Uberti Schofield question(s)

[Mr. Mosin]

This is not a buying post- this is a curiosity post. Been plundering around gun websites drooling over polished stainless and blue. Discovered Uberti's Schofield reproduction(s), and I have fallen in love with them. Showed a few pictures to a buddy, and he asked some questions I can not find an answer to. I cruised previous threads on these, and determined that (outside of a few) most were satisfied with their respective Schofield's. My questions are three things- would these tolerate factory smokeless loads (not +P, just standard loads) in .38 Spl and in .45 Colt, would these digest jacketed projectiles, or lead only; and (counting that you got one in proper order) would these re-productions make a serviceable field/carry gun ? From what I have found, outside of the occasional lemon, there's nothing inherently *wrong* with the design... no disastrous design flaw... it's just... not a Single Action Army (or clone). It wasn't widely adopted by our military force, and it's nowhere as common in spaghetti westerns as the Peacemaker. From what I can find and what I have seen (prepare for heresy), the Schofield may even be a *better* combat revolver than the veritable SAA.

 

[DocRock]

This is not a buying post- this is a curiosity post. Been plundering around gun websites drooling over polished stainless and blue. Discovered Uberti's Schofield reproduction(s), and I have fallen in love with them. Showed a few pictures to a buddy, and he asked some questions I can not find an answer to. I cruised previous threads on these, and determined that (outside of a few) most were satisfied with their respective Schofield's. My questions are three things- would these tolerate factory smokeless loads (not +P, just standard loads) in .38 Spl and in .45 Colt, would these digest jacketed projectiles, or lead only; and (counting that you got one in proper order) would these re-productions make a serviceable field/carry gun ? From what I have found, outside of the occasional lemon, there's nothing inherently *wrong* with the design... no disastrous design flaw... it's just... not a Single Action Army (or clone). It wasn't widely adopted by our military force, and it's nowhere as common in spaghetti westerns as the Peacemaker. From what I can find and what I have seen (prepare for heresy), the Schofield may even be a *better* combat revolver than the veritable SAA.

I have a pair that I shoot in SASS competition. They are fantastic.

The Uberti Schofields are proofed for CIP stanards, ie. 16,000 PSI for 45 LC and will safely fire any SAAMI Spec 45 LC load. I have fired jacketed loads with both pistols and found them to be equally accurate with jacketed and properly sized lead bullets. Mine live predominantly on a diet of lead and black powder but I have confidently field carried it with SAAMI Spec loads.

 

[ontarget]

I don't know about "better" as a combat arm but definitely faster to reload.
If the price of a Uberti was a bit more reasonable I would probably own one.
They will definitely hold up to factory loads and would be just as serviceable in the field as any other SA revolver.

 

[Tallball]

If they were more affordable I would own at least one, if not several.

There was a recent thread about loading speed compared to a SAA.

 

[Dudemeister]

I have one, and I'll try to answer your questions:

I have the 45LC version and I'm reloader, so all my .45LC is what I've loaded. I only use smokeless powder, however I don't load to the max limit of the cartridge, but a little below For example the latest rounds I've done are were 250gr semi-wadcutters over 8gr. of Unique. I used the same load before with Berry plated bullets . Never used jacketed, but have used copper plated as mentioned earlier.

I have used jacketed bullets before in my Uberti Cattleman, and while it's not the Schofiled, it's still made by the same company, so I see no reason why they shouldn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by serviceable field/carry gun? do you plan to actually carry this is as self defense? It's not exactly what I would choose. If you were to compare handling and balance to a SAA, it's not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun gun, but ....

The comment about a better "combat" revolver... I don't know. Sure you can unload the empties really quick, and if you get good at it, you can probably reload it fast, 2 rounds at a time, but you can't fire it as fast as you can a SAA, it can't be "fanned", you have to release the trigger before you cock it again. Also, loading the cartridges and flipping it back close only works in movies.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

So these will hold up (in respective calibers) to everything from bulk lead, to Hornady Critical Defense ? I would not be so stupid as to try anything Buffalo Bore or Underwood. Perhaps a 158 grn LSWCHP at ~900 fps to a 225 Silvertip @ 950 fps.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I have one, and I'll try to answer your questions:

I have the 45LC version and I'm reloader, so all my .45LC is what I've loaded. I only use smokeless powder, however I don't load to the max limit of the cartridge, but a little below For example the latest rounds I've done are were 250gr semi-wadcutters over 8gr. of Unique. I used the same load before with Berry plated bullets . Never used jacketed, but have used copper plated as mentioned earlier.

I have used jacketed bullets before in my Uberti Cattleman, and while it's not the Schofiled, it's still made by the same company, so I see no reason why they shouldn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by serviceable field/carry gun? do you plan to actually carry this is as self defense? It's not exactly what I would choose. If you were to compare handling and balance to a SAA, it's not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun gun, but ....

The comment about a better "combat" revolver... I don't know. Sure you can unload the empties really quick, and if you get good at it, you can probably reload it fast, 2 rounds at a time, but you can't fire it as fast as you can a SAA, it can't be "fanned", you have to release the trigger before you cock it again. Also, loading the cartridges and flipping it back close only works in movies.

Specifically for self defense ? Heaven's no. I'm not Bobwright. Just an "around the house", "woods", "maybe to town" gun, *if* I worked out the asked price, eventually. Not that this is a purchasing post, mind you.

 

[Dudemeister]

So these will hold up (in respective calibers) to everything from bulk lead, to Hornady Critical Defense ? I would not be so stupid as to try anything Buffalo Bore or Underwood. Perhaps a 158 grn LSWCHP at ~900 fps to a 225 Silvertip @ 950 fps.

I don't know what pressures they load the Critical defense ammo, but I used Hornady XTP bullets in my loads before, and shot them out of Ruger vaqueros and Uberti cattleman without issues. The Schofield is relatively new to me (about 9 months or so), so I only got to shoot lead and copper plated so far, no jacketed.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The US Army purchased 1000 Smith and Wesson American models in 1870. These were the first cartridge revolvers purchased by the Army, the sale predated purchasing any Colt Single Action Army revolvers by four years. In fact, the Colt SAA did not exist until 1873.

This is a S&W First Model Russian. It is identical in appearance to the American Model except for the antique coin front sight. The other difference is the American Model was chambered for the 44 S&W American cartridge, which employed a heeled bullet. The 1st Model Russian was chambered for 44 Russian, which used a modern style bullet that was the same outside diameter as the inside of the cartridge case. The Russians insisted on this because they did not want to deal with the bullet lube on the outside of a heeled bullet. Sliding the bullet inside the cartridge case allowed the bullet lube to be carried in grooves on the bullet inside the case.






This is a 2nd Model Russian, chambered for 44 Russian. Notice the exaggerated pointy bump on the grip. The Russians wanted this to keep the revolver from rotating in the hand when fired. It does this very well, but I find I have to regrip and place my palm against the pointy bump on the grip in order to reach the hammer spur with my thumb. If I forget to regrip and get my hand back below the point before firing, recoil will drive the point into the palm of my hand and it hurts, even with a mildly recoiling round like 44 Russian. The spur on the trigger guard was also a feature of the 2nd and 3rd model Russians. Totally useless in my opinion, many had the spur sawn off in the Old West. Anyway, in the Army tests of I believe 1873, S&W submitted samples of the American and Russian models for testing. The Army did not like the pointed hump on the grip of the Russian. To quote the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, "the Americans and Russians passed the firing and functioning criteria, but were criticized for their complexity and number of parts. The greater ease and speed of reloading was noted, but was not given much credence as a tactical advantage."






The Army purchased 8,000 Colt Single Action Army revolvers in 1873. By 1877 the Army had purchased about 15,000 Colts. At this time Smith and Wesson was operating at capacity selling the Russian model to the Russians, Japanese, and Turks. They eventually produced about 150,000 of them. However S&W did not want to be completely left out of US Army purchases. Col. George Schofield had been working on an improvement to the American Model as early as 1871. His improvement moved the unloading latch from the top of the barrel extension to the frame.

This is a 1st Model Schofield. The serpentine shaped latch can be seen mounted to the side of the frame. The idea was a mounted trooper could open the latch with the thumb of his right hand, brush the barrel against his leg, and reload while riding and controlling the horse with his other hand. He could close the action by brushing the barrel against his leg. To open and reload the American or Russian models it pretty much takes two hands, it is difficult to open the latch with the thumb of the shooting hand. I can do it, but it is difficult. Much easier with a Schofield. (No, I don't know the front end of a horse from the rear, but I have tried this stuff seated in a chair.)






The Army insisted they wanted a 45 caliber hand gun, and previous to this the American and Russian models were 44 caliber. It was not difficult to open the chambers and bore of the Schofield model to 45, but the cylinder was too short for the 45 Colt cartridge. S&W was not going to retool for a longer cylinder while they were producing all those Russians. So the Army agreed to the shorter 45 Schofield round, which carried less powder and a slightly lighter bullet. In total the Army only purchased about 8,000 Schofield models starting in 1875 and ending in 1877. Much has been made about the incompatibility of the 45 Colt round if shipped to units with Scofield revolvers, I have never seen any recorded reports of this actually happening. In any case, the Army was interested in purchasing more Schofield models in 1878, but S&W was not interested in producing any more. By this time the New Model Number Three was coming out, which was the best of all the S&W #3 Top Breaks, and S&W probably wanted to concentrate on the New Model.

In a nutshell, that is why the Army purchased a lot more Colts than Schofields.

In answer to the OP's questions, the replica Scofields produced by Uberti are proofed to a standard which is slightly higher than our SAAMI specs. So they should stand up to any standard SAAMI spec 45 Colt round. Quoting bullet weight and velocity is meaningless. It is pressure that blows up cylinders, not velocity. The same bullet weight and velocity can produce significantly more pressure in some loadings than others, depending on the type and amount of powder used. I will state that a solid frame revolver is inherently stronger than a Top Break. This has been argued on this forum many times. So I suspect a solid frame revolver such as the Colt will shoot more rounds than a Top break without the frame stretching. I have seen lots of old Top Breaks that no longer latch up properly because the frame has stretched over time.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot jacketed bullets in a Schofield, but to each his own.

The Schofield is just as big as a Colt, and just as difficult to conceal.






As far as being 'better', yes it is unquestionably faster to reload a Top Break than the Colt Single Action Army. However the Army did not seem to give much credence to that in the 1870s. Yes, it takes two hands to reload a Colt, and you have to pop out the empties one at a time and reload each chamber one at a time. With a Top Break you break it open and the empties fly out. Usually, not always. Sometimes I have to flick an empty out with my thumb. The extractor does not eject empties like the ejector on a shot gun does. All that happens is the extractor pops back down when the gun is opened all the way. And nobody ever mentions what a pain it is if the extractor jumps down under the rim of an empty. It is a real pain, trust me. You have to pull up on the extractor and wiggle the offending empty out from under the extractor. What I have found works best is to flip the gun to the side a little bit as you break it open. Then gravity helps dump the empties out.

Regarding lemons, the early Schofields produced by ASM were pretty bad. The Uberti guns are fine.

 

[BobWright]

The 1st Model Russian was chambered for 44 Russian, which used a modern style bullet that was the same outside diameter as the inside of the cartridge case. The Russians insisted on this because they did not want to deal with the bullet lube on the outside of a heeled bullet. Sliding the bullet inside the cartridge case allowed the bullet lube to be carried in grooves on the bullet inside the case.

Driftwood,

I don't believe the elimination of the heeled bullet and inside lubrication occurred at the same time. I have seen several specimens of .44 Russian ammunition made at the Tula Arsenal in Russia and they were outside lubricated. so, if the Russians thought it was such a good idea, why didn't their own production incorporate the feature? And .45 Colt ammunition produced about the same period was never heel crimped.

I believe inside lubrication was first incorporated by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company.


Bob Wright

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Howdy

The US Army purchased 1000 Smith and Wesson American models in 1870. These were the first cartridge revolvers purchased by the Army, the sale predated purchasing any Colt Single Action Army revolvers by four years. In fact, the Colt SAA did not exist until 1873.

This is a S&W First Model Russian. It is identical in appearance to the American Model except for the antique coin front sight. The other difference is the American Model was chambered for the 44 S&W American cartridge, which employed a heeled bullet. The 1st Model Russian was chambered for 44 Russian, which used a modern style bullet that was the same outside diameter as the inside of the cartridge case. The Russians insisted on this because they did not want to deal with the bullet lube on the outside of a heeled bullet. Sliding the bullet inside the cartridge case allowed the bullet lube to be carried in grooves on the bullet inside the case.

View attachment 940075




This is a 2nd Model Russian, chambered for 44 Russian. Notice the exaggerated pointy bump on the grip. The Russians wanted this to keep the revolver from rotating in the hand when fired. It does this very well, but I find I have to regrip and place my palm against the pointy bump on the grip in order to reach the hammer spur with my thumb. If I forget to regrip and get my hand back below the point before firing, recoil will drive the point into the palm of my hand and it hurts, even with a mildly recoiling round like 44 Russian. The spur on the trigger guard was also a feature of the 2nd and 3rd model Russians. Totally useless in my opinion, many had the spur sawn off in the Old West. Anyway, in the Army tests of I believe 1873, S&W submitted samples of the American and Russian models for testing. The Army did not like the pointed hump on the grip of the Russian. To quote the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, "the Americans and Russians passed the firing and functioning criteria, but were criticized for their complexity and number of parts. The greater ease and speed of reloading was noted, but was not given much credence as a tactical advantage."

View attachment 940076




The Army purchased 8,000 Colt Single Action Army revolvers in 1873. By 1877 the Army had purchased about 15,000 Colts. At this time Smith and Wesson was operating at capacity selling the Russian model to the Russians, Japanese, and Turks. They eventually produced about 150,000 of them. However S&W did not want to be completely left out of US Army purchases. Col. George Schofield had been working on an improvement to the American Model as early as 1871. His improvement moved the unloading latch from the top of the barrel extension to the frame.

This is a 1st Model Schofield. The serpentine shaped latch can be seen mounted to the side of the frame. The idea was a mounted trooper could open the latch with the thumb of his right hand, brush the barrel against his leg, and reload while riding and controlling the horse with his other hand. He could close the action by brushing the barrel against his leg. To open and reload the American or Russian models it pretty much takes two hands, it is difficult to open the latch with the thumb of the shooting hand. I can do it, but it is difficult. Much easier with a Schofield. (No, I don't know the front end of a horse from the rear, but I have tried this stuff seated in a chair.)

View attachment 940077




The Army insisted they wanted a 45 caliber hand gun, and previous to this the American and Russian models were 44 caliber. It was not difficult to open the chambers and bore of the Schofield model to 45, but the cylinder was too short for the 45 Colt cartridge. S&W was not going to retool for a longer cylinder while they were producing all those Russians. So the Army agreed to the shorter 45 Schofield round, which carried less powder and a slightly lighter bullet. In total the Army only purchased about 8,000 Schofield models starting in 1875 and ending in 1877. Much has been made about the incompatibility of the 45 Colt round if shipped to units with Scofield revolvers, I have never seen any recorded reports of this actually happening. In any case, the Army was interested in purchasing more Schofield models in 1878, but S&W was not interested in producing any more. By this time the New Model Number Three was coming out, which was the best of all the S&W #3 Top Breaks, and S&W probably wanted to concentrate on the New Model.

In a nutshell, that is why the Army purchased a lot more Colts than Schofields.

In answer to the OP's questions, the replica Scofields produced by Uberti are proofed to a standard which is slightly higher than our SAAMI specs. So they should stand up to any standard SAAMI spec 45 Colt round. Quoting bullet weight and velocity is meaningless. It is pressure that blows up cylinders, not velocity. The same bullet weight and velocity can produce significantly more pressure in some loadings than others, depending on the type and amount of powder used. I will state that a solid frame revolver is inherently stronger than a Top Break. This has been argued on this forum many times. So I suspect a solid frame revolver such as the Colt will shoot more rounds than a Top break without the frame stretching. I have seen lots of old Top Breaks that no longer latch up properly because the frame has stretched over time.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot jacketed bullets in a Schofield, but to each his own.

The Schofield is just as big as a Colt, and just as difficult to conceal.

View attachment 940078




As far as being 'better', yes it is unquestionably faster to reload a Top Break than the Colt Single Action Army. However the Army did not seem to give much credence to that in the 1870s. Yes, it takes two hands to reload a Colt, and you have to pop out the empties one at a time and reload each chamber one at a time. With a Top Break you break it open and the empties fly out. Usually, not always. Sometimes I have to flick an empty out with my thumb. The extractor does not eject empties like the ejector on a shot gun does. All that happens is the extractor pops back down when the gun is opened all the way. And nobody ever mentions what a pain it is if the extractor jumps down under the rim of an empty. It is a real pain, trust me. You have to pull up on the extractor and wiggle the offending empty out from under the extractor. What I have found works best is to flip the gun to the side a little bit as you break it open. Then gravity helps dump the empties out.

Regarding lemons, the early Schofields produced by ASM were pretty bad. The Uberti guns are fine.

Would perhaps polishing chambers aid in extraction ?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Driftwood,

I don't believe the elimination of the heeled bullet and inside lubrication occurred at the same time. I have seen several specimens of .44 Russian ammunition made at the Tula Arsenal in Russia and they were outside lubricated. so, if the Russians thought it was such a good idea, why didn't their own production incorporate the feature? And .45 Colt ammunition produced about the same period was never heel crimped.

I believe inside lubrication was first incorporated by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company.


Bob Wright

Hi Bob

Yes, I have heard of 44 Russian bullets that were outside lubricated, but pretty much most of it was inside lubricated. I have a few boxes of old 44 Russian ammo, certainly not going back to the 1870s, but it is pretty old, and it is all inside lubricated. Yes, 45 Colt, as opposed to 44 Colt, never used a heeled bullet.

Would perhaps polishing chambers aid in extraction ?

Not really. The trick is to snap the barrel down vigorously while flipping the revolver slightly on its side. That helps with extraction.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Hi Bob

Yes, I have heard of 44 Russian bullets that were outside lubricated, but pretty much most of it was inside lubricated. I have a few boxes of old 44 Russian ammo, certainly not going back to the 1870s, but it is pretty old, and it is all inside lubricated. Yes, 45 Colt, as opposed to 44 Colt, never used a heeled bullet.



Not really. The trick is to snap the barrel down vigorously while flipping the revolver slightly on its side. That helps with extraction.

Pardon my ignorance... but wouldn't "snapping the barrel down vigorously" increase wear on the hinge ?

Also, as a side note, I know the latch wears, and can be replaced; but what else wears on these revolvers ? The hinge ?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

It is not the latch that wears. What happens is the top strap stretches from recoil. The latch is still fine, but because the top strap has stretched, the latch, which is mounted to the top strap, does not engage properly any more. It is a bit loose when it snaps in place. Replacing the latch does not help.

The American Model, Russian Model, 44 Double Action, and the New Model Number Three all had latches that worked the same way.

This is a New Model Number Three. The black part is the latch. It is spring loaded and its normal position is down. When the gun is closed the latched fits snugly behind the two posts that are part of the frame.






This is how it looks when the gun is closed. The latch has popped down behind the two posts. The rear surfaces of the two posts are radiused so the latch can rotate down behind them. It is a very precise fit.






Here is a close up of the latch. It is in its normal position pulled down by its spring.






Here I am lifting the latch with my thumb.






In this photo I have released the latch and it has popped down again. The barrel has rotated about halfway down, causing the extractor to lift the spent rounds partway out of the cylinder.






These guns are all well over 100 years old, this particular New Model Number Three was made in 1882 and refinished at the factory in 1965. That's why it looks so good. So obviously I am not going to be manhandling and snapping the barrel down violently enough to damage anything. I do give it a good pull down, and rotate the gun about 90 degrees as I rotate the barrel so the gun is lying close to horizontal as the extractor snaps back to its normal spot in the cylinder. This helps get the empties out of the cylinder.



Here is a photo of a 44 Double Action of mine.

When I bought it the lockup was a bit loose. The barrel could rotate down maybe a degree or so, opening up a slight gap where the arrow is. The top strap had stretched and the frame had not stretched a similar amount. That is what can happen over time with revolvers with two piece frames.






I took it to a friend who was an expert gunsmith and very experienced with all sorts of old guns. You can see how the rear of the two posts are radiused so the latch will fit snugly when the barrel is rotated back up. I suggested I thought the two posts that engage the latch needed a tiny bit of metal welded at the rear so the latch would fit tightly again. He said that would work, but instead suggested this approach. He drilled a hole in each post and drove in a slightly conical, hardened dowel into each hole. Then he cut the dowels off, and filed them down until there was just enough new metal standing proud of the posts so that when the latch snapped down in place it was snug again.






The latch on a Schofield is completely different. A serpentine shaped latch snaps forward and locks down onto a ledge milled into a part screwed onto the top strap.






The latch on the Schofield is pretty massive. You can see the rear sight notch is integral with the latch.






When the latch is rocked back, it clears the ledge on the part screwed to the top strap (sorry, I don't remember the name of that part) This allows the barrel to rotate down and the extractor rises pretty much like the other models. As the barrel nears the extent of its travel the extractor snaps back again, just like with the other models.






A side note to this is Schofield obtained a patent on his latching mechanism and S&W had to pay him a royalty for every revolver they made. I forget how much, maybe 50 cents or so, which was nothing to sneeze at back then. Anyway, Daniel Wesson set his engineers to work to come up with a different latch that would not violate Schofield's patent, so he would not have to pay the royalty anymore. The Schofield was only produced for two years or so, there were only about 8,000 of them made. That's one reason you don't see them in Westerns very much because there were not a whole lot of them made in the first place. Anyway, Wesson's engineers never came up with a similar latch that would not violate Schofield's patent. Instead they went back to the earlier style for the 44 Double Action and the New Model Number Three.

When Clint Eastwood's movie The Unforgiven came out in 1992 the Schofield Kid put the Schofield model back on the map. The same with the remake of 3:10 to Yuma in 2007. Roy Jinks once mentioned that at this time he started getting a lot of inquiries about 'Schofields' that had been found in old drawers and such. It turned out a lot of them were not Schofield's at all, but were one of the other four types of big #3 Top Breaks. All #3 Top Breaks are not Schofields, but all Schofields are #3 Top Breaks.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

So... (hypothetically) 10 years down the road, this Schofield is worn out, top strap stretched. Could I just simply... order a new barrel assembly from Uberti, or is the barrel assembly serial numbered as a firearm, you think ?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I really don't know if they are individually fitted or not.

They certainly were with the originals, but I don't know about the replicas.

Ain't you the guy who was worried about wearing out a Smith from the 80s and I said just go ahead and buy it?

I doubt you will be shooting a replica enough to wear it out.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I don't think that was me. My question concerned a Smith from the 50's.

 

[DocRock]

Would perhaps polishing chambers aid in extraction ?

No. They extract fine. The problem is the tiny rim on 45 Colt. If rapid certain extraction is needed, flip and flick: while rapidly flipping the cylinder down, as the empty cases rise up, flick the cylinder to the side and down.Done a few times, it will ensure full, rapid extraction.

 

[jimherb]

I had a Uberti Schofield in 45LC. I'm pretty sure I only used lead ammo. I let it get away from me and am sorry I did. No, there are better choices for a service weapon.

 

[Dudemeister]

And nobody ever mentions what a pain it is if the extractor jumps down under the rim of an empty. It is a real pain, trust me. You have to pull up on the extractor and wiggle the offending empty out from under the extractor. What I have found works best is to flip the gun to the side a little bit as you break it open. Then gravity helps dump the empties out.

That had been my pain all along, and I thought it was just me. I always opened the gun slowly so I can neatly get the empties out and not have to look for them all over the ground, and then one would fall back down in the chamber and the ejector on top of it. What a pain !



I now just have a small basket I hold the gun over and empty it in there and mostly let gravity do most of the work.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I don't think that was me. My question concerned a Smith from the 50's.

Sorry, I had you confused with somebody else.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I now just have a small basket I hold the gun over and empty it in there and mostly let gravity do most of the work.

I'm sure that works fine at the range for informal shooting. I suppose I could do the same at a CAS match. We have not had a pistol reload on the clock in years. If we did, a Top Break would really shine.If I bring a Top Break to a match all the unloading is done at the unloading table. I do my open and turn the revolver sideways routine there, however I have to be careful not to sweep the unloading table officer while I am there.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I'm sure that works fine at the range for informal shooting. I suppose I could do the same at a CAS match. We have not had a pistol reload on the clock in years. If we did, a Top Break would really shine.If I bring a Top Break to a match all the unloading is done at the unloading table. I do my open and turn the revolver sideways routine there, however I have to be careful not to sweep the unloading table officer while I am there.

What is the little hole bored through the end of the ejector rod for ? Does it catch on the ejector cam ? Could it be used to unscrew the ejector rod from the cylinder ?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The problem is the tiny rim on 45 Colt.

Which is exactly why the 45 Schofield round has a larger diameter rim than the 45 Colt round. Back in Black Powder days, the rim of 45 Colt was even smaller than it is today.

This photo shows a bunch of old 45 Colt cartridges. The one on the far left is the original copper cased, folded rim, Benet primed 45 Colt as loaded by the Frankford Arsenal around 1873. The dent near the rim holds the interior anvil plate in place. Notice how tiny the rim is, only about .503 in diameter. The rim did not need to be any bigger because all it did was keep the cartridge from sliding into the chamber. Ejection with the Colt has always been with an ejector rod that poked the rounds out from the inside, no extractor was involved. The rims on most of the other old cartridges in this photo are running around .405 - .410. The outlier is the round 2nd from the right with a rim diameter of .538. This round was specifically loaded for a double action revolver, I forget which one right now, but the rim is extra wide so it can be grabbed by an extractor. All the way on the right is a modern 45 Colt. The standard rim diameter for 45 Colt today is .512.






Rim diameter for 45 Schofield is .520. Precisely because S&W was afraid the diminutive rims of the old 45 Colts might slip under the extractor. This is one of my original Schofields, so loading it with 45 Colt is not an option. A 45 Colt will not seat in the chambers by almost 1/4". 45 Schofield brass is available from Starline. I won't swear to this, but I suspect modern 45 Schofield brass with its larger rim diameter will chamber in a modern replica Schofield without the rims over lapping. There is around .010 clearance between rims in this Schofield. So anybody who is having extraction problems with 45 Colt in a modern Schofield replica might consider loading it with 45 Schofield ammunition.






P.S. In this photo, the two cartridges on the left are 45 Colt, the two on the right are 45 Schofield. The two on the outside are my reloads. The two in the center are the original copper cased, Benet primed versions. The rim diameter of that copper cased Schofield round is .518. Modern Starline 45 Schofield rim diameter runs around .518-.519.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again


The Topstrap Cylinder Catch (I looked up the name) has two small projections which prevent the cylinder from being removed. This is only with the Schofield model, the other #3s are different.






The Topstrap Cylinder Catch needs to be rotated up to free the cylinder. On the originals the rear screw was partially cut away, so it only had to be turned halfway to allow the Catch to be rotated up. On the replicas you may have to remove the screw, I don't really know. Anyway, once the catch is tilted up the cylinder can be slid off. The Extractor Stud is threaded into the extractor. The hole in the Extractor Stud is there so it can be unscrewed from the extractor.






The little hole at the rear of the extractor slides over a pin pressed into the cylinder to help with alignment. There is a groove running the length of the extractor and a ridge in the cylinder rides in that groove to keep the extractor lined up as it extends. The little pin fits into the little hole as the extractor comes to rest. At least that is how it is with the originals.