbor.






Raising the latch also lifted the part of the latch that retains the cylinder. Putting slight upward pressure on the cylinder and rotating it the wrong way (I don't have one handy right now so I forget which way is the wrong way) allows the cylinder to pop off the interrupted thread and the cylinder comes right off. Reversing the process reassembles the cylinder to the frame.






By the way, did you notice the prominent gas bushing or collar on the front of these cylinders?

Schofield cylinder.






New Model Number Three cylinder.






44 Double Action cylinder.






That is the reason these revolvers worked so well with Black Powder cartridges. The collar shielded the underlying cylinder arbor from Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel cylinder gap. When Uberti lengthened the cylinders on their replicas to accommodate longer cartridges than the originals, such as 45 Colt and 44-40, they did not lengthen the frame a comparable amount. Instead they chose to shorten the collar at the front of the cylinder.

I can shoot my New Model Number Threes with Black Powder for a two day match without any cleaning in between at all. I have not been able to examine one of Cimarron's new American Model replicas yet, but from what I have seen in photos on the web it appears Uberti did the same thing with that model.

I suspect you will not be able to shoot your American Model for quite as long without binding as I can with the originals and their nice, long collars on the front of the cylinders.

Bibbyman,
Very nice video, looks like it might be a keeper.

Driftwood,
Excellent lesson and descriptions.

Not meaning to drift from the original video posted, but I do have a question about the 45 Caliber cartridge.
I have this from the 13th edition of Cartridges of the World, is this what caused all the confusion about the 45 Colt - 45 Long Colt?

AntiqueSledMan.

Yes, the gas collar or bushing is very short.

Like all the Uberti replicas of the #3 Top Breaks, when they lengthened the cylinder to accept longer cartridges than the original 44 S&W American, 44 Russian, and 45 Schofield, rather than stretching the frame to accommodate a longer cylinder and bushing, they simply shortened the bushing.

The upside though is that style cylinder will be much easier to remove than the original style of cylinder that came with the American and Russian models.

So to keep the profile of your American model the same as the originals, it has the same long ejector housing of the original, but unlike the originals the ejector housing is probably not hollow for as much of its length as the original were. Educated guess here: I assume there is no screw on the side of your ejector housing because there would be no ejector rod for it to engage.

Question: did the cylinder slip off simply by removing the keeper piece in the latch, or did you have to pull up on it while rotating to remove it?

AntiqueSledMan said:

Not meaning to drift from the original video posted, but I do have a question about the 45 Caliber cartridge.
I have this from the 13th edition of Cartridges of the World, is this what caused all the confusion about the 45 Colt - 45 Long Colt?

Click to expand...

Oh boy, an entire post could be devoted to answering that question. It has been argued endlessly.

By the way, Barnes has it wrong when he states the 45 Colt cartridge and revolver were adapted by the Army in 1875. It was 1873. Barnes makes lots of technical mistakes like that.

He also quotes the often repeated logic that the wrong ammunition was probably sent to the wrong unit resulting in ammunition they could not use in their revolvers. I have never seen any documentation of that happening. Still further, he states that because of the larger rim diameter it seems likely that some of the Army's Colts could not have chambered 45 Schofield ammo. That is incorrect too. 45 Colt rims at the time were exceedingly small, not as large as the .512 current SAAMI spec rim diameter vs the current .520 SAAMI spec rim diameter of 45 Schofield. I have no problem fitting 45 Schofield ammo, with their larger rims, into a Colt Single Action Army cylinder.

Here is a photo of some old 45 Colt cartridges in my cartridge collection. The round all the way on the left is the original version of the 45 Colt cartridge. It is copper cased and has a crimp at the bottom holding the inside priming in place. Notice how tiny the rim is. This is because all the rim had to do was prevent the cartridge from being shoved into the chamber by the blow of the hammer. It did not take much of a rim to do that. At that time, spent rounds were extracted from the cylinder by being poked out from the inside with an ejection rod mounted underneath the barrel. I don't have the numbers handy, but all of those rims are much smaller than the current SAAMI standard of .512 diameter. Except for the two rounds on the right. Second from the right is a round produced by the Frankford Arsenal for the double action Colt New Service revolver. The rim is huge so it could be grabbed by the extractor of a double action revolver. Finally, all the way on the right is a modern 45 Colt round with a rim diameter of .512. Notice too that all the old rounds lack an 'extractor groove' above the rim.






This photo shows two 45 Colt rounds on the left, two 45 Schofield rounds (yes, I do insist on calling them that) on the right. The two rounds in the center are examples of the original copper cased versions of these rounds with the internal priming held in place by a crimp near the rim. The two rounds on the outside are my reloads of the same rounds. You can probably see how much larger in diameter the Schofield rims are than the 45 Colt rims. Both the original and modern Starline brass have rim diameters of around .520. This was so the extractor of the Schofield model could grab the rims to extract the empty brass.






Anyway, to get back to your question, it has been documented that at some time in the past the name 45 Long Colt was used at times to differentiate it from the Schofield round.

Although I hasten to add that if you go into a gun store today and ask for a box of 45 Colt, and the clerk asks you "do you mean 45 Long Colt" he has never heard any of this. He simply wants to make sure you don't mean 45 ACP.

Yes, some modern ammunition makers do put 45 Long Colt on their boxes of ammo, but the official SAAMI spec name of the cartridge is simply 45 Colt.

Here is the official SAAMI drawing of the 45 Colt cartridge and chamber dimensions.

Notice it is labeled 45 Colt, despite what some modern ammunition makers write on their boxes.





Here is a photo of two copper cased, inside primed 45 Schofield rounds, plus four modern 45 Schofield rounds in a Second Generation Colt cylinder. Plenty of room for the .520 diameter rims.






This is a photo of that 'big rimmed' 45 Colt round in the cylinder of a Colt New Service double action revolver, along with five standard 45 colts. If I had five more of that 'big rimmed' round, they would easily fit in this cylinder.






Here is the one 'big rimmed' 45 Colt in the SAA cylinder along with five regular 45 Colts. This rim is most definitely too big for this cylinder. Two of them would not fit next to each other, their rims would interfere with each other.

Two thumbs up for this thread. I'm getting schooled on the .45 Schofield cartridge and the variations on the S&W revolvers in a way that I haven't seen in any of my publications. Thanks!

Bibbyman said:

Here is were I got the idea there should have been a cylinder release latch on the under rib. It's a long video but at the 21 minute mark he removes the cylinder and then there is an animation of the gun. The gun is a Russian model 3. I just assumed the long under lug ment it should have the same cylinder latch system.

Click to expand...

Learn something new every day.

I have seen that video before. He goes into great detail about the development of S&W Top Break revolvers. By the way, he got it wrong, as so many do, when he says S&W BOUGHT the Rollin White Patent. Daniel Wesson offered to buy the patent, but White would not sell. So instead an agreement was reached where S&W became the sole licensee of the patent, but they never owned it. They paid White a royalty of $.25 for every revolver produced while the patent was in effect (up until 1869). It is true that Wesson did make White sign the agreement saying he (White) was responsible for policing patent violations, but the amount that White spent in doing so is often exaggerated.

Anyway, back to the 'Learn Something New Every Day' department. This is the latch he is talking about when he talks about easy removal of the cylinder. This is as it appears on my 2nd Model Russian.






Here is the view from the side.






This is a side view of the same latch on a 3rd Model Russian. Notice the latch is longer and there is a pivot pin for it. Notice too the knurled thumb screw at the top of the top strap, the easy way to identify a 3rd Model Russian. When he presses down on that latch in his video, that disengages the ratchet teeth of the extractor rod and allows the cylinder to be withdrawn easily. I did not know that until today. I can say this is only a feature on the 3rd Model Russian. Pressing down on the latch to remove the cylinder. It was a further improvement. This feature did not exist on the American Model, or the 1st, or 2nd Model Russians. Only on the 3rd Model Russian.






I just tried depressing the latch on my 2nd Model Russian, nothing happens. The latch's only function is to keep the extractor from rising when it is slid back as the gun is broken open. I sure wish it would do so on my 2nd Model, but it does not, I have to remove the screw in the side of the extractor housing to remove the cylinder. And then it is a bear getting everything back together again with the extractor working properly.

But I did learn about this feature on the 3rd Model Russian from his video.

By the way, I completely disagree with his take on the purpose of the spur on the trigger guard. It is simply a stylistic embellishment, not a feature to get an extra grip on the gun when shooting. Trust me, I have tried. It is much more awkward to shoot a Russian Model with a finger on the trigger guard spur then to simply put one finger in the trigger guard and keep the rest of the fingers on the grip. Much more awkward.

And I would never, ever allow that woman to handle any of my antique Top Break revolvers, the way she violently snaps it shut. Maybe when they were brand new, but rapidly snapping shut an antique revolver like that is just asking for something to break.

Regarding taking the cylinder apart further for cleaning, I recommend against it. The extractor is silver soldered to the extractor rod, they are not one piece. You may notice in my photos there is a hole through the end of the extractor rod. I cannot see from the angle of your photo whether or not there is a whole through your extractor rod. The hole is there so a rod can be inserted and the extractor rod can be unscrewed from the cylinder body. This should only be done with spent cartridges placed in all the chambers before attempting to unscrew the rod. This will help prevent damaging the assembly. Personally, I never take the cylinders apart for cleaning further for fear of damaging something on my antiques. I simply clean everything out real well with my favorite water based BP solvent, then blow everything dry, then slop some Ballistol onto the assembly to prevent rust before reassembly.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Oh boy, an entire post could be devoted to answering that question. It has been argued endlessly.

Click to expand...

Driftwood,
Thanks for giving an answer to my question.
I have noticed some questionable statements in the C.O.T.W.,
unfortunately it's about the only reference available to most of us.

AntiqueSledMan.

Heck no! The back and forth has been very enlightening. Thanks for taking the time.