Jesse James Schofield just sold...

waelkhntr · #51 09-06-2021, 01:31 PM

Thank You Bigwagon for the response. He sounds like an interesting person per Google. I thought I had killed an interesting thread with my question.

Terry

Chuck24 · #52 09-06-2021, 02:16 PM

Very interesting thread, been reading every day. Thanks to you guys that do the research for the rest of us.

BMur · #53 09-06-2021, 03:21 PM

I'd like to apologize to the OP.

I guess I got carried away with the research and hijacked the thread.

In keeping with the original post theme?

I still haven't found any evidence that the James Gang used the 45 Schofield revolver in their unlawful activities.

I did however find a "very early" listing for the Schofield 45 round as being available to the general public from The U.S. Cartridge Company circa 1881 See photo below:

If you look closely at the round you can clearly see that it's an early "outside lubricated design" like all Smith and Wesson revolver rounds that were "Commercially" sold from 1870-1887 when the "inside lubricated round" was introduced.

This only proves that the round was actually available in 1881. One year prior to Jesse James murder. So we can clearly say that the Schofield was a viable weapon at that time in history for the general public since you could actually purchase bullets for it. Prior to that time it was a U.S. Army issued firearm with very few that were publicly sold. In my opinion "NOT a viable arm for the early outlaws to use."

Therefore, the "late" gang could have actually used a Schofield revolver at the latter part of the gangs unlawful activities.

Still, the only confirmed guns that were used by the late gang were: The Colt 45 Single Action Army, The Smith & Wesson New Model 3 in 44 Russian, The Colt Conversion in 38 caliber, and the Remington model 1875 44 large frame single action revolver,
And Clarence Hite’s early model Smith & Wesson 44 Russian.

*** Also, if you perform the research? The only actual origin of the 45 Schofield being part of the James Gang that I found was from Jesse James Jr. himself. Who was 5 years old when his father was murdered in 1882. A Schofield is one of the guns that is actually seen on the wood board. That's the same wood board that has an Antique Hopkins and Allen or Merwin & Hulbert that was Manufactured "after" Jesse James was murdered and after the gangs activities had long ended.

Murph

BMur · #54 09-06-2021, 09:57 PM

My last input on this subject. A search through UMC catalogs finds the first available 45 Schofield round is January of 1880. (Photo 1)
* Unfortunately no drawing of the round in that catalog.

That makes perfect timeline sense when we cross reference research performed by Mr. Jinks that confirms the Schofield revolver went to "Surplus" in early 1880. Fits like a glove.

Earlier searches (Prior to 1880) (Photo 2) finds that the round was "NOT available" for the general public.....Only military arsenal rounds were being manufactured "Prior" to 1880. Those were not sold to the general public and were for the Military only.
So anyone at that early period who owned a Schofield revolver would have to have had access to Frankford arsenal Government rounds. That's actually also clearly documented in early Military communications between the Frankford Arsenal and the Springfield Armory.

This researched information only continues in the same direction as gathered information so far. That the Schofield was not a viable revolver for the general public's use until "after" the first gang was "eliminated" in Northfield in 1876! In fact not until after January 1, 1880.

So, any reference to the gang using the Schofield revolver "Prior" to 1880 at the very earliest, would be a stretch of the imagination in my opinion.

If we just use some insight here? Even if by some miracle they had obtained Military rounds? The gun would still not be a viable tool. Subject to very harsh elements at that time? Dropping them, getting the rounds wet in the rain, etc? You would have to be able to replace rounds that are damaged, lost, or exhausted with new rounds at any given small town...That's the reality in that era. The rounds "had" to be available! Or the gun is worthless!!

NOTE: When you look closely at photo 2? You'll notice that the 45 Colt was also difficult to find in the 1870's. The list of early outside lubricated rounds is what the gang "WAS" using at that time. Early model Smith & Wesson 44 Russians, possibly even 44 Americans, Remington 44's, Colt Conversions in 38 caliber...That's what was available at that time, so that's what they were using!!! It's a no brainer.

Murph

BMur · #55 09-07-2021, 03:15 AM

Mike(iby)

Check out this very early broadsheet. It actually depicts not only an early open-top in 44cal but it clearly shows "early" patent features. The undersized barrel lock that appears square, the knurled barrel release, and the fitting on the rear of the barrel matches the early drawing. So, this would be a Pre-1882 production Frontier open-top 44.

Unfortunately I can't date the drawing. It's not listed.

So, I guess they are out there somewhere in collecting land. I've never seen one.

*** Notice also that they call it : THE NEW ARMY

Murph

iby · #56 09-07-2021, 12:14 PM

Murph.
This conversation made me dig out this early (11xx) Merwin
Here's a pic

an early ad for a medium frame

circa 1880

BMur · #57 09-07-2021, 12:52 PM

Mike,
Let's review our research timeline. This is what we know and is documented.

1879: Army trials...This gun was initially designed and manufactured for "Army trials"
Just like the Schofield, just like the Single Action Army Colt, just like the Remington 44. "All" initiated for Army trials....and generally "NOT AVAILABLE" to the public.

1880-1881: That's the early ad I posted of the "early " patent open top. It not only shows the early design features but also an early title is given to the model: NEW ARMY

1882: March of that year a new patent improvement is applied for in which "ALL" open-tops found on the internet actually have incorporated in their design...Therefore they "MUST BE" no earlier than March of 1882 production.

Now lets plug in this new photo I just found below. Listed as circa 1883...Notice that both models are being sold "AT THE SAME TIME"....the top-strap model 3 is listed as a "NEW MODEL"...yet both of them clearly show the March(application) patent of 1882 features.

The timeline fits like a glove now.... The open-tops were manufactured from 1882(March) until approx mid to late 1883 when the model 3 was introduced as an improvement. That ended the open top production. A clear overlap took place for a short period of time. We don't know exactly when the open tops were terminated but likely they rode it out throughout 1883.

The early variation open top with early patent design? That must have been manufactured but for a very short period of time. Very few made. That would be post army trials 1879 and pre-1882 patent improvement.

You'd have to actually find one.....Good luck!

*** This information is backed up by "Legal Patent reference", Major Distributor catalog reference timeline, and "cartridge availability" listings from period catalogs. All references point in the same direction.

*** NOTE: Remember that cartridge availability is a huge factor with research. I looked through the 1880 UMC catalogs of January and May of 1880 and NO LISTING for the Merwin & Hulbert 44...Then again in the U.S. Cartridge Co 1881 catalog....NO LISTING for the Merwin and Hulbert cartridge. ( see photo 2)

The first listing is 1882!!!
So my question is simple: How can we say a gun is out there in 1880 when "Major Cartridge company manufactures" are NOT making a round for it?

Murph

iby · #58 09-07-2021, 02:26 PM

Both these photos are captioned "Deadwood 1879"
In re reading the Phelps book, the first Army trial for the "Merwin Model 1876" was done Jan 22 1878. I believe that the 1st open tops were already available at this time.

BMur · #59 09-07-2021, 04:05 PM

Mike,
Parsons in his book from 1950 describes the Army trials in detail. They went on for a long time. The last test in the trials that I'm aware of was the "multi-ball" cartridge test with all of the pistols. This began in June of 1878. It's documented that these tests went on until late 1879.

Quote: The efforts of the Ordnance Department to develop a satisfactory multi-ball load for revolvers appear to have ended with the trials of the Merwin Hulbert cartridge and of the last of Captain Wright's designs in 1879.

We also need to answer the "cartridges not being available until 1882"? and the patent drawing not being submitted until March of 1882? and the Distributor catalogs showing first availability in 1883 chambering the 44wcf cartridge. Then there is the auction that you posted? With a low serial number having the 1882 patent designs and chambering a Merwin and Hulbert round that was "clearly" not available until 1882. All proven. Not opinion. All this information is documented in period catalogs and "legal" records.

I like old west photo's a lot but the common denominator is often they are dated wrong. I mean "quite often". Just one example? I can show you 3 different dates suggested for the Bob Ford photo that I posted with him holding a SAA. Dates vary From 1882-1884 is what I found with a minimal effort.

I respect other researchers and authors but that doesn't mean that the information is 100% accurate and I'm not suggesting that my research is? but the information that I posted "must be disputed with legitimate, documented, cataloged, information. Questions must be answered not ignored.

Who made rounds for these open-tops in 1880?

Why do they have design features that were not patent applied for until March of 1882?

Why can't I locate an early Major Distributor listing for the 44 open-top "prior" to 1882?

Murph

iby · #60 09-07-2021, 06:30 PM

Well Murph.
I have not found any catalog references for pre 1880 Merwin 44
guns or cartridges.
I did find a couple of interesting notes and images.
The S&W American was patented in 1869 and available in 1870
The Colt 1873 pat 1873 available 1874
Remington 1875 available 1875
You suggest that the Merwin Hulbert 44 pat 1877 was not available for another 5 or 6 years.???
Pheonix Cart. Co was owned by Merwin.
The Merwin 44's would fire 44 S&W American cartridges just as the Merwin 32 and 38 would fire the S&W equivalent

BMur · #61 09-07-2021, 08:10 PM

Mike,
That's great stuff. Thank's for posting it and participating in the research part of the program!

Ok, it's not something that I'm suggesting? I'm just following the research without prejudice or malice.

So, following the research? The earliest patent for the Merwin NEW ARMY is actually:

December 15, 1874. D. Moore was the patent
designer. Obviously nothing happened for 2 1/2 years until the beginnings of the Army trials.

Then as a result of "Army trials" there are multiple improvements from the original D. Moore design of 1874.

March 6, 1877 D. Moore & W. A. Hulbert. 2 patents listed for the same date. That included multiple improvements to the original 1874 design.

Up to that point in time the design is still geared towards Army trials for an Army issue revolver. They even mention the improvements and recommendations during the trials.

This is the shady area....between very late 1879 to March of 1882. Prior to 1880 the gun was in production for the Army trials only and cartridges were not listed as available to the public. Even your early box has a patent date that supports this research as well.

I'm going to look up that Phoenix Arms patent on that early box of ammo. I'll let you know what I find.

I don't doubt that there was an early variation that was sold to the public. That would be the one I posted from the early broad sheet showing the 1877 design features. The early box you found likely supported early production firearms. "PRE-1882".

My guess would be right after the Army trials from the early 1880's until March of 1882 when the "Automatic Army" was introduced.

They are out there. Likely very few remain. Speculating again on my part but that early design "MUST HAVE" revealed design weaknesses early on. So the company halted production until the problem could be solved. The improved patent actually supports this theory. The patent is a focus on "strengthening" the barrel lock, operating the barrel release, and opening the loading gate. That's a lot of issues!

That's why the 1882 patent was introduced and that's why you see them in huge numbers "AFTER" that patent improvement. THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM

The timeline of the other guns in the Army trials show no patent design improvements of this magnitude after the trials. Therefore they basically had no issues to their design. The Merwin "had issues".

Murph

BMur · #62 09-07-2021, 09:01 PM

Mike,
I just looked at your Phoenix Arms Multi-ball Ammo box?

I don't need to research this patent...That was ammo created by Merwin & Hulbert for the Army Trials....Just supports that the gun was still not out in the general public at that time.

Below are photo's of what the rounds look like inside that box you posted....Notice the date? 1879 Report from the Chief of Ordnance. The drawing is what was issued to the Chief Ordnance inspector. This was part of a very late 1879 report in December. So that takes us into 1880 timeframe. We are getting closer to that March of 1882 timeframe. It's just as likely the Army tests revealed the weaknesses in the design and Public production was halted until the problems were solved!

There is a significant benefit for a gun maker to have the U.S. Army do trial tests on your design? Even if they don't adopt the model? You still find out how tough your design is....That's a plus.

Murph

iby · #63 09-07-2021, 10:09 PM

Murph
Re: your patent images dated 1882.
I don't know what patent is being applied for.
But, the gun shown is a Merwin 3rd type with top strap.
I tend to agree that this shows a start date for 3rd type production.
However, the 1st and 2nd types obviously preceded the 3rd type.
All the 1st types I have observed have been chambered in 44 Merwin.
The 2nd type has been observed in 44 merwin/44 russian/ and 44wcf
the 1st type appears to be the scarcest so this may account for the dearth of ammo references available. The 2nd type ammo would have been common at the time.

iby · #64 09-07-2021, 10:13 PM

P.S.
I know we have shamelessly hijacked this thead, but did I mention I really like to talk about Merwins?

RoyM52 · #65 09-07-2021, 11:30 PM

Is it totally out of any possibility That an outlaw could of gotten his hands on one and some ammo...before it was released to the general public? After all if outlawing is your game....And you want the best. Is it remotely possible?

BMur · #66 09-07-2021, 11:45 PM

Absolutely!

I try not to input opinion as much as possible. Referencing Ordnance records from 1903? They performed a survey of surviving Military issued revolvers in specific serial number ranges? Batches of 1000. Exampe: 1-1000, 1001-2000 etc. The average survival rate from the 1870's through the Indian wars was about 16% still accounted for!

So, what happened to the rest of the guns? Roughly 30,000 issued including Schofields? Guesstimating about 25,000 missing....Where did they go? Very Long list of possibilities there!

Quite a few were obviously lost in the field..On horseback? Rough conditions? Long hard rides? Fighting Indians? How many were Stolen? Lot's I'm sure. Guns and Gold! They are worth a lot of money!

I've been researching "Express guns" for a long time now and over the course of about 40 years the Express Companies purchased an average of 25-50 guns a month...Why? Guns don't wear out that fast. Fill in the blank.

On the flip side? The Schofield has to be in the field. It can't be recorded in factory records as still being assembled in the factory and not even shipped yet?

That's how one of the "claimed" James Gang Schofields played out. Also, The Merwin & Hulbert on Jesse James Jr wood display board. Manufactured after the death of his father?

Murph

Giorgio Italy · #67 09-08-2021, 04:29 AM

Hello everyone
Really very interesting discussion, especially for us, here in Italy, who have a total absence of sources. If not that of books. And of course, as well as first-hand sources and testimonies, our possibilities to access original finds are very remote! So, still remaining on the subject of ".45 S&W cartridge" what is the oldest commercial cartridge box in this caliber that you have seen? Is it possible that they were UMC Co., USC Co. or WRA Co.? None of you have a photo or have one in your collection? The oldest box I've seen, apart from the military ones, of course, is from the 1920s!
Giorgio

SPEEDGUNNER · #68 09-08-2021, 09:54 AM

This is a fascinating thread with a boatload of interesting information. As a student of history, although not to the impressive level and depth as some of our esteemed fellows here on the forum, I am amazed at the amount of research that has been done regarding these early cartridge guns and their manufacture, use and availability. Availability of ammunition would have most certainly dictated use, as well as availability of fairly new firearms on what was the frontier. Heck, I didn't even know Merwin and Hulbert made a pistol for the Army trials!!

Kudos to all, I am contributing nothing but encouragement and fascination that this thread keeps rolling along.

BMur · #69 09-08-2021, 11:34 AM

I was just hoping that someone would chime in here and provide some "Rock Solid" proof of a Schofield being used by the James Gang?

At this point and in my researched opinion we can't rely on Jesse James Jr with his wood display board having a proven Merwin and Hulbert 44 that was "clearly" manufactured after his fathers death. Being influenced by his Grand Mother Zerelda and her "FAKE" Jesse James guns for sale leaves one to believe that Jesse James Jr. was more like a traveling salesmen. "Yes friends" for only a nickel you can see the authentic James Gang guns from the back of my jalopy. Photo's for a dime. I'm tossing anything to do with him aside as fabricated. See another photo of his display board below. It clearly associates the guns and equipment on the board with the gang. It's not a demo board in my opinion it's a fabricated and claimed "authentic" display of the gangs guns.

The legitimate source will have to come from court records, early documents, early newspaper accounts that were recorded at the time of the event . Not later embellished stories or I'm just not a believer. Claims that date to 40 years after Jesse James death don't hold much merit from my researched perspective. Even newspaper accounts 10 years after his death are proven fabrications.

I would be willing to bet that there are court records in Northfield that document captured guns from dead outlaws and those Younger brothers who were captured after the raid. (See published photo)

That could actually be a very reliable source. However, those records logging a Schofield are very remote at best due to the date of the Raid? All the Schofields were only just being issued by the Armory. That is documented in Armory records. 1876 was the first year of issuance. So, that really is a stretch. However, its obvious that every either dead(shot up) gang member in that photo or captured Younger brother also relinquished their firearms to capture as well. Those firearms should be documented somewhere. Do those records remain is the question.

Without those early gang records It would have to come from the second Gang activities that began in late 1878 with multiple well documented robberies until the last robbery and murder of a well known and liked conductor took place in 1881. Marking the end of the ruthless James gang activities and a focused hunt by authorities to end the gang for good.

Hey Giorgio,
I think that you are correct in that UMC likely provided the first Civilian cartridges for the Schofield. My research finds their rounds are first listed in the 1880 catalog....Earlier catalogs find "NO LISTING"....This makes perfect sense since the gun was not generally available to the public at that time.

The photo of the 1881 U.S. Cartridge Co. bullet drawing from their catalog does provide rock solid proof that as I suspected, the early public manufactured rounds were "outside lubricated"....Sure wish I could find just one early round. Very hard to find!

Murph

BMur · #70 09-08-2021, 01:28 PM

Giorgio,
Here is a photo of a UMC box of 45 Black powder Schofield rounds that date to between the mid 1890’s to about 1907. They are post 1887 inside lubricated.

Murph

jeffrefrig · #71 09-08-2021, 02:18 PM

So, for all that money spent, do you think we'll get a range report?

Giorgio Italy · #72 09-08-2021, 03:37 PM

Great Murph, thank you so much
At least we are back twenty years compared to that box of the 20s. Of course if you do not find it Americans a box of UMC .45 s&w of 1881, we will certainly not here! To tell the truth, I have never seen even a box of "Revolver Ball Cartridges Calibre .45" of which certainly millions have been produced. It seems to me that the difficulty of discovering these finds proves their rarity!
Giorgio

But ...
Why didn't UMC and USC immediately adopt an inside lubricated ball like the .45 colt? What actual diameter did those s&w balls have if they were fired into revolvers that had used government cartridges with the inside lubricated ball in service?
... because the first government .45s were inside lubricated, right??? Or not!

BMur · #73 09-08-2021, 04:16 PM

Giorgio,
I actually have not done the research on the early Colt round. Remember that the Colt 45 was also a "U.S. Army" revolver initially and the Frankford Arsenal was initially manufacturing the inside lubricated bullet for these guns. Same with the Schofield. However, we do know from letters(military communications) between the Arsenal and Smith & Wesson along with UMC that the early rounds were actually outside lubricated and that the Army didn't like the lubrication melting off the rounds provided by UMC. So, they manufactured there own rounds and actually tailored them to fit "both" the Colt and the Schofield. Letters also confirm that the Armory "altered" the chambers of the guns so who knows what they actually did to them?

Smith & Wesson was focused on accuracy. They knew that the outside lubricated bullet along with a case having no case crimp would provide the most accurate results. This is also documented with the letter that you actually provided from the Parson's book.

Once the Schofield became "Surplus" in 1880 it was then subjected to "Civilian Industry production ammo"....Totally different from the Frankford Armory stuff and actually, in my opinion more accurate than the Military ammo. That Civilian Industry ammo was still tailored to the same concept that Smith & Wesson supported. An "outside lubricated bullet with no case crimp". This bullet is seen in a drawing that I provided in a previous post from an 1881 U. S. Cartridge Co. Catalog.

I can't perform research on the details of the early bullets subject without actually having an authentic early round "in my hand" to examine it. So, until that happens? Unknown.

You'd also have to perform research on the Early Colt 45 SAA U.S. issued guns and compare the chamber specs to the U. S. Schofields....Then compare a Civilian Colt SAA chamber from the same ERA in an attempt to discover what the Armory actually did to the chambers of the guns to alter them and chamber the same modified round made up at the Frankford Arsenal.

It wasn't just case length that was the issue. The chambers are much different between the Colt and Schofield. That's also clearly documented in Military communications between the Springfield Armory and the Frankford Arsenal commanding officers. So, case spec issues would be also a relevant problem between both revolvers.

Smith & Wesson did not manufacture a 45 to Colt Spec's....NO WAY.... So, without question the bore's would be different between them originally. Which would be another study. Were the bores also altered by the Armory if the chambers were? I don't know. I'd bet money though that the "Groove diameters" are different but within tolerance when using "Black powder" as a propellant.

As an example the Schofield might have been engineered for a .450 bullet where as the Colt was engineered for a .454 bullet. Which would also account for the significant difference in chamber specs. The U. S. Army didn't care, they only wanted them to function without issue. The concept of the Military as a primary focus is "Make it work".

Murph

BMur · #74 09-08-2021, 05:41 PM

I decided to just go ahead and contact the Historical Society in Northfield, Mn.

I'm waiting for their reply.

I searched their website and found these photos. Along with a previous auction of a Smith & Wesson 44 American that is documented as belonging to an early James Gang Member.

Notice that they are all chambered in rounds that were readily available in 1876. Two are large frame 44 Smith & Wesson revolvers. That makes perfect sense.

The captured Moores 7 shooter is Cole Youngers. That old 7 shooter Moores 32rf he might have actually carried in the Civil War!

Murph

gmborkovic · #75 09-08-2021, 07:03 PM

Im following this Thread, interesting.
But those period pics with the dudes with the big rim Stetsons,
is really neat.

Giorgio Italy · #76 09-08-2021, 07:38 PM

I knew that the two weapons had different dimensions. I have some notes regarding the dimensions of the cylinder and the barrel but I do not remember now where I found them. Maybe in "A Study of the Colt Single Action Army Revolver" Graham, Kopec, Moore. Or in Parsons' book

Colt Army:
barrel length 7.5”
barrel bore .445”
6 uniform left-handed scratches
step 16"
goove depth .005"
cylinder chamber bore from .485" to .482"
throat bore .450"
cylinder length 1.608"

Schofield:
barrel length 7.0"
barrel bore .436”
5 uniform right-handed scratches
step 20"
groove depth .006"
cylinder chamber bore from .481" to .482"

Who knows why Ordnance did not demand the same size from S&W as Colt? Since the S&W went from .44 to .45 specifically for the government?

But maybe I'm going off topic!!! That was the weapons of the James Gang!

Giorgio

BMur · #77 09-08-2021, 08:11 PM

Giorgio,
Outstanding post! That's says it all about the Black Powder Era....Absolutely nothing was standardized.

You can see the challenge that the U.S. Army faced trying to co-mingle the two 45 caliber revolvers to chamber the same round. I agree, the foul up was with the minimal details specified by the Government for the pistol trials. Hard to predict this outcome though. Since they actually liked both guns...Who would have known? I think the Government usually decides on only one winner per contract. You have to admit, even today you can clearly see the advantages of both guns in the trials.

Murph

BMur · #78 09-08-2021, 08:42 PM

So, if you can't find the Schofields? Lets find all the known guns and see if there is any room for a Schofield...

So far we have accounted for:

Frank James: 1875 Remington (2)
Jesse James: 1873 Colt SAA and ?
Dick Liddell: 1873 Colt SAA
Cole Younger: S&W 44 Russian and Moores 7 shooter
Bob Ford: 1873 Colt SAA ( sworn statement used to kill Jesse with) and an early New model 3 in 44 Russian.
Clarence Hite: S&W 44 Russian
Charlie Pitts: S&W 44 Russian
Chadwell: 44 American

**** Also a dropped Colt 38 Conversion in the Northfield bank.

Additional information from the Northfield Historical Society in photo's below.

NOTICE: You can now remove Jesse James Schofield from the list serial number 2299...."SAID to have been preferred by Jesse"????

I wonder if Jesse James Jr. drove his jalopy up to Northfield and sold a few photo's.

Also, photo 2 can you see anything wrong with the display photo? I've actually suggested corrections to museum fire arm displays before...They never take it well.

NOTE: Our firearm bucket is getting awfully full about now. Not a lot of room for the 45 Schofield! I honestly didn't know just how popular the 44 Smith & Wesson was with the gang...Full house of 44's! 5 Smith & Wesson's and 2 Remingtons.

The only possibility at this point is still actually "Jesse James" and the other Younger Brothers. I sure hope the historical society gets back to me so I can find out if they have information on the other Younger brothers pistols? That would leave only one person left....Jesse James himself..... Did he have a Schofield revolver along with his Colt SAA on him when he was murdered in 1882???? That's the question left now. He's the last possibility now once the younger brothers guns are accounted for.

I'm not a believer though...the early newspaper only days after his murder list it as a 44 Smith and Wesson

Murph

BMur · #79 09-08-2021, 09:26 PM

Ok, I'll mellow out while waiting for an answer from the Historical Society...If not, I'll call them...I'm like that.

Just food for thought. This research of the early gang shows a definite pattern of 44 caliber use. It makes perfect sense when you think about it from a cartridge availability stand point? The 44 was extremely popular at that time.... Also, if you find only one box of 44 Russians....."ALL the gang is now loaded up and good to go". Even the Remington 44 would likely chamber a 44 Russian round. Especially an early round that was outside lubricated. Back then, if it chambered it would shoot. That's the black powder advantage.

Murph

mmaher94087 · #80 09-08-2021, 10:55 PM

I'm thinking that Pix 2 above is a Model 2, 2nd Issue .38 S&W. It is identified as a .32. Hard to tell from one photo and no reference scale.

BMur · #81 09-08-2021, 11:03 PM

I agree Mike. It’s got a saw handle grip so it’s a 38. The 32 was a birds head grip.

Murph

BMur · #82 09-08-2021, 11:13 PM

I found Jim Youngers gun. Taken from him from the sheriff leading the posse that hunted the Youngers down after the raid. They were shot up and done!
That just adds yet another Smith & Wesson 44 to the first gangs load of weapons!

Literally every gang member of the first James Gang that was at the Northfield raid and was killed or captured carried on them a Smith & Wesson 44! That’s very bias of them but on a Smith & Wesson forum? It’s awesome!

Murph

BMur · #83 09-09-2021, 06:31 PM

Just an update to the research.

I'm about finished with Northfield...I did receive an email from the Historical Society so I'll find out more from them soon.

However, I'm back on the Second gang (post 1878) since the odds are very low that the first gang ever used a Schofield.

When we refer to a book written and published in 1899 by the son of Jesse James? Jesse James Jr.? He wrote that his father...keep in mind that he was actually 6 years old when his father was killed.

He claims that his father always wore two revolvers. A Colt's 45 and a Smith & Wesson Schofield 45. He also claims that his father wore 3 cartridge belts anytime he left the house to go into town. In addition to that load of guns and ammo, he claims that his father would stuff a Winchester rifle in an oversized umbrella. That's one I've never heard before.

From his book in his own writing he claimed that after his father's death that most of the guns were sold except for the revolvers. One of which they gave to T.T. Crittenden Jr for being such a good friend...the other revolver he claimed that "Uncle Frank" had. He even claims that they sold their dog for $15.

So, my question is with all the guns sold, given away, or with "Uncle Frank" ? Basically all the guns were gone after his father's death. Where exactly did the guns on the 1921 display board come from?

I'm also working on newspaper research right after his death that confirms his "revolvers" were confiscated by the Police. I'm going to see if the newspapers determine where they ended up or perhaps more details as to identifying them. One was a Colt for sure. Multiple sources confirm it.

It's the Schofield that is allusive.

Murph

opoefc · #84 09-09-2021, 08:40 PM

Interesting thread, so here's some S&W Trivia relating to the .45 Schofield cartridge: In the July 24, 1897 , issue of "Forest and Stream, Rod and Gun" magazine, there is ad by UMC featuring a target fired at the North London Rifle Club (Bisley), England, by Mr. Walter Winans. It shows 9 rounds, all in the black bullseye, at 20 yrs, with .45 Schofield cartridges. No mention of what model S&W was used, however I believe it was a New Model #3 Target, as I had that gun in my collection in the past which lettered as shipped to Mr. Winans in .45 Schofield caliber. Mr. Winans may have done this as a publicity stunt for his friend, Marcus Hartley, who owned UMC Cartridge Co. Why 9 rounds from a six shot revolver, who knows ! Ed

BMur · #85 09-10-2021, 02:19 PM

I’m piecing newspaper articles together right after his death. If you look beyond a week after his death the yarns start building huge. It’s absolutely amazing how much the early media can juice up a dirigible, Good Year blimp sized Yarn!

Anyway, I’m gathering early info. Will post what I’ve found soon.

Just have to post this latest article that claims that the Government officials were trying to confiscate Jesse James Guns but that the Sheriff was not in agreement. He believed that they should be returned to the Widow! ( Good for him! For fighting greedy politicians)

Also, the article mentions that the guns were valued at $500.!!!

That’s a lot of money in 1882! You could easily
Have purchased a small farm for that price. Let’s put our thinking caps on here for a minute. Soon after Jesse James was murdered the family had an auction. In that auction they sold whatever they could get money for. They even sold the family dog for $15.

How many members believe that they would have kept $500 worth of guns? Hmmm. Let me think here... Jesse’s Guns or a Farm bought and paid for? Two small children to feed? No husband? Come on now? Common sense dictates that the guns were sold!

Murph

BMur · #86 09-10-2021, 05:06 PM

I now have access to my old James Gang notes. Just added my latest research material to it but most of what I have researched recently I actually already have in my old notes from 2004.

This is from Actual court records and testimony from gang members and people who knew and saw The James Gang Members. From their very last recorded robbery in September of 1881. Just 6 months before Jesse James death.

Jesse James carried a Colt’s 45 revolver and a 44 SMITH & WESSON Along with a shotgun with a belt carrying about 30 rounds.
Frank James carried a pair of 44 Remington revolvers, 2 cartridge belts and a Winchester rifle.

There is more complete testimony as to what every gang member carried on them at the last robbery! All very clearly recorded in court documents from actual gang members who and under oath testified exactly what each member had! Why exactly would they lie? It doesn’t get better than that.

NO SCHOFIELDS!!!!

Game Over!

Murph

TheHobbyist · #87 09-10-2021, 05:07 PM

If everything is all correct, in my opinion the buyer got a bargain. If properly marketed with international bidders and time, I would expect it to go for an awful lot more. You are buying history in this case.

BMur · #88 09-12-2021, 05:56 PM

This is my final input on this subject.

I've concluded the Newspaper research and found only more information that supports that Jesse James carried a Colt 45 and a 44 Smith and Wesson revolver. The guns were in fact confiscated by local authorities and returned to the widow on April 21, 1882.

They were then sold at auction soon thereafter to support the family who were literally broke. The house they were occupying was a rental.

Bob Ford's sworn statement was actually performed in court and under oath in front of the justice of the peace who also witnessed his testimony that he used a Colt 45 to murder Jesse James.

The "SOLE SOURCE" of the Schofield revolver began with the publishing of the Jesse James Jr book in 1899 and subsequent stories, newspaper articles, and "Tall embellished Tales" that all post date this book's writing further bolstering the Schofield yarn.

Any subsequent stories of Schofield revolvers being picked up off the ground at robbery sites, Blood under grips, signed affidavits of legitimate Schofield s is unfounded. Jesse's signature under grips is laughable to me personally from my " Very lengthy and thorough Research". ZERO documented evidence found from period research supports these claims.

Murph

Ray · #89 09-20-2021, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opoefc

Interesting thread, so here's some S&W Trivia relating to the .45 Schofield cartridge: In the July 24, 1897 , issue of "Forest and Stream, Rod and Gun" magazine, there is ad by UMC featuring a target fired at the North London Rifle Club (Bisley), England, by Mr. Walter Winans. It shows 9 rounds, all in the black bullseye, at 20 yrs, with .45 Schofield cartridges. No mention of what model S&W was used, however I believe it was a New Model #3 Target, as I had that gun in my collection in the past which lettered as shipped to Mr. Winans in .45 Schofield caliber. Mr. Winans may have done this as a publicity stunt for his friend, Marcus Hartley, who owned UMC Cartridge Co. Why 9 rounds from a six shot revolver, who knows ! Ed

Here are some pics from Mr. Winans book - The Modern Pistol and How to Shoot it 1919 edition.
There are 20 target pics and others firearms he used then .If you wish I can post them all.The one refered to is shown, albeit the date is wrong.
Regards, Ray

Oldbird13 · #90 10-08-2021, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrcvs

This firearm, as were many in this auction, were supported by spurious documentation:

Bonhams : SMITH & WESSON SCHOFIELD REVOLVER ATTRIBUTED TO JESSE JAMES. Serial no. 2921, circa 1875, .38 caliber 7 inch barrel with fluted sighting channel German silver sight.

All a notarized letter is is a signature verified by a notary that the person signing the letter on that day in front of the notary is indeed the person signing that letter on that day, having presented documentation proving their identity before the notary.

A notarized document does ZERO towards proving the veracity of the claim!!!

For me to actually believe the attribution of this firearm, I'm going to want solid proof, such as contemporary documentation in a published document or records of the era, stating this revolver by serial number. Smith & Wesson records stated in a letter would be acceptable as well, if this revolver specifically shipped to Jesse James or a close associate. A document signed by an individual in front of a notary decades after the fact is totally useless!

For example, there's nothing preventing me from taking my Triple Lock revolver and writing a letter and documenting the serial number stating that I acquired this from individual "X" who inherited it from his father, who knew Buffalo Bill Cody and who was personally given this gun to him by Buffalo Bill, out of his personal collection. It means nothing. Except maybe to my heirs, who are clever enough to present this revolver for sale at Bonham's and a fool is stupid enough to accept my notarized letter as fact.

There's a sucker born every day!

Also, auction houses have no reason to prove the facts. Doing so makes one a party pooper and decreases the hammer price and bragging rights. It's much better to get free advertising and sell a firearm at the highest recorded price ever, even if the supporting documentation is shaky, at best. Plus, your commission is far greater as well.

Tough to argue with this summary, Caveat emptor. Have heard numerous stories of auction houses selling guns that were fakes, misrepresented. Maybe the $140K buyer just has so much money that $140K isn't a big deal.

S.B. · #91 10-09-2021, 06:09 PM

OP, your link sure didn't work for me when I clicked on the see sold price now?
Steve

westernswede · #92 10-25-2022, 05:59 AM

It's back! The Schofield is on the market again. Coming to auction soon. You guys can have another chance at it. Only a year off the market. Good luck.