45 S&W Schofield bullet mold C.D. Ladd

I have a few old antique dealers notify me when they find old bullet molds in the Bay Area.

One of the common molds rarely actually still found in this area was manufactured by C.D. Ladd of San Francisco. 1870’s to 1890’s.

Just picked this one up. It’s an early mold circa early 1880’s. Ladd’s molds were originally painted gold and you can see traces. First one I’ve seen for the 45 Schofield.

I also found that Winchester actually made a reloading tool for the Schofield in 1882 from one of C. D. Ladd’s original Distributor catalogs from 1884. This is the first listing that I’ve documented that actually lists the 45 S&W (Schofield revolver) on their tool list.

It was not a special order. It’s on the standard list of tools and calibers available at C. D. Ladd’s store in 1884. It would look like the 44 RUSSIAN tool I posted but would be stamped 45 S&W….at least that’s what I think it would look like. I’ve never seen one except for the Government Winchester tool I have but it’s marked totally different.

Just thought I’d share the update for the antique tool collectors. 45 Schofield stuff is nothing but rare.

So this info proves that the 45 Schofield reloading tool was not a special order tool and it was available on the commercial market made by various manufacturers that included C.D. Ladd and Winchester. I have also seen partial tool kits made by UMC.

Notice also that the bullet size is stamped on one side of the mold block. 450. Not 452 or 454 but 450. I did mic the cavity and it is 450.

Murph

History of San Francisco

This research has been one of my top priority subjects but also very difficult to iron out.

We know that 300-350 Schofield revolvers were issued to the San Francisco Militia often incorrectly listed as California Militia in 1877 in lieu of the Railroad riots.
I’ve found Guard units stationed all over the downtown area consisting of between 75-125 guardsmen at various addresses actually found in early directories both before and increasing after the riots.
C.D.Ladd’s huge sporting goods supply and gunsmith shop took up most of a city block in the same area.
Notice from an original Winchester price listing there is no listing for the 45 S&W.

However, Winchester actually had a large office in Downtown San Francisco as did Colt firearms. They both burnt down in the 06 Quake.

So the 45 Schofield tools found listed as available in his store would have been easily obtained.

I know a few local collectors who have Militia Schofields so many remained in this area for some time.

It’s very difficult to research and locate remaining artifacts since that area burnt to the ground in the 1906 Quake.

It sure would been an exceptional find to locate an original Schofield 1882 reloading tool. The importance being that tool actually sized and crimped the case so the die is a mirror image of the commercial cartridge of 1882!

The military was also well established at that time at the presidio that housed thousands of troops actually in the city of San Francisco for many years and dates back to Pre-Civil War. So reloading would also be applicable to that facility during that time frame.

It was still active when I was a kid. My dad would take us out there and we would watch the military shoot off the 5pm signal cannon.

Murph

History continued

Photo of the 1880 Winchester building along side A.J. Plate a Major Distributor occupying most of 4th and Market Street.
I’ve documented 28 large businesses that sold guns & Ammo along with sporting goods in the downtown area of San Francisco up to the 1906 Quake and devastating fire. They were all lost. A large percentage of the Militia Schofields were likely lost as well in the fire.

Murph

BMur said:

It sure would been an exceptional find to locate an original Schofield 1882 reloading tool. The importance being that tool actually sized and crimped the case so the die is a mirror image of the commercial cartridge of 1882!

Click to expand...

Another .45 S.&W. reloading tool of interest, perhaps slightly less elusive than the Winchester tool, would be the No.4 tool from the Ideal Mfg. Co., which has the added advantage of having the appropriate bullet mould attached. The example below passed through one of the online auction sites just about a month ago.

Jim

Bullet and mold transition

The Ideal mold Jim posted is actually a late Schofield mold post 1902 and is the most common mold found on the collectible market. It’s still a definite keeper and are not often found.
We can date the mold by the sprue screw lock seen in photo 1 that is accepted as beginning in 1902 for the Ideal tools and bullet molds. The tool also has the multi-groove bullet design that is a later improvement found on all Smith & Wesson calibers around the turn of the century. That includes the 32, 38, and 44cal.

If we look earlier what we find is photo 2. That is a pre-1888 Ideal tool that has the outside lubricated bullet for the 45 Schofield. The C.D. Ladd 45 Schofield tool in photo 3 and posted earlier in this thread only further supports this position. Since it is also a single lube groove outside lubricated bullet and pre-1888.

What adds confusion to research is the fact that the Military insisted on inside lubrication during the trials and the Frankford Arsenal came up with the “dual purpose” inside lubed bullet seen in photo 4.

My focus is to find an early Commercially manufactured tool that sized and crimped the round so we can prove without any doubt that the Commercial round was different from the Military round in many ways and “suggests” that at least some of the Commercial Schofields may have had different chamber specs(smaller) since the Military versions were and are proven as altered (larger) to chamber the dual purpose round.

Looking at rare old 45 Schofield ammo is not accurate since the rounds may have been reloaded at some point and we simply can not date them. Full boxes of that period are beyond expensive and Opening them would lose significant value. So that’s not happening. But finding an original tool, in this case a Winchester tool would be absolute proof when an inner casting of the tool die would provide a mirror image of the early Commercial cartridge.

Murph

Die casting

Photo from Winchester tool history website.
Notice that the Winchester reloading tool loading die actually resizes and crimps the case to original dimensions. The casting of the inner die proves this position. Unlike Ideal tools that only load the shell. Casting them would not provide this accurate image.

It seems to me that this is the only way to prove without any form of contesting what the original Commercial cartridge actually looked like both in appearance and in specific size dimensions. So, we locate a Winchester 1882 tool of the original 45 S&W Commercial Schofield round and make a cast of the inner die. Sounds easy but finding one is a life long project. Finding any early case sizing die for the 45 Schofield would work also. Ideal did sell them but I have never seen one.

Murph

BMur said:

Notice from an original Winchester price listing there is no listing for the 45 S&W.

Click to expand...

My collection of Winchester catalogs is far from complete, but .45 S&W appears in their reloading tool list at least as early as February of 1890. Prior to that, I can only say it is not listed in May of 1881... it must be noted, however, that in that catalog (and earlier) there is no list of specific cartridges for Winchester reloading tools.

The latest Winchester catalog in which I can find .45 S&W reloading tools listed is dated June of 1893. By April of 1894, the next catalog I have, the .45 S&W is absent from the reloading tool list.

I did find, in the U.S. Cartridge Co. catalog for 1891, an illustration of the .45 S&W cartridge which does appear to show an outside-lubricated bullet.

Jim

Outside lubricated

Great stuff Jim,
Thanks!

I’ve found all “Commercial” cartridge manufactured Smith & Wesson calibers were outside lubricated until about 1888 with a transition period of a few years depending upon manufacturer.
That includes;
U.S. Cartridge Co.
Winchester
UMC Co.
American Cartridge Co.
Phoenix Cartridge Co.
Peters (Early rounds)

You can see from the photos from an 1881 U.S Cartridge Co catalog that all Smith & Wesson calibers had the outside lubricant groove at that time.

I’m absolutely positive that the 45 Schofield Commercial case differs greatly from the Military Dual purpose round. Just extremely difficult to find an early 45 outside lubricated “Factory loaded” round. Arsenal rounds are still pretty easy to locate.

It would be very interesting to actually measure and document the difference between the Commercial case and the Military case.
I believe the difference to be significant but it has to be an early round and not a reloaded round either.

Cartridge collectors have them but they have no interest in sharing, unfortunately.

Ideal actually lists the diameter of the Commercial bullet as .449. The C.D.Ladd mold posted proves a .450 bullet. The Early Ideal tool also mics at .450 and I have a Winchester bullet mold in 45 S&W that also mics at .450.

So the case diameter must be smaller for the Commercial round.
We could use this information to also apply how much the chambers were altered at the factory for the Military round.


Murph

Collectors input

I finally received a response from an Ideal collector regarding the 45 Schofield caliber and tools available. He claimed to have seen one in the Number 5 Armory tool. See photo 1.

This is huge since this is the only early Ideal tool that actually sized the case. I asked him to send me photo’s of any numbers found on the tool and dies.

See photo’s

As you can clearly see the case sizing die for this special order tool is stamped 472. This is a clear indication that the diameter of the original Commercial 45 Schofield case was in fact .472 and full length since the die is not a case mouth sizer. It is a full length sizer by design. By that I mean the case is sized as soon as it enters the die and all the way through the stroke of the tool until it stops.

So it is a straight case sizing die and .472 in diameter. That is a full 8 thousandths difference between the 45 Commercial Schofield and the 45 Colt being .480.

The bullet sizer on the tool is .450, the plunger is .450 and the cap on the adjusting die is also .450. Early Colts were between .454-.455 in bullet diameter.

Rock solid stuff that clearly proves the Commercial round was in fact much smaller than the Military dual purpose round and would rattle around in the Colt chamber. It clearly also proves that the original Schofield round would NOT fit or function in the Colt revolver. It is way too small both in bullet diameter and case diameter.

The result would be what you see in the case photo’s. This is what Happens when you chamber too small a cartridge for existing chamber diameter. The case will split and the primer will strike off center due to the case diameter being much too small for the chamber. This was a full load black powder cartridge and it clearly split and struck off center.

In this case the difference is only 3 thousandths between the .357 mag case and the 38-44 chamber designed for the .360 bullet.

With the 45 Schofield the difference is a gross 8 thousandths difference with an undersized .450 bullet as compared to the .454-.455 Colt.

This is just rock solid proof that the two were not in any way compatible and the constant claim that the original 45 Schofield round would work in the original black powder 45 Colt is absolute hogwash.

The two guns should never be seen as historically compatible. They were not.

NOT until the factory “modified the chambers” of the Military issued 45 Schofields to “barely” function with a dual purpose cartridge that was equipped with a hollow base bullet to take up the bullet diameter difference and a tapered case to line up the primer for a center strike. The machined taper now proven to be no less than 8 thousandths difference between the original 45 Schofield chamber and the modified Franford arsenal dual purpose round.

Murph

Hi There,

I am not in agreement with your reasoning and I think you are
making many assumptions without providing any supportive
evidence. The No. 5 tool pictured is the third variation and was
available in 45-70 only. Also, the Ideal "nutcracker" tool came
with a depriming attachment that sometimes was made with a
belt that would also expand the neck after sizing when the old
primer was punched out. As most reloaders know, one shouldn't
rely on resizing alone because of variations in the thickness of
the brass at the neck of the cartridge case. Cases are resized
slightly undersized and then the neck is expanded to the correct
inside diameter for proper bullet retention.


Also, the .45 revolver round the Army used was a hollow based
one (from the pics I have seen) and the skirt should easily expand
.008". Case in point is a similar hollow based bullet used in the
.41 Colt Long round. When cartridge manufacturers switched
from an outside lubricated to an inside lubricated bullet, the
diameter of the projectile was reduced from .401" to .386".
That is a reduction of .015" but the skirt of the hollow base
bullet expanded to engage the rifling. So I don't agree that
the accuracy of the dual use .45 revolver round in the SAA
the U. S. Army used was "hogwash."

Again, you purport that there was a modification to the Schofield
chambers but you fail to provide a source for your assertion.
When the Army ordered the first 3,000 Schofields, they asked
S&W to camber them in the same round as the Colt SAA the
Army was already using but S&W explained that the physical
dimensions of the Schofield cylinder prevented this but offered
to develop a round that would be compatible to both revolvers
and the U. S. Army found this acceptable. Hence, any changes
to the Schofield chamber were done before the revolvers were
actually manufactured and thus no "modifications" were made
to revolvers because the revolvers hadn't been made yet.

Cheers!
Webb

Researched facts

Thanks for your input Webb,
Unfortunately, the majority of what you posted is not correct.
The information I posted is proven, not my opinion. My research is very thorough.

The Ideal Number 5 Armory tool actually came available in many calibers usually large caliber rifle. You can research this fact on the Ideal website where they show (photo’s) several tools and list calibers known to exist as they suspect “special order” and documented same from several gun manufacturers. They do exist. So you are incorrect by stating it was only produced in the 45/70. In fact I have one in 40/60 M.

The Army actually requested Smith and Wesson “modify” the existing and already manufactured 45 Schofield revolvers “prior” to shipment in order to make both the SAA 45 and Schofield 45 compatible by Modifying the Smith and Wesson to chamber a dual purpose cartridge. This was the reason for the initial delay in shipping.
The U.S. Army actually paid a premium of .50 cents each gun for the modification to each of the revolvers chambers. Increasing the cost for each gun from $13 to $13.50.

The Schofields were not initially manufactured with the modified chamber. They were altered after manufacture. If you stop and think about it for just a second? If the guns weren’t made yet what would be the purpose for modifying them? If they weren’t manufactured yet, the Army would simply ask Smith and Wesson to manufacture the chambers and bore to “match” the Colt. That didn’t happen.

A lot of this information is in the book that I recommended you read by Parsons. I don’t have the book with me but if you look in the section listing letters from the Army to Smith and Wesson you will clearly see the communication and requested modification.
The test guns issued to the Army had chambers that match what I posted on this thread.

The point of this thread is not to review what I’ve already researched and proven. It’s to introduce the fact that the original 45 Schofield commercial round was a lot different than the Frankford Arsenal round or dual purpose round and determine how much of an alteration the factory actually performed on the original 45 Schofield revolver chambers.

You are welcome to read my years of posts on this subject by reviewing previous posts on the Schofield revolver using the search feature. It’s all on this website and simple to look up.

You finish the main spring yet? I’m curios to see how it turns out.

Murph

The dies etc. shown in the 2nd and 3rd photos attached to Post #10 above are not by Ideal, nor are they for the .45 S. & W. cartridge. They are, instead, by Modern-Bond, for the .45 Colt cartridge, and date to no earlier than 1920. The die marked 472 is a neck-sizing die used in M-B's Model B (tong-type) and Model C (bench-mount) reloading tools. The piece marked 450 is a bullet seating pin, used in combination with M-B's adjustable seating chamber.

Jim

Collectors input

Thanks much for that info Jim,

I’ll email the source and see what he says. The tool must be modified then. Oh well. This always happens when I don’t have the item in hand to examine. Getting a hold of this guy is difficult. Maybe he sent me the wrong photos.

Hmm, wonder why it’s a 472 die? That seems a bit small for a 45 Colt. Might be a 45 Auto?

Murph

Murph,

Modern- Bond dies are kind of famous (or infamous) for their tight sizing. Their die for sizing .45 A.C.P. has a 0.466" internal diameter!

Below is a photo comparing an Ideal muzzle-dizing die and a Modern-Bond die. They are, on first glance, very similar. But as you can see, the M-B die has a larger diameter and a coarser thread. The Ideal die measures approx. 0.600" diameter, with 30 threads-per-inch. The M-B weighs in at 0.685" diameter, with 20 threads-per-inch.

Jim

I can't sit quietly when misinformation is stated as fact. Having just reread John Parsons “Smith & Wesson Revolvers” (Morrow, 1957), for the umpteenth time, I don’t find anything that remotely relates to the claim of rechambering existing Schofield revolvers to the “dual purpose” cartridge. In fact, I find the opposite.

The Schofield order per Parsons:
Smith & Wesson had produced the No 3 frame, 44/100 caliber revolvers since 1870. Collectors know it today as the American Model. This revolver was submitted to the Chief of Ordinance and therefore the Smith & Wesson revolvers were no strangers to the army.
Schofield established his presence at Smith & Wesson and in June 1870, Smith & Wesson was engaging Col. Schofield concerning his modifications to the No 3 frame. By Oct. 1870, the Colonel was receiving a commission for selling the No 3 revolvers. Records show the revolvers were .44 caliber (letter, Oct. 1870. P 178).
In June 1871, Scofield was granted patents for the barrel latch that pivoted on the frame and a modified extractor. These improvements to the No 3 revolver were entered into later ordinance trials.
In July 1873, Smith & Wesson lodged a “vigorous protest” with the Chief of Ordnance upon hearing that the Colt arm was adopted by the army. Page 89 discusses Major Eadie’s report of the “delicacy of this arm (No 3) for general service.” A new “Comparative trial” was requested of the “improved No. 3’s.” In December 1873 this was granted.
March 1874, the “two pistols submitted” were “reported adversely”. These ‘pistols’ are believed to be prototypes of the Schofield ‘improved No. 3’s’ but chambered in 44/100 caliber. Smith & Wesson did not have a .45 caliber revolver or the .45 cartridge at this time. The new Chief of Ordinance (General Benet) asked for a price for three thousand. When Colonel Benton “presented a draft contract”, it specified .45 caliber and “cylinders chambering the Colt cartridge.” Smith & Wesson balked at the cartridge specification and proposed a “modified” cartridge suitable for both the Colt revolver and the Smith & Wesson Schofield. “Should the Government desire 3,000 pistols (adapted to this (.45) cartridge) ….” (Letter, August 1874. P 188). After more negotiations, a contract for 3,000 revolvers was signed September 8, 1874. “Before the first lot was completed General Benet, in March 1875, ordered a second 3,000.” (P 91)
The “dual purpose” cartridge was approved and adopted before Schofield production began. According to the above, this rechambering of existing revolvers never happened, and these statements are false:
“The Army actually requested Smith and Wesson “modify” the existing and already manufactured 45 Schofield revolvers “prior” to shipment in order to make both the SAA 45 and Schofield 45 compatible by Modifying the Smith and Wesson to chamber a dual purpose cartridge.”
“.. so we can prove without any doubt that the Commercial round was different from the Military round in many ways and “suggests” that at least some of the Commercial Schofields may have had different chamber specs(smaller) since the Military versions were and are proven as altered (larger) to chamber the dual purpose round.”

Edited history?

Wow Mike,
That’s some very interesting historical editing.

You canceled out about 3 years worth of communications between Smith & Wesson and the U.S. Army. Also documented inner army communications between ordnance and Arsenal.

There are several letters initially from Major Schofield and D.B.Wesson that date to late 1871.

They state:

October 16, 1871!

From Mr. D. B. Wesson to Major Schofield

Dear Sir,

Sent test guns and ammunition ( proven to be outside lubricated and manufactured by UMC through other correspondence) for you to try out. Also .450 bullet and case diameter of .470!
“Please advise of any changes you require prior to manufacture.”

D.B. Wesson


March 27, 1872!

From D.B. Wesson
To Major Schofield

Dear Sir,
In regard to pistols in your plan “WHICH WE ARE MAKING “We will furnish them with parts NOW PRETTY MUCH UNDERWAY.

A full 2+ years before Government approval. So the guns were already being made in 1872!! It’s all the continual Army alteration requests that really slowed things to a crawl.

The Secretary of War approves a 3000 gun purchase July 3rd 1874!

Even after the approval and “Alteration to cylinder chambers already manufactured” more alterations kept coming in from Schofield.

I edited out about 25 letters from 4 books that I have and several archive letters. Smith and Wesson was guaranteed a contract by word of mouth from Schofield in 1872 and was producing the gun and parts over two years before government approval!

Smith & Wesson bucked the Colt caliber alteration because the barrels were already manufactured and rifled at .449-.450 groove diameter. Technically that is the real root problem between the two. The bore difference.

You can’t just open up a .449 groove diameter to .454 without enough barrel thickness to sustain the additional pressure. Doesn’t work. 449-450 was the max for the already manufactured and rifled barrels.

This is also why you find many 45 Schofield revolvers with only 1 patent on the barrel ( June 1871). Because a lot of the barrels were made before the April 1873 patent!


Murph

I'm not sure where you got your letter. Once again there is no reference.

"They state:

October 16, 1871!

From Mr. D. B. Wesson to Major Schofield

Dear Sir,

Sent test guns and ammunition ( proven to be outside lubricated and manufactured by UMC through other correspondence) for you to try out. Also .450 bullet and case diameter of .470!
“Please advise of any changes you require prior to manufacture.”

D.B. Wesson"

The Parson letter (same date to Col. Schofield, Oct 16, 1871) says:

"Dear Sir,

We have the pleasure of reporting one of the New Model pistols sent to you today by express with some cartridges with which to try it. Please give it a thorough trial and at your convenience let us know how you like it and what objections you find if any as a military arm. We await your reply and your orders in reference to the six.

Yours truly
Smith & Wesson"

Notice the reference to 'the six'.

That reference is documented in a Sept. 4, 1871, letter from Smith & Wesson to Col. Schoefield which in part says: "We have one of the pistols on our plan nearly finished and will send it to you, after which if you desire it we will finish the six on your plan.

"Dear Sir,
In regard to pistols in your plan “WHICH WE ARE MAKING “We will furnish them with parts NOW PRETTY MUCH UNDERWAY." These are the six which are part of the March 27, 1872, letter asking Schofield to find 'some one else to finish".

"Even after the approval and “Alteration to cylinder chambers already manufactured” more alterations kept coming in from Schofield." Again, no reference. There is no documented 'alteration to cylinder chambers' known to the collecting community. Please supply your source(s). Until then, all your 'learned research' is viewed as Hogwash.

See Photo

I was quoting from memory Mike.
Which is never spot on.

I just looked through the Parsons book and posted this photo.

If the guns weren’t altered? Why would it cost $2000 more to produce them? Read the letter.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am NOT saying that the guns were in the box and ready to ship. I am saying that all the parts or the majority of the parts that included the frame, cylinder, barrel etc were already manufactured. If they weren’t there would be NO additional cost associated with manufacture. ZERO.

Why would there be? If the cylinders hadn’t been made yet there would be NO cost associated with changing anything. The cost is associated with Physically altering what was already manufactured. Perhaps not assembled in the 3000 gun order but already manufactured in the bulk of the order.

Quoting this letter an alteration to the original design! That’s the point. The original design was altered. To say they weren’t assembled yet is splitting hairs because I’m sure that many of them were. $2000 to make the change is a lot of money all associated with the labor to take them down and re-machine the cylinders individually.

You can’t apply that additional cost to a simple design change if the guns or any parts hadn’t been actually made yet. Explain that to me Mike.

How does manufacturing a gun from blue prints that involves a simple change to the chambers cost $2000? It would cost that much if it involved a lot of work. Taking each gun down and machining each chamber individually would take a lot of time and work. That’s where the $2000 cost applies. That’s called custom work. Always expensive.

The guns were altered and by letter it took an additional 3 months to complete the alteration. That also fits like a glove. So Smith & Wesson was adding 3 months to the original agreed upon completion date. Why would they need to do that if they were making them from a blue print? That’s only applicable if the guns are already made and required an alteration.

What also supports this obvious alteration of existing guns and parts is the fact that the original agreement was for $13 each gun. This changed to $13.50 for each gun due to the time it takes to take the gun down and alter each cylinder. It’s a no brainer.

I can’t go any further with this subject Mike. If you still don’t get it I can’t help you.

Murph

Correspondence

I actually received another email from Rich. He is the Ideal guru that has seen an ultra rare Ideal No.5 Armory tool in 45 S&W
He apologized for attaching the wrong photos to my email as he was communicating with 3 other collectors.

Rich is one of those retired guys that lives on cruise ships so he is hard to get a hold of.

This is what he said;

I have seen an photo’d a No.5 Armory tool in 45 S&W. It’s definitely a special order tool since it has the optional threaded adjustable loading die feature. The sizing feature matches the early .450 bullet as measured. I’ll send you a couple photos when I return.


He is on another cruise.

Very exciting piece. I’ve never seen the No.5 tool with a threaded boss and removable loading die so can’t wait to see it. I’ll post photos when he sends them. Might be a few weeks.

See photos. You can see the Armory tool came with a fixed loading die but was also available with an optional threaded adjustable die. I’ve never seen one.

Murph

Hi There,



I was working on a verbose response to Murph's post attacking
me on the facts I posted but this latest post caused me to
respond on this point.

I stated:
"The No. 5 tool pictured is the third variation and was
available in 45-70 only."

Below is a scan of a page from Reloading Tools of the Black
Powder Era by Tom Rowe and Ed Curtis and it states in black
and white that the third variation was available in .45-70 only.
First and second variations had provisions for de-capping Berdan
primed cases. The third variation does not have this capability.

The pic Murph provided was of the third variation. Here is my
source for my statement. Murph is only supplying 'hearsay'
evidence. More to come...

Cheers!
Webb