Due to the death of a good friend I now own a 2nd model Schofield, serial #3014. This gun has been discussed on the forum previously (see which).

I believe this is the earliest 2nd model known, and (although the S&W letter from Roy calls it a "transitional") it is a 2nd model in all respects, including the lack of the steel recoil shield bushing.

My question is, therefore, as this revolver seems to be the first of this model made in steel rather than iron, is it also the first handgun made by S&W in steel or was another model revolver already being made in steel?

Congratulations. Glad to know this gun is being cared for - it is sort of the "smoking gun" in my critique of why there might not be any civilian first model Schofields - allowing for the not unusual oddities like samples to Col Schofield or others.

As to the steel in the frame, I have read comments re the metallurgy from Schofield First to Second being different, but also some that suggests it might have just been the (replaceable) latch. If the frame is different, them I would expect it to probably also differ from the American First and Second Model and First (Old Old Model) Russian, but I don't know about the Second Model (Old Model) Russian which might have similar frame metallurgy and have shipped prior to the Second Model Schofield. I think the Third Model Russian shipped some prior to the 2nd Schofield as well. (I am away from my library). I am interested in your question and look forward to more knowledgeable responses than mine.

cb

Thanks for your response Crossv, I thought that the key to the new (steel) frame material was the presence of the steel firing pin bushing in the 1st model, while the 2nd model lacked that feature as it was not necessary if the entire frame was made of steel.

Yes I understand the steel bushing point. I don't have the steel (no pun intended) trap mind as say Ed (opoefc) and I need to ponder the known facts from books/articles by Jinks, Pate, Chicoine, Leiper or others and get it all in my head and then see if I am convinced by the logic since I have not deeply considered this question before. The assumption here is that we would see a difference on a Rockwell hardness test between 1st and 2nd frames?

MG34/bar & CB, It's always been my understanding that the lack of the firing pin bushing in a Schofield was because the frame was all steel. If 3014 has all the features of a 2nd model, I would be interested to hear from Roy why the gun is a "Transitional" model. Perhaps because there is an over lap of serial numbers in the 3000 to 3035 range for the 1st & 2nd model guns. MG34/bar : Are you coming to Spokane? If so, pls. bring 3014 and we can pick Roy's brain. Ed.

Afraid I can't make it this year to Spokane; family member just completed some serious surgery and I'm picking him up from the hospital this afternoon.

Made many a trip from Reno to Spokane over the years, as many family members are graduates of Gonzaga, and it's exactly 800 miles from my door to the university.

Maybe I can show some of you folks who are more knowledgable than I am (which would include almost anyone) the revolver and get an opinion in future. Enjoy the convention!

I read over the various articles and the consistent comments about the frame being steel on 2nd models and no bushing. I must have read all this a number of times before but never really took it to heart. Certainly, all the 1st models I have to examine have the bushing and all the 2nd models do not. Just looking and tapping for instance, I couldn't definitively tell the difference in the frame composition. One can usually sense a difference in the cylinder latch (compared with the barrel), which I think is hardened on both models.

I looked at all the Russian models, which time wise would be the only ones which might have used some steel, but all I see have the bushing, so probably not.

So, my take is that your suggestion, that your 2nd model Schofield 3014 may be the earliest Smith and Wesson made with a steel frame, seems reasonable!

I did look at New Model 3 frames and got a little confused there, with several examples having no bushing, but any of them would have been made at least a year or two after your 2nd model. Whether the frame material is a factor in whether they have a bushing or not, I don't know. I am going to post a new thread to see what wisdom folks have on that topic.

cb

I read over the various articles and the consistent comments about the frame being steel on 2nd models and no bushing. I must have read all this a number of times before but never really took it to heart. Certainly, all the 1st models I have to examine have the bushing and all the 2nd models do not. Just looking and tapping for instance, I couldn't definitively tell the difference in the frame composition. One can usually sense a difference in the cylinder latch (compared with the barrel), which I think is hardened on both models. I did note that the little reprint which RL Wilson published some time back listing the Army inspection instructions for Revolvers and Gatlling guns, which has a section for 1st model and another for 2nd model Schofield's did not mention anything about frame material or recoil bushing even though it went to some length to explain other differences between the two models.

I looked at all the Russian models, which time wise would be the only ones which might have used some steel, but all I see have the bushing, so probably not.

So, my take is that your suggestion, that your 2nd model Schofield 3014 may be the earliest Smith and Wesson made with a steel frame, seems reasonable!

I did look at New Model 3 frames and got a little confused there, with several examples having no bushing, but any of them would have been made at least a year or two after your 2nd model. Whether the frame material is a factor in whether they have a bushing or not, I don't know. I am going to post a new thread to see what wisdom folks have on that topic.

cb

I looked at all of my military Russians; S&W, Ludwig Loewe and Tula. The only revolver that didn't have the recoil bushing was a Belgian copy.
I would not necessarily assume that this meant that these all had iron frames, but simply that the design was continued unaltered until the end of production. However, Russian sources indicate that the S&W manufactured revolvers held up in service better than the LLs or Tulas and we are pretty sure that the S&W manufactured revolvers had iron frames. If the later German or Russian revolvers had been upgraded to steel, it would be likely that they would have been more durable.
Joe