Roy Jinks History Channel on: S&W Schofield vs Colt Peacemaker

[model3sw]

Something you have GOT to watch and re-watch to appreciate. I ask you please RATE this thread when you've reviewed it. With a few more points, Lee will give me a new kitchen toaster. (NOT)

Here's Roy at this best, just doing what he DOES best !

Explaining how the better quality revolver got tossed to the side because of the proprietary .45 S&W Schofield ammo instead of making the cylinder a tad longer to accept the .45 Long Colt, too.

Not learning enough from this in 1913 S&W engineered and produced a fabulous and well functioning, reliable semi-automatic in a proprietary, .35 S&W Auto instead of the standard, common and well accepted (and available at any local hardware store) .32 ACP.

This one goes near the top of the list of S&W blunders, along with NO Caliber designations on most of the Model 3 product line until the very last few thousand.

Also, not paying Schofield a trivial royalty for his clearly improved clasp and catch for the New Model 3 revolvers that followed.

Go, ahead ... make my day ... start listing all the S&W BLUNDERS or things that could have been done better and / or differently, but first watch Roy doing his job and doing it like no one else could.

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

... and, leave it to the History Channel, the cover photo appears to be a replica American with the brass frame you see advertised everywhere as a SCHOFIELD replica.

 

[TripLeader]

Thanks for posting this. I have a New Model 3 in .44 Russian, and can't get enough of these stories.

 

[rct269]

Perhaps my own personal example is more a matter of opinion than fact---and if so, it's my own damn fault for not spending the time and putting forth the effort to research the matter. As it stands, my opinion arises from input from some U.S.R.A. old timers.

And with that, I give you the Straight Line Single Shot pistol---supposedly the ultimate such weapon---designed and built only after extensive consultation with and research among the country's best target shooters. That produced a product which was introduced in 1925, and died a slow death over the next eleven years---during which they produced a whopping 1,870 pistols. As an aside, it's predecessor (the 3rd Model SS) sold almost 7,000 units in 14-15 years---and won an Olympic championship along the way. (I think.)

So what was the problem? Some point to problems with the gun. I point to problems doing their homework---again without ever having seen the homework---just by taking word of mouth as gospel---and by factoring in what was happening out there at the range. So what was happening at the range? Timed and rapid fire was happening---that's what. And timed and rapid fire and single shots don't mix. (There's a tale about a similar situation---with what was billed as the world's greatest dog food. There was but one small problem: The dogs wouldn't eat it.)

It is my speculation S&W's primary research vehicle, a lengthy questionnaire, asked for input as to the world's greatest single shot----if you could design it, what would it be? And their research subjects answered that question. I suspect, had they asked for input on the world greatest target handgun, the K-22 Outdoorsman might well have made its debut about five years earlier---at least. (The truth of that matter appears to be they had their chance to do a proper heavy frame .22 revolver back in 1910---maybe 1912. They got a special order for 20 guns from some Army officers---built them up---and they didn't work worth a cuss. It seems someone wasn't paying attention to business, and they were made with the wrong rifling rate. Speaking of screwing the pooch, let's see now---here's a chance to impress some Army folks---you know, the kind of Army that buys lots and lots of guns---and nobody cared enough to pay attention to what was going on---sad story.)

Ralph Tremaine

 

[DesmoEd]

I think part of the problem with S@W achieving a large US order for pistols was also in part to their initial experience with the US Americans. There are numerous examples of officers writing back to complain about service issues with the US Americans in Farrington's "Arming & Equipping the United States Cavalry, 1865-1902"

Issues ranging from the pistols not keeping time and many extractor issues which could not be addressed in the field. I know the Schofield is a different pistol but I believe the American experience may have left a bad taste as far as the Army was concerned. They also may have been worried about S@W's production capabilities as they were so heavily contracted to Russia.

 

[deadin]

It was my understanding that the Army tried to order more Schofields but at the time S&W was heavily involved with the Russian contracts and Russia was paying in gold.

 

[DWalt]

Overlooked was the fact (not Hollywood's version of the fact) that a U. S. cavalryman on the frontier very seldom, if ever, needed to reload his revolver rapidly in the saddle, so the ability to do so with the Schofield was not much of a selling point. Six shots in the cylinder was almost always enough for cavalry use against hostile Indians. The frontier cavalryman usually carried only a dozen cartridges in his belt pouch plus six in the cylinder. There was always more ammunition in his saddlebag or the supply wagon if ever needed. Second, the Schofield was considered by the cavalry to be more delicate and trouble-prone than the SAA and it was also more expensive. So it is no mystery why the Army preferred the Colt. It was only after the Indian wars that the Army gave much thought to improvements in handguns.

 

[DesmoEd]

Overlooked was the fact (not Hollywood's version of the fact) that a U. S. cavalryman on the frontier very seldom, if ever, needed to reload his revolver rapidly in the saddle, so the ability to do so with the Schofield was not much of a selling point. Six shots in the cylinder was almost always enough for cavalry use against hostile Indians. The frontier cavalryman usually carried only a dozen cartridges in his belt pouch plus six in the cylinder. There was always more ammunition in his saddlebag or the supply wagon if ever needed. Second, the Schofield was considered by the cavalry to be more delicate and trouble-prone than the SAA and it was also more expensive. So it is no mystery why the Army preferred the Colt. It was only after the Indian wars that the Army gave much thought to improvements in handguns.

You are absolutely correct, especially if you consider the Army's use of single shot rifles well into the age of repeaters.

Operating in rough remote terrain on horseback had to be a logistical nightmare in the 1870's with ammo resupply a primary concern.

Also the Colt was very simple to disassemble and service in the field. Shell extraction was slow but simple and foolproof especially for a pistol operated in the harsh conditions of the times.

 

[model3sw]

The S&W top break was the tip of the sword in technology back then. The 1873 Cavalry SAA is a fine gun, too, but I'm partial to and believe the Smith & Wesson was the "finer" gun.

Under today's conditions and with all the accumulated knowledge,

I think anyone would be thrilled in firing either of them in a laboratory setting (that's a clean old regular range) if in comparable, excellent mechanical, conditions.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

... and, leave it to the History Channel, the cover photo appears to be a replica American with the brass frame you see advertised everywhere as a SCHOFIELD replica.

And leave it to the History Channel to show an Uberti instead of a Colt when we first see the 'Colt'. The brass trigger guard and brass backstrap, as well as the safety device on the hammer are a dead giveaway.

And the guy loading it does not have a clue how to load a Colt. You never lower the hammer from half cock, you always bring it to full cock and then lower the hammer.

And when he unloads it, I don't know what the story is with those crumpled case mouths, unless they are blanks.

 

[rct269]

They are for sure and certain blanks---those used in theatrics, and originally known as "Five in Ones"--in recognition of the fact they'd fit and function in five different weapons---two Colt revolvers, and three Winchester rifles (in 45 Colt, 38-40, and 44-40).

Nowadays they've been fiddled with so as to fit more/different calibers/weapons (the 44's and 410), but they're still called "Five in One's"---so the good old days live on---at least somewhere.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[glowe]

... and, leave it to the History Channel, the cover photo appears to be a replica American with the brass frame you see advertised everywhere as a SCHOFIELD replica.

The replica was readily available several years ago. Made of pot metal with plugged barrel and undersized charge holes, it sold in many places, including ebay for under $50. Franklin Mint also made a higher grade engraved replica they called the Wyatt Earp gun. I have one of each for display in my slim jim holsters. The brass is just a plating over the metal and I found a black spray can will take care of that distraction.

 

[Inusuit]

As Driftwood points out, the guy with red shirtsleeves about 5:50 lowers the hammer from half cock. Should have fully cocked it, then let the hammer down. And the use of replica detracts from the otherwise interesting video.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

They are for sure and certain blanks---those used in theatrics, and originally known as "Five in Ones"--in recognition of the fact they'd fit and function in five different weapons---two Colt revolvers, and three Winchester rifles (in 45 Colt, 38-40, and 44-40).

Nowadays they've been fiddled with so as to fit more/different calibers/weapons (the 44's and 410), but they're still called "Five in One's"---so the good old days live on---at least somewhere.

I know what a Five in One blank is, and those crimped shells he is extracting are not traditional Five in One blanks. A Five in One blank looked like the one on the far left in this photo. Necked down to fit a 44-40 or 30-40 chamber, with a cardboard wad inside to keep the powder in place. What he is shooting is crimped blanks like the one at the center of this photo. This brass is made today by Starline, it is labeled 5 IN 1 on the case head, but these are not the traditional Five in One blanks. At the right is one of my 44-40 Black Powder loads for comparison.