The "Surplus Schofields"

[opoefc]

Dr. Roy Jinks has a foot rest for his desk ( his desk being D.B. Wesson's original desk salvaged by Roy from the orig. factory bldg when it was demolished ) that I recall is a crate of 12 Schofield revolvers , brand new in their original grease, obtained yrs ago from Bannerman, the crate is wood and was a Bannerman creation, as the original S&W military Schofields were shipped in a wood crate with a metal lining. Some yrs ago I had a nice Springfield 45-70 Trapdoor in my collection and on a whim I had it researched by the the Springfield Research Service and discovered it's last military service was when had been issued to the US Navy in WW2 ( That's WW2 not WW1 ! ) . Having been a Federalized National Guardsman my self ( 40th Inf. Divison ) I know first hand the quality of ordnance we were supplied with for the Korean War. ( No, it wasn't a Trapdoor but I would not have turned down a Schofield ! ) I can reveal now that Midnight Supply works, as it got us badly needed BARs from the 1st Marine Div ! Ed

 

[BMur]

Great Story!

Thanks for sharing Ed,

We had the M-14 when I was shipboard. I guess I'm showing my age now.

I have to share this information that I just found in old U.S. Navy Records....I had no idea the Navy had Remington Conversions in 38 caliber shipboard.

Some of the Navy Captains insisted on Remingtons over Colts. I have heard about the cap and ball Remington full frame being much stronger than the Colts but never researched that aspect. Anyway, several U.S. Navy Captains convinced Ordnance Department to research having some of the Remingtons Converted to .38 Centerfire instead of being issued the converted Colts.

The approval was given since Remington was willing to charge the same amount as Colt was to perform the conversion to .38cf. I guess the problem with the Remington conversions was the quality of the conversion according to several U.S. Navy Captains was "Sub-Par" and caused the cylinder to jam against the recoil shield after several rounds being fired....This actually went on from 1876 until 1885 when they were apparently and finally removed from service. Approximately 1000 of them..

Here's the catch. Several Navy vessels received Army caliber 45 Revolvers to "temporarily" replace the Remington Conversions. This was several years before the 1889 Navy 38 cal revolver was issued.
However, the assigned records do not exist that identify the number of revolvers or brand. It is very possible that the U.S. Navy was issued a few hundred 45 Schofields in the early to mid 1880's. Those low and odd numbers seen on the old records of issuance support the possibility that they were sent overseas to supply U. S. Navy ships. They would have had U. S. Army inspector marks so without records of issuance there is no way to prove it. I wonder if old Deck logs are available? Even deck logs would not have the make of gun. Only the caliber and rounds issued normally. A U.S.N. Schofield? I think I would have appreciated a Schofield on deck watch as well. I have to admit, I felt pretty comfortable with a 1911 though.

Murph

 

[applefish]

So, S&W made a short version of the .45 Colt and it proved problematic when all that was available was .45 Colt which rendered the Schofields inoperable.

The .45 Schofield cartridge was shorter than the .45 Colt. It could be used in both the Schofield and the Colt 45 Peacemaker, but the .45 Colt was too long to use in the Schofield.

I've heard the government stuck with the Colt because they had a large stockpile/contract for .45 Colt ammo, and it was easier on the supply chain (and less costly) to keep the gun that could use the .45 colt ammo rather than switching over.

I think a lot of times government arsenal decisions are driven more by economic factors rather than ballistics or functioning of a gun (assuming the guns meet a minimum standard). It's the same reason the Russian government switched from the S&W .44 Russian revolvers (which they had tooled up to make the copies of at Tula), to the underpowered 7.62 Nagant revolver.

When the russians adopted the 7.62 mosin nagant rifle, they tooled up for producing barrels in 7.62. Since manufacturing wasn't perfect back then, occasionally they would end up with barrels that weren't perfect, but there were shorter sections you could cut off, and then turn down to use as revolver barrels. And then to squeeze the most power they could out of a whimpy 7.62 revolver cartridge, they asked Nagant to develop the gas-seal system.

I think people underestimate economic factors as a driving decision for government arsenal decisions. The most recent example we've seen of this is the XM17 trials, with the government picking the Sig 320 over the Glock because the Sig contract was cheaper.

 

[9245]

I'm back on my research for the Schofields and Wells Fargos.

In my antique ammo collection I have several dug ups from an Old Army Fort in New Mexico. I was going through them today and Noticed that the Frankford Arsenal date stamp on the latest 45 Schofield is March of 1885?

Also, both the Schofields and the Single Action Army "Benet" primed cases supported "Hollow Base" bullets? These are authentic period bullets found at the same location as the shells. I've never seen or heard of hollow based bullets for these 45 Cal revolvers but there they are!

My primary question is since the Schofield Revolvers went to Surplus in 1880....Obviously there were quite a few still in service in 1885 since The Frankford Arsenal was still cranking out ammo. So that's at least 5 years after they went to surplus? That seems to me to be quite a long time. I'm wondering what took so long to remove them from service?

If we look at other Military contracts of that era? Replacing revolvers never took that long! Seems like the Schofield revolver wasn't removed from service as fast as is documented?


Murph

The military is a bureaucracy, it was likely that they were "supposed" to be surplussed in 1880 but in reality were probably phased out over time. Fun fact, in Gulf War 1 tank crews still had M3 Grease Guns from World War 2, the 1911 and M16A1 also remained in service long after they were officially replaced.

Another possibility is that the supply depots never got the message as both the Colt Single Action Army and the Schofield could chamber .45 Schofield so they may just have continued to order Schofield ammo even after the Schofields were surplussed, just because they were not told to stop.

It's also possible that the ammunition was contamination of the site and was not actually military issue.

 

[Wrangler Rich]

When did Colt start developing an automatic pistol? I think the answer to this question could shed some light on why the Colt 45 and the Smith & Wesson Schofield were being eliminated from Military stock.

WW I was on the horizon, and we know not many Single actions were issued then.

WR

 

[lestert357]

Also, amazing to me is how long it took for the Frankford Arsenal to come up with a "dual purpose" 45 Round in 1887 for both the Colt and Smith & Wesson? 12 years? Talk about boneheads!

Simple question: How do we resolve this problem with the 45 cartridge not fitting in both our revolvers? HMMMM....I know, lets make one that fits in both guns! 12 years later!!
Murph

This is a fascinating thread, thanks for posting.

One point I am apparently not understanding; I thought the Frankford Arsenal Revolver Ball Cartridges, Caliber .45 manufactured in the late 1870's as pictured below could be used in both the Schofield and SAA.

 

[lestert357]

Dr. Roy Jinks has a foot rest for his desk that I recall is a crate of 12 Schofield revolvers , brand new in their original grease

Ed, I sure would like to see a picture of that!

 

[BMur]

45 cartridge

There is a lot of history to the early 45 Government cartridge in pistol configuration. An ongoing argument is the 45 Long/ 45 Short Colt?

The earliest documented listing from the government testing the various 45's confirms the existence of different case lengths for the 45 Colt. This was due to different loads being available in the early 45 Colt. If you perform in depth research? You will find the exact same issue with many pistol calibers. One example is the .41 Rimfire. My studies found about 12 different loads and 8 different case lengths. They were all listed as a .41 Rimfire at that time.

If using Black powder? You must reduce or lengthen the case to match the powder load. Simple as that. The cornmeal concept wasn't born yet.

The specific earliest loads for the 45 Colt were a 250 grain round nose lead bullet with 40 Grains of FFG compressed. Which was the longer overall case length. Another proven load was the 230 grain round nose bullet with 28 grains of FFG compressed. This required a different case length. Both were 45 Colts. The shorter case length actually near matched the original 45 Schofield load. Which only adds to historical confusion and arguments abound.

The real problem with the Schofield/Colt compatibility was the case head diameter. The earliest seen in my photo first one on the left? Had an inside primer and a very mild rim. This continued for many years.

This was a major problem for the Schofield. Even the shorter case with 230 grain bullet would not eject from the revolver and induced a jam. That was the "REAL" problem.

So, following further to the right you see the transition of cartridges until the last two? Notice specifically the rim diameter on the Model of 1887 Government Frankford Arsenal 45 Colt case?

That is the real transition to conform to multi-use in both the 45 Colt and the 45 Schofield......Case length was not the real issue. It's the head or rim diameter that was the real issue. Without the wider rim? The ejector would jam in the Schofield revolver.


Murph

 

[BMur]

45 Colt/ 45 Schofield

Actually,
This photo tells it much better. Notice these early cartridges. They are all post 1883 head stamped but most of them are clearly black powder cartridges that are pre-1900 except for the Rem-UMC's.

What you will notice right away is 45 S&W's next to 45 Colt's that look exactly the same. Both in Case length and basic bullet design.

This is the source of all the arguments regarding the origin of the lighter Colt round. I have some of these early Colt cartridges in my collection that date to pre-1883 and are not head stamped. They are not Schofield rounds based on the undersized rim diameter. I have tried them in my Schofield's and they most definitely Do not eject.

Many collectors in fact miss-identify early light Colt loads as Schofield rounds. They will argue with you until they can't breath....but the simple test is "Well, try them in a Schofield and see if they eject"...When they don't eject? The answer stares them in the face. The early Schofield rounds are obvious. They have large rims!

So the exact origin of the lighter Colt loads is subject to interpretation. Most of us who have loaded the 45 Colt with full loads of black powder and the 250 grain bullet have an idea about why they would introduce a lighter load. It really is too powerful a load to control on horseback in my opinion.

Also, in my opinion they would have introduced a lighter load right away to solve this problem. It's a great historical subject that has brought many a technical argument. It's just amazing to me that they would take so long to solve the issue with the Schofield ejection problem by simply making the head diameter larger but early Colt light loads prove that they did not correct this problem until much later. Why did it take so long? Good Question.

In my opinion the Discontinuance of the Schofield model sent a panic wave throughout the U.S. Army having thousands stored in Arsenals and thousands more already issued an in the field throughout the U.S. None of that was a good thing. Someone had to answer for that one. Probably lots of heads rolled on that issue that took some time for the dust to settle.

Murph

 

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Fantastic thread! Lots of good information for the collector and the interested. Who on this forum wouldn't give to own a U.S. Marked Schofield?

I too would like to see of Mr. Jinks "footrest"...urban legend or truth?

 

[JSR III]

Two things come to mind here and I'll admit that I did not have time to read both pages of responses.

1) Today we are used to having things move at lightning speed. An event happens in Europe and it is on our TV screens and computer monitors within minutes. Back in the 1800's things moved a lot slower. If new arms were brought to service an outpost out in the west could not expect a FedEx or Amazon delivery to arrive overnight. I joke but you get my drift.

2) Also when researching facts based on reading books, there is no guarantee that the authors statements are etched in stone. Many times errors are made and then brought forward in future works and so the misinformation rolls forward and is regarded as "fact". Much of the information that we learn about older firearms is based on "observations" and quantities and dates can sometimes be under or over stated.

We collectors always want things tied up in little red bows with exact dates and serial numbers and in the world of manufacturing and distribution, it just doesn't always work that way.

These are merely my thoughts on the subject and your opinions may vary.

 

[Club Gun Fan]

Ed, I sure would like to see a picture of that!

Lester357
You'll have to settle for a picture of my Schofield with a reproduction of Dr. Jinks' Schofield box which was made by another Forum member. It is complete with all the 4 inserts to hold 16 Scofield's. It even has the wax seal on the top and bottom to show if it was opened prior to its destination. By the way, I think there are some copies of the box still available.

 

[Giorgio Italy]

Hello everybody. Of course I have only known this forum recently and sometimes I enjoy reading the old threads. This is really very interesting for me! However, regarding the .45 Government cartridge I have always known (but I believe my sources are the same as you have) that the Chief of Ordnance ordered the Frankford Arsenal to stop production of the "Cartridge for Colt's Revolver" in the summer of 1874 (the contract date for the first 3000 Schofield was in September) and this started the production of the "Revolver Ball Cartridge". Why are you talking here about a version for the Colt and S&W born only in 1887? The 1875 cartridge already had a 28 grs powder charge and a 230 grs bullet. Of course the OAL was 1.42 "and the rim diameter was increased by .02" (0.5mm) to be positively ejected by the Schofield extractor. It seems to me that the first boxes of "Revolver ball Cartridges" have the date of 1875, but without the month as it happened in the previous version. The same date, 1875, of the first supply of the Schofield revolvers. If I'm not mistaken, since then this model of cartridge (since 1882 produced with the external primer and no longer with the internal Benet one) have even been produced until the birth of the mod. 1909 for the double action Colt mod 1909. So even during the war with Spain. And this, I suppose, only for logistical problems since the Schofield had been withdrawn for some time.
Giorgio

 

[Kinman]

Lester357
You'll have to settle for a picture of my Schofield with a reproduction of Dr. Jinks' Schofield box which was made by another Forum member. It is complete with all the 4 inserts to hold 16 Scofield's. It even has the wax seal on the top and bottom to show if it was opened prior to its destination. By the way, I think there are some copies of the box still available.

Thats too cool, like the old man at IMI's bronze cannon footrest. I remember having a conversation with an old "horse soldier" that had been cavalry all his 30 years back to real horse soldier days. I recalled that the cavalry's requirement for a sidearm was that it had to be able to put an injured horse down, which was a problem for Colt when they tried to sell them on the early .38 Colts, the Calvary wasn't happy. He also opined that the S&W Schofield was a superior firearm for a mounted troop as you could actually reload from horseback, the SAA was more difficult. He mentioned that he had heard the biggest fuss about the different ammo in different firearm came to a head when they ran short of ammo for their Schofields in California, when the ammo finally arrived it was .45 Colt, useless to them.
I've seen a skilled rider exchange Remington 1858 cap and ball cylinders while horseback. As was mentioned officer had to buy their own sidearms, well heeled officers often carried two mounted foreward over the cantle, one on each side during the cap and ball days, twelve shots before resorting to the saber.