Should S&W reintroduce the Schofield/Model 3 ?
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
- Status
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Let's see:
The piece of junk on the first frame, before the video starts, is not a Smith and Wesson. It is a cheap, pot metal imitation. Typical for the History Channel.
The first 'Colt' we see is actually an Uberti. You can tell by the safety piece on the hammer under the firing pin. Plus, Colt never made the Single Action Army with a brass trigger guard and backstrap.
The guy shooting the Colt does not have a clue how to load one properly. You never lower the hammer from half cock, you always bring the hammer back to full cock, then lower it. Lowering the hammer from half cock is just asking a turn ring to be scratched onto the cylinder.
Twenty six seconds to begin reloading a Colt? I stated earlier that I can punch out five empties and reload five fresh rounds in 19 seconds. But I do agree that a S&W Top Break is quicker to dump out the empties. Still have to try and see how fast I can reload a Top Break. Without any loading tubes or speedloaders. I only use what was available in the 19th Century.
Absolutely correct about opening the Schofield by brushing it against the leg while riding. I don't know one end of a horse from the other, but I can open a Schofield that way for reloading. I would not do that at a CAS match because that would break the 170 rule.
Roy does not mention why the Schofield could not accept the 45 Colt cartridge. The standard cylinder length for all the S&W Top Break #3 revolvers was 1 7/16". This length had been arrived at when designing the first 44 S&W American cartridge. A 1 7/16" long cylinder could easily accommodate the new cartridge as well as the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge. When the Russians placed their first order for the Russian model, they specified a new cartridge that became known as the 44 Russian. Basically the 44 American cartridge without a heeled bullet. So S&W was all tooled up for 1 7/16" long cylinders. A few years later, when S&W approached the Army about supplying Top Break revolvers, the Army insisted on a 45 Caliber cartridge. This was no problem, opening up the bore and chambers slightly was easy to do. But the 1 7/16" cylinder would not accept the 45 Colt cartridge, the cartridge was too long. Rather than change their tooling to make longer cylinders and frames, while the lucrative Russian, Turkish, and Japanese contracts were being filled, S&W proposed the shorter 45 Schofield cartridge that would fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder. The Army agreed, but this set up the problem of the Schofield not being able to chamber the 45 Colt cartridge. The Army only ordered a total of about 7,000 Schofields. There was talk of ordering more, but the Russians were paying up front in gold. So no more Schofields were produced. Interestingly enough, the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 were eventually available chambered for 44-40 and 38-40, which required a longer, 1 9/16" cylinder. Although this cylinder would have accepted a 45 Colt round, S&W never chambered any of their Top Break revolvers for the Colt round.
This photo shows some of the cartridges in question. Left to right they are 44-40, 44 Henry Rimfire, 44 S&W American, 44 Russian, 44 Colt, 44 Special, and 45 Colt.
The Army stopped issuing 45 Colt cartridges at one point, exactly because of the incompatibility of the Schofield with the 45 Colt round. Instead, they only issued the Schofield round. But it is true that by about 1878 the Army had surplussed out all the Schofields.
But despite these minor concerns, the video is correct in most of the details about how the Smith and Wesson Top Breaks came about. Too bad they don't go on to talk about the New Model Number Three, the best of all the #3 Top Breaks.
The piece of junk on the first frame, before the video starts, is not a Smith and Wesson. It is a cheap, pot metal imitation. Typical for the History Channel.
The first 'Colt' we see is actually an Uberti. You can tell by the safety piece on the hammer under the firing pin. Plus, Colt never made the Single Action Army with a brass trigger guard and backstrap.
The guy shooting the Colt does not have a clue how to load one properly. You never lower the hammer from half cock, you always bring the hammer back to full cock, then lower it. Lowering the hammer from half cock is just asking a turn ring to be scratched onto the cylinder.
Twenty six seconds to begin reloading a Colt? I stated earlier that I can punch out five empties and reload five fresh rounds in 19 seconds. But I do agree that a S&W Top Break is quicker to dump out the empties. Still have to try and see how fast I can reload a Top Break. Without any loading tubes or speedloaders. I only use what was available in the 19th Century.
Absolutely correct about opening the Schofield by brushing it against the leg while riding. I don't know one end of a horse from the other, but I can open a Schofield that way for reloading. I would not do that at a CAS match because that would break the 170 rule.
Roy does not mention why the Schofield could not accept the 45 Colt cartridge. The standard cylinder length for all the S&W Top Break #3 revolvers was 1 7/16". This length had been arrived at when designing the first 44 S&W American cartridge. A 1 7/16" long cylinder could easily accommodate the new cartridge as well as the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge. When the Russians placed their first order for the Russian model, they specified a new cartridge that became known as the 44 Russian. Basically the 44 American cartridge without a heeled bullet. So S&W was all tooled up for 1 7/16" long cylinders. A few years later, when S&W approached the Army about supplying Top Break revolvers, the Army insisted on a 45 Caliber cartridge. This was no problem, opening up the bore and chambers slightly was easy to do. But the 1 7/16" cylinder would not accept the 45 Colt cartridge, the cartridge was too long. Rather than change their tooling to make longer cylinders and frames, while the lucrative Russian, Turkish, and Japanese contracts were being filled, S&W proposed the shorter 45 Schofield cartridge that would fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder. The Army agreed, but this set up the problem of the Schofield not being able to chamber the 45 Colt cartridge. The Army only ordered a total of about 7,000 Schofields. There was talk of ordering more, but the Russians were paying up front in gold. So no more Schofields were produced. Interestingly enough, the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 were eventually available chambered for 44-40 and 38-40, which required a longer, 1 9/16" cylinder. Although this cylinder would have accepted a 45 Colt round, S&W never chambered any of their Top Break revolvers for the Colt round.
This photo shows some of the cartridges in question. Left to right they are 44-40, 44 Henry Rimfire, 44 S&W American, 44 Russian, 44 Colt, 44 Special, and 45 Colt.
The Army stopped issuing 45 Colt cartridges at one point, exactly because of the incompatibility of the Schofield with the 45 Colt round. Instead, they only issued the Schofield round. But it is true that by about 1878 the Army had surplussed out all the Schofields.
But despite these minor concerns, the video is correct in most of the details about how the Smith and Wesson Top Breaks came about. Too bad they don't go on to talk about the New Model Number Three, the best of all the #3 Top Breaks.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Lots of theory and some marketing claims. Don't get me wrong, I love my Uberti Schofield and it's a blast to shoot. It's a beautiful and elegant design but it also shows some glaring shortcomings. The Colt SAA simply handles better and the whole reloading issue is overblown and exaggerated. I think the only folks who go on and on about how superior the S&W is have never even shot one. I will concede, however, that the S&W would be easier to reload on horseback, if they even did such a thing.
IMHO, the handling is FAR more important than anything regarding reloading. If you don't survive the first cylinderful, you won't be there for the second. Bottom line is that nothing handles fast like a Colt SAA. The simple fact that I cannot do this with the S&W, without shifting my grip, is reason enough for me.
IMHO, the handling is FAR more important than anything regarding reloading. If you don't survive the first cylinderful, you won't be there for the second. Bottom line is that nothing handles fast like a Colt SAA. The simple fact that I cannot do this with the S&W, without shifting my grip, is reason enough for me.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Really?
As far as which points better, to me it's a toss up.
Although I do agree I can do this without shifting my grip on a Colt.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Obviously I wasn't referring to you. 
Have you been going on and on about how much better the S&W is? If you have, I haven't seen it. Far as I can tell, your opinion seems to be based on experience, not theory. But it seems to me that most of those who so strongly believe that the S&W is far superior to the Colt have never even shot one. Let alone taken any time to develop any skill with either platform. One handed, I can fire five shots in 2½ seconds with a Colt type single action. I've never shot the S&W over a timer but I guarantee it'll be a lot more than that. The ability to get your thumb on the hammer without shifting your grip is a HUGE advantage.
Have you been going on and on about how much better the S&W is? If you have, I haven't seen it. Far as I can tell, your opinion seems to be based on experience, not theory. But it seems to me that most of those who so strongly believe that the S&W is far superior to the Colt have never even shot one. Let alone taken any time to develop any skill with either platform. One handed, I can fire five shots in 2½ seconds with a Colt type single action. I've never shot the S&W over a timer but I guarantee it'll be a lot more than that. The ability to get your thumb on the hammer without shifting your grip is a HUGE advantage.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
This is down right amazing.
I am a decent shooter but (granted, from the holster) I can only 6 rounds on an 8x8 plate at 7yrds in 2.6 seconds with a semi auto using BOTH hands.
As far as which is better... IDK.
I have both, shot both, etc. I think the SAA is more reliable (in my experience) which is huge for me, but they both point okay. I recognize that the hammer reach on the SAA is easier and the ejector on the Smith is nice.
My Uberti copy of the Schofield gets really tight/gummed up after only 50 rounds or so of smokeless. which is why I switched to the SAA.
I will get them both out and try to run some tests on film for firing rate (one handed/two handed) and reloads this weekend.
The will be anecdotal, of course, and I don't claim to be an expert but I have some experience with both.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Yep. My understanding (from research after I bought it) was that lengthening the cylinder to accept 45 Colt was the root cause of a lot of issues.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Target was the size of a paint can at about 7yds.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Kinda fits with my previous assessment. that's darn good shooting.
I will be using a steel silhouette target for my tests (I forget the measurements). I will also be using a shot timer.
What do you say Craig? wanna do a video too?
We should maybe start a new thread for the results?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I need to but right now I'm covered up in buying a new house and moving, while trying to get ready to still have a decent fall hunting season. I have several leather projects I want to finish and there's a .62 smoothbore kit I wanted to finish for squirrels this year. Every time I think about moving my shop/gun room/reloading room/man cave, I start sobbing and become inconsolable. Once it's all said and done though, I'll be back into the swing of shooting nearly every day. I will do one but can't commit to anything right now.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
Not quite. Uberti did not eliminate the gas ring or gas collar. But they did greatly reduce it in length.
This is a real Schofield cylinder. Notice the collar at the front of the cylinder. This is a separate part, press fit into the cylinder. It stands roughly .170 proud of the front face of the cylinder. Notice there is space inside the collar around the ejector rod and spring.
This is how it fits together. The extractor rod and spring slide inside the cylinder arbor.
The gas collar remains outside the arbor.
When completely assembled, the collar butts up against the lower part of the barrel. This means the barrel/ cylinder gap is approximately .170 horizontally away from the front of the collar. When the revolver is fired, Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap is prevented from being blasted onto the cylinder arbor. The cylinder collar shields the arbor from the fouling. With the arbor protected this way, fouling does not build up on the arbor and the cylinder is able to remain rotating without binding. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the fouling building up on the cylinder face that causes a revolver fired with Black Powder to bind up, it is the fouling that gets down onto the arbor. Notice too, the outside of the arbor has a helical groove running around it. This is there for clearance. Any fouling that finds its way down onto the arbor will settle in the helical groove, and be less likely to bind the cylinder.
Here is the cylinder from a New Model Number Three.
And here is the cylinder from a 44 Double Action. All of the S&W Top Breaks had a similar cylinder construction. They all had horizontal separation from the barrel/cylinder gap to the front of the collar. After all, they were designed in the Black Powder era, and they shot it beautifully. When I use my New Model Number Threes in a CAS match, I can shoot them all day long without the cylinder binding up. Of course, I use bullets that carry a large amount of Black Powder compatible lube on them, to keep the fouling in the bore soft.
Here is what Uberti did. They lengthened the cylinder enough to accommodate longer cartridges such as 45 Colt, but did not lengthen the cylinder window in the frame a similar amount. The gas collar got shortened. Not eliminated, but shortened.
When the gun is assembled, there is not enough horizontal displacement to prevent fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap from making its way onto the cylinder arbor. This gun has not been fully assembled, hence the gap at the front of the collar. But you get the idea.
When S&W went to a 1 9/16" cylinder for the 44-40 and 38-40 versions of the New Model Number Three, and 44 Double Action, they also lengthened the frame to accomodate the longer cylinder and did not mess with the gas collar.
Most revolvers designed in the Black Powder era used the same principal. On the left in this photo is an Uberti Cattleman cylinder with its removable cylinder bushing. On the right is a Colt cylinder and bushing.
On the left is the Uberti cylinder with the bushing in position, on the right is the Colt cylinder and bushing. In the middle is a Ruger Vaquero cylinder. The bushing is an integral part of the Ruger cylinder.
With the bushing in place in the Colt cylinder, there is enough horizontal separation from the barrel/cylinder gap to the front of the bushing to prevent fouling being blasted onto the cylinder pin.
The Ruger has even more horizontal separation than a Colt, and they shoot Black Powder beautifully, without any binding.
One design that lacked a bushing on the cylinder was the 1858 Remington Cap & Ball revolver. On the left is a cartridge conversion cylinder, on the right is a C&B cylinder.
There is no horizontal separation from the barrel/cylinder gap to the front of the cylinder, so fouling builds up rapidly on the cylinder pin. In my experience this design tends to bind up quickly with BP fouling.
Incidentally, I do not own a S&W Schofield Model of 2000, nor have I shot one. But I have examined a few, and they have a short gas collar much like the Uberti. Everything I have read is they do not shoot Black Powder well. Why S&W chose to shorten the bushing I do not know, because they are chambered for the shorter 45 Schofield round. Maybe they just did not think anybody would want to shoot Black Powder out of them. Another question for my friend.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
Member
I agree.
Monac
Member
Please?
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Pretty please.
Spug
Member
Yes, write a book, please, Driftwood.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Thanks for all the kind comments.
I don't think I will be writing any books, there are already lots of good books out there about S&W Top Break revolvers, Colts, and Black Powder. I probably own most of them at this time.
But thanks for all the kind comments.
Driftwood
I don't think I will be writing any books, there are already lots of good books out there about S&W Top Break revolvers, Colts, and Black Powder. I probably own most of them at this time.
But thanks for all the kind comments.
Driftwood
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Okay, back from some shooting test. The video is pending, but I thought I would put some basic results in the thread.
I have some reloading speeds recorded.
For this test, I started with the revolver on target, at the beep, kick out 5 shells, load 5 shells from a vest pocket, and fire one round.
I took my top 5 reload speeds (of 10 recorded) from each revolver and averaged them:
SAA: 15.274
Schofield: 10.154
Best speeds:
SAA: 14.50
Schofield: 9.56
I also did some tests shooting 5 rounds both one handed and two handed, but I am confident that any cowboy action shooter could out do me without breaking a sweat. I intend on trying this again at some point.
SAA
Two handed: 3.40
On handed: 5.82
Schofield two handed: 3.23
One handed: 6.65
I was experiencing some reliability issues with the Schofield and some if it is probably due to its being a copy:
1. Closing the gun too fast can prevent closing due to the shells trying to come out of their chambers (centrifugal force?)
2. Failure to close the latch firmly will result a 'click' instead of bang as the hammer hits the latch before it hits the primers
3. (this one is almost certainly due to chambering) the 45 colt shells did not always eject fully from the cylinder. My guess is that because the Colt cartridges are longer than the original 45 Schofield cartridges the Colt cartridges exceed the length of the ejector throw.
My conclusions:
The SAA is about 5 seconds slower to reload than the Schofield.
I find the balance on the SAA more natural than the Schofield.
The reliability and inherent strength of the SAA design appears to be a benefit.
I found no noticeable difference in shooting accuracy or speed at a 8.5x11 paper at 7yrds.
I have some reloading speeds recorded.
For this test, I started with the revolver on target, at the beep, kick out 5 shells, load 5 shells from a vest pocket, and fire one round.
I took my top 5 reload speeds (of 10 recorded) from each revolver and averaged them:
SAA: 15.274
Schofield: 10.154
Best speeds:
SAA: 14.50
Schofield: 9.56
I also did some tests shooting 5 rounds both one handed and two handed, but I am confident that any cowboy action shooter could out do me without breaking a sweat. I intend on trying this again at some point.
SAA
Two handed: 3.40
On handed: 5.82
Schofield two handed: 3.23
One handed: 6.65
I was experiencing some reliability issues with the Schofield and some if it is probably due to its being a copy:
1. Closing the gun too fast can prevent closing due to the shells trying to come out of their chambers (centrifugal force?)
2. Failure to close the latch firmly will result a 'click' instead of bang as the hammer hits the latch before it hits the primers
3. (this one is almost certainly due to chambering) the 45 colt shells did not always eject fully from the cylinder. My guess is that because the Colt cartridges are longer than the original 45 Schofield cartridges the Colt cartridges exceed the length of the ejector throw.
My conclusions:
The SAA is about 5 seconds slower to reload than the Schofield.
I find the balance on the SAA more natural than the Schofield.
The reliability and inherent strength of the SAA design appears to be a benefit.
I found no noticeable difference in shooting accuracy or speed at a 8.5x11 paper at 7yrds.
Monac
Member
Books are hard work. I am certainly too lazy to write one. Heck, I've been trying to get myself to write an article or essay about the Rheinmetall 32 automatic (not the Dreyse, the later one) and I have not done it. But just because books already exist on a given subject is no reason to not write one. A book written by someone who thoroughly knows his subject, relating what he knows about it, and giving his well-informed opinions (provided they are labeled AS opinions) is always a pleasure to read. And we can already see that it would be well illustrated. Also, gun books tend to actually SELL, because even an expensive good book is so much less expensive than a good gun.
I collect guns in order to learn about them. I come here in order to learn about them. I buy books in order to learn about them. You have learned a great deal about guns, and I think it would be a pity not to pass it along. Perhaps you just need to think of just what book you would like to write, like one about your favorite types of Smith & Wessons.
On the other hand, I have a heckuva of a nerve asking someone else to write a book, when I can barely stretch a post to three paragraphs. At any rate, thanks for all you have posted here; because of the Internet, it will be much more available than gun collectors decades ago could dream of.
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,816
I've been an English teacher for 20-something years and have a few books up on Amazon for friends and family to enjoy. My latest will be out soon and may even end up in book stores (I keep slowly improving). If Driftwood ever wants a "ghost writer", I'll be retiring from my teaching gig before too long and will have some time on my hands.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,089
The main reason I inhabit these types of forums is for the wealth of information available on them, from intelligent and knowledgeable folks like you. While the majority of threads are the same ol', same ol', "which gun for bear" or "dumb guy at Walmart", every once in a while, something like this thread comes along and I actually learn something.
Kudos.
- Status
