Should S&W reintroduce the Schofield/Model 3 ?

[buck460XVR]

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.

I was just going by what I was told in the past, that most Top-Breaks are designed for chamber pressures below 20,000psi. Within the scope of most any revolver, with the exception of a severe overload, the chambers themselves are not the first to go after a multitude of rounds. Generally it's the frame and the forcing cone that take the beating, especially with high powered rounds. Most of us also know that there is a correlation between chamber pressure and recoil. Thus the reason many of us load to moderate chamber pressures for target shooting to save wear and tear on our revolvers. Easy to see why the latch would be vulnerable, even when not abused. I could see the hinge being a place where abuse when opening would impact it.

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.

Even when done correctly, there has to be enough demand to recover the costs. That is where I was coming from. To recover the cost of R&D, setup, adding lines or taking another line out of production to make room for a new line, marketing and distribution, you have to have demand. I'd assume the reason the Top-Breaks were abandoned in the first place was because they were not profitable anymore. Kinda like Colt Pythons. Great gun, now highly in demand, but not profitable at the time. While many folks claim Colt should bring them back, we have yet to see it. I'd assume the reason is demand and profitability. Part of the demand(as with a new Top-Break) would be determined by the price point that would have to be instilled to make a profit.

One reason so many of us admire those old Top-Breaks is the nostalgia. Nostalgia is big right now with us Baby-Boomers. Not so much with our kids and grandkids. Kinda like antiques. A decade ago you could not drive thru any small town in the country without seeing at least one if not more, Antique stores/malls. It was big business. Whole new businesses developed to make reproductions and knock-offs. Nowadays you really have to look for an antique store. Many of us that were into it for a while, got out of it cause prices bottomed out and there was no longer any money to be made.....even tho we still enjoyed and appreciated them.

It is what it is.

 

[DPris]

As with the decline of Cowboy Action Shooting, the demand for nostalgia-based guns is dwindling as the older generation is dying off.

The majority of the generations now in & now entering the buying market just has no interest.

As repeatedly discussed, there is no possibility of the Python coming back, because the market would not support a $3000 revolver.
Colt could not recoup its costs. Sales could not be sustainable.

A new Smith top-break, done to proper quality levels, would be in about the same boat.
Denis

 

[WestKentucky]

Should they? No. Would be a limited market for a high priced item. It’s like asking Chevy to put out a limited production run of brand new 59 Apaches. The tooling doesn’t exist. The cost to produce the tooling would be transferred to the buyer and would be a huge percentage of the cost for the gun. It would take a design team to reinvent the parts, it would take floor space to set the tools to produce them. It would take training for the workers to figure out how to assemble and tune the guns, and then it would be a really picky process to get a perfect deep blued finish on them as they would be heavily scrutinized by every buyer due to the crazy price.

This is not your “classic” models that are out now. They are the same basic gun with very few tweaks to make them special. This is an entirely different product line. Not a good move for a product that has all the signs of failure. It is an expensive product compared to its competition. It is outdated and obscure. It is not even a comparable platform to what rules the industry now.

Leave it to Uberti or the likes of them.

 

[Jim Watson]

Beat me to it.
Not many truly new models, just variations on a theme.

 

[flightsimmer]

Yes, the clicks on my model P are not very loud anymore since I tuned it to perfection but they are still there and it shoots to perfection also. It's a second generation model.
Deep blue/black, case hardened with one piece walnut grips.

 

[Monac]

The top-break was a nice style of revolver. When done right, like the H&R Model 999, it survived long after many people thought it had disappeared. But I think A) young gun buyers are unfamiliar with revolvers, and don't see why anyone would buy one, except for the super-powerful cartridges that are revolver-only items, and B) as people have said above, the top-break is unquestionably weaker than a solid frame, and cannot be chambered for heavy loads. I am not sure where "heavy load" begins, but 357 Magnum is definitely there. 45 ACP may be as well, and so is 9mm Luger, as far as I know.

I wonder if the real market might be for a scaled down, modernized replica of a Schofield, just as the Colt Frontier Scout and Ruger Single Six and others were scaled down replicas of the Colt SAA? I don't think such a gun would have to be designed to handle anything heavier than 22 LR or 22 Magnum, which would eliminate the frame-strength concerns.

Your guess is as good as mine whether such a gun would sell enough to justify R&D and tooling costs. In fact, if your name is DPris or Driftwood Johnson, your guess is probably much better. So too if you are young and in touch with what guns people are buying today. It is quite possible that the time for such a replica has come and gone, or never was because of hard manufacturing facts.

I would like to thank the many people who have posted to this thread with real knowledge of manufacturing, what Schofields were really like, and the realities of the market. You are all contributors to our field of knowledge.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I am under no illusions that Smith & Wesson will have any plans to reintroduce the Schofield Model. I'm sure their current business making plastic guns and other semi-automatics keeps them very busy.

However, I will make a few more comments.

As I said before, when they produced them in 2000-2002, every unit produced sold.

Yes, they were a niche gun, clearly they did not appeal to many, probably most, shooters.

A couple of other points. Smith and Wesson never throws out anything. They are famous for using up old parts in new guns, using old boxes for newer models, etc. I am sure the specific jigs and fixtures used to make the Schofields in 2000 - 2002 still exist. So if they were to decide to reissue it, I doubt much retooling would be necessary.

A few years ago I had the privilege of touring the S&W factory on Roosevelt Avenue in Springfield Mass. It is HUGE. Built around 1950, if memory serves, it replaced the older plant in downtown Springfield. One of the things I noticed is there is a great deal of space not being used. Lot's of old machinery standing in huge rooms that had nobody working in them. So if space was needed to start up a line to make Schofields again, there is plenty of room. At least there was when I visited.

Regarding Top Breaks not being profitable, and perhaps that is why they stopped making them: I doubt it. Daniel Wesson, who did not die until 1906, was a typical, flinty, thrifty New Englander. I doubt he would have kept anything in production that did not show a profit. I suspect the reason the Top Breaks stopped being produced was after the development of the Hand Ejectors (revolvers with side swinging cylinders), which were first produced in 1896, the Top Breaks simply became obsolete. Even though the Top Breaks featured automatic ejection, a Hand Ejector can be emptied just as fast. Yes, I have tried. And a Hand Ejector can be reloaded just as fast as a Top Break. As previously stated, a solid frame revolver was simply stronger than a Top Break, so I suspect once the Hand Ejectors became available, sales for Top Breaks slowed. All large frame #3 Top Break frames had been produced before 1899 (which is why they are all considered antiques by the BATF). New Model Number Threes were still cataloged until 1908, and 44 Double Actions were still cataloged until 1913, as stocks of parts were used up. I suspect sales simply slowed over that period because shooters wanted to buy the newer designs. Just like often happens today.

The very last Top Break revolver that S&W designed and marketed was the 38 Double Action Perfected Model, which was manufactured from 1909 until 1920, well into the Hand Ejector era. All told, 59,400 Perfecteds were made, so somebody was still buying them. This was the unusual Top Break that featured a thumb release as well as a top latch. In order to open the gun for unloading and unloading, one has to operate the thumb piece and top latch simultaneously, or the gun does not break open.






I used to know a young engineer who worked at S&W, and if memory serves, he was the inspiration for reintroducing the Schofield Model in 2000. As I recall, the official S&W historian, Roy Jinks, loaned the company one of his Schofields to measure so the company could tool up to make the new ones. If I can manage to contact him, I will see what I can learn about how many of the Schofield Model of 2000 were made, and whether or not the company made a profit on them. If he can speak freely about such proprietary information.

If I manage to contact him, I will post what I can about what he says.

 

[mcb]

The only way I would be interested would be if it was a double action top break. A single action top break has no interest for me but a double action top break would be very very interesting to me.

 

[Slamfire]

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

All good points. What griped me was that the Uberti repro's I fired, did not shoot anywhere near point of aim, and the sights were fixed. The heck with that, I want to hit what I am aiming at!. Honestly guys, do you want to pay $1,000 for a paper weight, or do you want something that shoots to point of aim? To those who only want a paper weight, I have some rocks I will sell you for a $1,000, or scrap metal truck parts. I remember when the S&W's came out, I was interested till I found that again, the re introduced top breaks, were fixed sight revolvers.

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.

Try doing that on a horse!. If you don't have a horse, stand in the back of a pick up truck, try to reload the things, while a nut case friend tries to eject you from the bed, by wild maneuvering!

I think the Colt SAA would be a loser, the top break better, but give me a 1911 and a seven round magazine for a quick reload!

 

[flightsimmer]

The only way I would be interested would be if it was a double action top break. A single action top break has not interest for me but a double action top break would be very very interesting to me.

Yes it would. Ummmm, 38 special.

 

[mcb]

Yes it would. Ummmm, 38 special.

I would take a 38 Special, I would even take a 38S&W to go next to my Webley Mk IV. But a modern interpretation in 45 ACP would be my choice if I could make it.

 

[jar]

I would take a 38 Special, I would even take a 38S&W to go next to my Webley Mk IV. But a modern interpretation in 45 ACP would be my choice if I could make it.

​

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The only way I would be interested would be if it was a double action top break. A single action top break has no interest for me but a double action top break would be very very interesting to me.

You mean like this?






Or this?






Or this?






Or this?

All good points. What griped me was that the Uberti repro's I fired, did not shoot anywhere near point of aim, and the sights were fixed. The heck with that, I want to hit what I am aiming at!. Honestly guys, do you want to pay $1,000 for a paper weight, or do you want something that shoots to point of aim? To those who only want a paper weight, I have some rocks I will sell you for a $1,000, or scrap metal truck parts. I remember when the S&W's came out, I was interested till I found that again, the re introduced top breaks, were fixed sight revolvers.

The original Schofields had fixed sights, so of course the reproductions do.

And as for hitting what I aim at, I like to do that too. Interestingly enough, the originals all shot high. They were accurate, they just shot high. The reason they shoot high is because the front sight is so short. I just try remember to hold low.








Unlike Colts, which have nice tall front sights that can be filed down to regulate them to shoot higher.






The 44 Double Action and the New Model Number Three were available with adjustable sights, but you probably would not like those either. They were only adjustable for elevation, not for windage.






And let's not forget, the New Model Number Three with target sights was the premier target pistol of its day. Records were set with that model that still exist today. I think those guys were pretty good at hitting what they aimed at.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Try doing that on a horse!. If you don't have a horse, stand in the back of a pick up truck, try to reload the things, while a nut case friend tries to eject you from the bed, by wild maneuvering!

I was not trying to reload on a horse, or in a bouncing truck, I was just trying to see how fast I could reload a SAA. Most folks think they are very slow to reload. I suppose compared to popping in a new magazine, 30 seconds is pretty slow. But I was impressed that I could do a full reload in 30 seconds with a SAA. Try it sometime.

 

[Slamfire]

I was not trying to reload on a horse, or in a bouncing truck, I was just trying to see how fast I could reload a SAA. Most folks think they are very slow to reload. I suppose compared to popping in a new magazine, 30 seconds is pretty slow. But I was impressed that I could do a full reload in 30 seconds with a SAA. Try it sometime.

I think a 30 second reload of a Colt SAA is pretty good. I am sure the top break would be faster.

 

[drobs]

If I could find a used Schofield Revolver by Uberti I would buy it.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/783183531

 

[flightsimmer]

That's like the one I had, it shot high and to the left, no way to correct it.

 

[Jim Watson]

I got sucked in on an ASM Schofield repro. An Australian correspondent wrote in the Cowboy Chronicle that it was superior to Uberti.
Wrong-oh, mate.

I knew one guy who campaigned a pair of 5" Ubertis that did just fine.

 

[mcb]

I think a 30 second reload of a Colt SAA is pretty good. I am sure the top break would be faster.

Man that is slow. I made some special speed loaders for my Ruger Blackhawk convertible, think a tube full of 6-rounds with a pusher similar to the speed loader from some 3-gun shotguns but smaller. I could do a reload in about 10-12 seconds with the 9mm cylinder installed. It was far from fumble proof.

I can pretty routinely hit sub 3-second reloads with my moonclip fed revolvers. If it a stand and shoot reload I can occasionally get under 2-seconds.

 

[CraigC]

My Schofield shoots to point of aim. No problems there.

No way is a top break going to be faster than an SAA to reload. I can fire five shots, reload and fire five more in 15secs and the Schofield isn't getting anywhere near that unless it's cut for moon clips. Same for DA's. They're quicker to dump the empties but lose on the load. I guess I really need to do a video.

 

[ACES&8S]

That would be great to bring it back or a good caliber top break, just think of all the jobs that would make
somewhere.

 

[DPris]

Craig,
If you can fire five, punch five empties out, load five, and fire five, through a standard single-action, all in 15 seconds, you are truly a far greater man than I.

Video, please.
I need to see how that's done.

Saw a video of Thell Reed empty & reload once.
But he's Thell Reed.
Denis

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I'll be satisfied with and Uberti remake, and even then its just for nostalgia's stake, may take it on a hunt or two just as a sidearm. .45 Colt dont need to be hot-rodded just for lil deer and hogs.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I got sucked in on an ASM Schofield repro. An Australian correspondent wrote in the Cowboy Chronicle that it was superior to Uberti.
Wrong-oh, mate.

Yes, I have heard nothing good about the ASM Schofields.

 

[DPris]

Had one of those ASM/Cimarron Schofields, it had to be rebuilt internally.
Did not keep it long.

Fun story on Cimarron's side of their debacle.
Denis