A MUST SEE: Smith and Wesson Schofield vs Colt Peacemaker

If you love S&W antiques and the history behind them, watch this (with presentation / interview with the Chief, Roy Jinks). Enjoy. Sal Raimondi

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrqPGO1-aMQ[/ame]

Thanks Sal. I need a Schofield! Or maybe a 1st Model American!

Don’t go chambering those modern 44 WCF’s in that 44 American. I’ve never seen a two tone? Does it letter?

jf they only used .45 colt ammo then history might have been written differently.
i know they didnt want to use another company ammo but they must hsve seen the writing on the wall

Interesting that the cover image is of a prop-gun. They were cast pot metal painted and/or plated and I bought a couple for wet-shaping holsters that I made for my Americans and Schofields. I think they were $40 each on ebay several years ago.

I think the only thing legit in the photo are the modern 44WCF lead soft point 200 grain semi- jacketed rounds?

Thanks Sal. I love a good history lesson.

From a practical point of view, the top break design of the Smith & Wesson models is far, far superior to the design of the Colt SAA revolver where one has to load and unload the cylinder one individual round at a time. Even today, If I decide to shoot, I often select a Smith & Wesson revolver (NM No 3 or a Triple Lock) over a Single Action Army because of the PITA factor.

History does document a few drawbacks to the Schofield Model 1 other than not being able to chamber the Colt 45 cartridge;
A quote from True West Magazine:
Under ideal conditions this design is surely a much faster way to reload, however when attempted from a possibly excited, plunging horse, as often encountered in the heat of battle, loaded cartridges still in the cylinder would sometimes hang up in it, causing a temporary jam that needed to be cleared manually. This writer has experienced both the speed of reloading a Schofield (originals and replicas) and cartridge hang-ups, while taking part in mounted cavalry re-enactments and cowboy mounted shooting competitions.
I have also read that mounted Calvary soldiers from that period complained that the latch on the frame of the Model 1 Schofield would open from bouncing in the holster on horseback releasing the barred from the locked closed position and when the gun was drawn and brought up to fire at the enemy? the barrel would tip down and eject the loaded cartridges.

BMur said:

Don’t go chambering those modern 44 WCF’s in that 44 American. I’ve never seen a two tone? Does it letter?

Click to expand...

The cover pictures is obviously a repro / dummy gun, however, Roy does own quite a few antique S&W 2 tones.

If a 2 tone belongs to Roy, I'd give you 10 to 1 odds ... it letters ! LOL.

BMur said:

History does document a few drawbacks to the Schofield Model 1 other than not being able to chamber the Colt 45 cartridge;
A quote from True West Magazine:
Under ideal conditions this design is surely a much faster way to reload, however when attempted from a possibly excited, plunging horse, as often encountered in the heat of battle, loaded cartridges still in the cylinder would sometimes hang up in it, causing a temporary jam that needed to be cleared manually. This writer has experienced both the speed of reloading a Schofield (originals and replicas) and cartridge hang-ups, while taking part in mounted cavalry re-enactments and cowboy mounted shooting competitions.
I have also read that mounted Calvary soldiers from that period complained that the latch on the frame of the Model 1 Schofield would open from bouncing in the holster on horseback releasing the barred from the locked closed position and when the gun was drawn and brought up to fire at the enemy? the barrel would tip down and eject the loaded cartridges.

Click to expand...

The trigger pull on the Schofields was certainly a military (Hard) trigger.

You'd have to consider who and what intelligence level the person who stated this or these complaints and / or wonder if they were on Colt's payroll.

Biggest mistake was the proprietary .45 S&W Schofield cartridge and NOT imprinting the caliber on the side of the firearms somewhere.

The Schofield latch / catch design was far superior to the earlier (and later) Smith & Wesson model 3 latches. S&W didn't want to pay Gen. Schofield the royalty on his patented latch assembly so they reverted to a slight revision of the prior latch / catch system on the New Model 3s.

It is not unusual to find an old Schofield with wear-o-plenty that still has a tight barrel to frame lock up much unlike the earlier Americans, Russians and later New Model 3s.

Hammer down on an empty chamber alleviates that possible complaint / problem you state. Hammer would have to be pulled back to the safety or "open" notch to have even a slight chance of opening or becoming undone from bouncing. That was 1st issues I believe.

Excellent thread. Thanks
Walt

BMur said:

History does document a few drawbacks to the Schofield Model 1 other than not being able to chamber the Colt 45 cartridge;
A quote from True West Magazine:
Under ideal conditions this design is surely a much faster way to reload, however when attempted from a possibly excited, plunging horse, as often encountered in the heat of battle, loaded cartridges still in the cylinder would sometimes hang up in it, causing a temporary jam that needed to be cleared manually. This writer has experienced both the speed of reloading a Schofield (originals and replicas) and cartridge hang-ups, while taking part in mounted cavalry re-enactments and cowboy mounted shooting competitions.
I have also read that mounted Calvary soldiers from that period complained that the latch on the frame of the Model 1 Schofield would open from bouncing in the holster on horseback releasing the barred from the locked closed position and when the gun was drawn and brought up to fire at the enemy? the barrel would tip down and eject the loaded cartridges.

Click to expand...

didnt they modify the holster by removing a square section at the front to stop the latch catching

before the schofield didnt the cavalry prefer the single shot .50 cal remington rolling block revolver rather than a percussion revolver?
edit......oooops i mean pistol rather then revolver

The Top break large frame S&W's were all superior to any Colt SAA. It's sad that with their talent that S&W didn't simply lengthen the frame and cylinders and make them capable of chambering both cartridges also. I'd bet the military contracts would have still been there if they'd simply adapted their revolver to shoot the same ammunition.

I agree,
The improvement could have been introduced with the Model 2 Schofield.
I personally prefer the 44wcf cartridge over any 45 of that era. This early Frontier cartridge was superior to the 45 Colt and 45 Schofield not only in Pistol/rifle compatibility but also in the flat point bullet design having better stopping power from improved terminal ballistics(wound channel) from both the rifle and pistols. The Frontier double action S&W and Model 3 Single Actions in 44wcf are my personal favorites. Often titled the 357 magnum of their day. When you compare FPS and bullet design I believe it to be right on. Shooting them with a compressed full load of black powder and a pure lead bullet is very impressive and more often than not produces large circular smoke rings that glide gently towards the target.

While the .44 W.C.F. is an impressive round, the flat tip was an innovation of necessity rather than ballistics. Originally designed with flat point to prevent igniting rounds loaded in the tube of a Winchester lever action rifle.

The S&W New Model 3 Frontier was also an invention of necessity for those who owned Winchester lever-actions in .44 W.C.F. that one type of ammo for both a rifle and pistol was more practical. This being known ... was one of the VERY few times, S&W conceded to produce a product that fired a non-proprietary S&W round.

It does seem, however, that the S&W revolvers in .44 W.C.F. tend to be found in much more "beat" conditions than the .44 Russian models. I don't believe the .44 D/A first was enhanced in any special manner to chamber the .44 W.C.F. which seems to give the S&Ws a good beating over time. Same goes for the New Model 3 Frontier (.44 W.C.F.).

If you notice, examples of the S&W New Model 3 Frontier are usually found in rather beat condition even when the finish is in better condition, the mechanics, especially the axis tube / shaft cracking or breaking.

The .44 D/A 1st Frontier and Russian calibers were one of the worst revolvers S&W ever produced, I feel. Sorry to admit, the S&W .44 D/A first models could not compare in quality and endurance to the equivalent D/A Colts of the day.

So trouble ridden were these 1st model .44 D/As that it gave way to a massive and completely re-engineered "New Century" (a/k/a Triple Lock) that was the quintessential Timex in as much as the Triple Lock could "take a lickin' and keep on tickin' "

An excellent condition (90% and better) New Model 3 Frontier or a 1st model .44 D/A either in .44 Russian or .44 W.C.F. is truly a scarce bird.

I would love to see large circular smoke rings. How can I reproduce your findings ? What loads will produce these circular rings when fired from a New Model 3 Frontier as I no longer have any .44 D/A first models ?

I’m going to start a new thread later today on a “ period” black powder performance comparable between the period 45’s and the 44WCF. I don’t want to go off on a tangent on this excellent thread on the Schofield Revolver. Even though it involves the 45 Schofield.

45 Schofield vs Colt 45

Sticking with the thread subject matter. I think we have forgotten to mention the other major mechanical factor that forced Smith & Wesson to stick to the Schofield 45 caliber cartridge over the 45 Colt? Basic cartridge design was a major problem for the extractor mechanism of the Smith& Wesson Schofield. See photos attached. These shells are actually original period dug ups from known battlefields where both the Schofield and Colt SAA were actually used in battle! You can clearly see that the original 1873 Colt 45 cartridge with inside primed centerfire was too small in diameter to catch on the auto ejection system of the Schofield. This problem could not be solved so the Colt round was never adopted.
This was not purposely performed by Colt. All of the early Colt cartridges in various calibers had the small rim but trying to auto eject that longer case with small case rim would be a huge problem!

I think the rim difference wouldn't have been an issue that S&W could not have overcome in their auto extractors. Yes, it's not as large as other cartridges, but a well fitted extractor would still catch and draw it out.