The two main U.S. Army Cavalry revolvers that won the West.

[the ringo kid]

OK,everyone knows about the Colt 1873, but what about the Shofield?I was reading that Smith and Wesson produced those (to which I had not known-but was written about in the current issue of True West magazine featuring info on Curly Bill) Anyway, Cimmarron Firearms-out of Fredricksburg-here in Texas--is reproducing the 7th Cav-stamped .45 cal revolvers and the "Shofields" I THINK are being made by CVA?? out of Ithica, NY. Some 30,000 +++ Colts were made and originally issued to the Cavalry while around 6,000 of the other were issued to the Cavalry as well. The opinion of the author of the article about these two handguns on which gun is better than the other depends on how it was used in battle. Each one has its pros and cons.

The Colt had to have each shell ejected one at a time-as well as reloaded one at a time and turning the cylinder-while the other could be broke open and all ejected at once-and reloading easier.

Does anyone here have both of these guns in repo and if so? what is your opinion of both?

 

[Plain Old Dave]

I have had both. Honestly, the SAA is more pointable and ergonomic.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[the ringo kid]

I have had both. Honestly, the SAA is more pointable and ergonomic.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I love the two 1873s I have--but have no personal experiance with the Shofield though. Eventually, I wouldnt mind having one to compare these others with--maybe in 2018??? I wonder how much the repos are going for? Hopeefully not more than these others.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

A bit off track but here's a bit of trivia. When the Schofield was issued the Quartermaster Corps had a problem. The .45 Schofield was a shorter case round than the .45 Colt, the .45 Schofield would chamber in both the Schofield and the Colt SAA but the .45 Colt round would not chamber in the Schofield. The Quartermaster Corps stopped issue of the .45 Colt round and went with the Scholfield as it would work in both revolvers. The troops then started calling the .45 Colt the .45 Long Colt to differentiate it from the shorter .45 Schofield. Thusly we have been stuck with that misnomer ever since.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I have a pair of reproduction N0. 3 Russian revolvers. (and 7 repo Colts) The S&W revolvers were considered more accurate (some said, far more accurate) than the Colt revolvers.

When firing two handed the Colts can have the trigger held in the fired position and the hammer can be fanned with the other hand (against Texas Ranger Regulations, but ignored!) or thumb fanned with much better accuracy. The S&W had to have the trigger return to unfired position before cocking for the next round.

The Colt revolvers were far more robust! Then the Smiths. The Merrill & Huberts needed a traveling gunsmith to remain in action!

The biggest strike against S&W was the took different ammo, and their ammo had a rim too big for the recessed chamber on the Colt. The Army fixed the problem long after the S&W's were withdrawn from service. Frankfort Arsenal developed a round called 45 US, Schofield length and Colt rim, loaded with a 230 grain projectile at 810 fps (That's where Col. Thompson got the idea for 45ACP specs!) I have Ammo from FA loaded with lead and jacketed projectiles. The M-1909 Colt revolver was chambered for 45 Colt, but issued with this jacketed ammo.

Ivan

 

[DWalt]

The Schofields were not very popular with cavalry troopers. They preferred the SAA for their purposes (they didn't really need the multiple extraction feature, and the Colt was seen as being more rugged and reliable), so the Schofield didn't last long in the service.

Maj. George W. Schofield, whose redesign of the S&W Model 3 was adopted, committed suicide with one of them:

Lieutenant Colonel George W. Schofield, Sixth Cavalry, and brother of Major General (John) Schofield, commanding the Division of the Pacific, committed suicide at Fort Apache, A.T., at day break on Sunday morning in his room. His servant was in the room building a fire, and Lieutenant Colonel Schofield was at the washstand combing his hair. He asked his servant to leave the room, and he had barely closed the door when the shot was fired. He had been crazed for eight or ten days over some invention of his, and it is supposed that in a moment of temporary insanity he shot himself."

 

[Walter Rego]

Here's couple of modern reproductions of the guns in question

 

[Eltioloco]

Here is an original. According to Kopec this one was issued to the 8th Cavalry. Rebuilt by Dave Lanara.
Personally I like the balance of the Colt over the Schofield, but I wouldn't feel unarmed with either.

 

[Dennis]

Eltioloco, that is a beautiful revolver.
I have a Uberti repro Schofield, but it is in 45 Colt.
I also have a Hartford 4 3/4" in 45 Colt.
Had the Hartford out shooting a bit today.
They both shoot very well.
As nice as the easy loading of the Schofield is, I would choose the Hartford for "Robustness" in the field.
I believe that I have read that the U.S. Cavalry felt the same.

 

[the ringo kid]

Eltioloco, that is a beautiful revolver.
I have a Uberti repro Schofield, but it is in 45 Colt.
I also have a Hartford 4 3/4" in 45 Colt.
Had the Hartford out shooting a bit today.
They both shoot very well.
As nice as the easy loading of the Schofield is, I would choose the Hartford for "Robustness" in the field.
I believe that I have read that the U.S. Cavalry felt the same.

Thanks guys, and hopefully I can get one of those Schofields in 2018. The more I hear of them, the more I like em.

I agree with Dennis, that is a beautiful Colt.

 

[Old Corp]

Have not shot it much but my Uberti 'No.3' is a fun shooter....

 

[Alpo]

These are MY opinions on the Schofield. Accept them or not.

First, the quick reload. Major Schofield did not invent that. ALL the S&W top break revolvers had auto ejection. What he did was change the way you opened it. All the other guns, both earlier models and later ones, opened by lifting the rear sight. Supposedly it required two hands to empty it - one to hold the gun and one to lift the sight - and since you were holding your reins in your left hand, you didn't have two free to unload.

Nonsense. I have a DA32, a 32 New Departure, a 38 New Departure, a 2nd Model 38 SA, an 1881 DA and a Uberti #3 Russian. All six open by lifting the rear sight, and on all six I simply push the sight up with my right thumb. One hand. My 38 Perfected takes two hands, but then, it's got two separate unlatching mechanisms.

Major Schofield changed the latch from atop the barrel to the rear frame. Instead of PUSHING UP with your thumb, you now PULLED BACK with your thumb. Big whoop.

I believe S&W would have ignored this BRILLIANT DESIGN INNOVATION, except for the major's brother, the general. He was high enough rank that he might help them get some military contracts.

When the Army was looking to upgrade from the cap-n-ball revolver, they looked at the Smith 44 American. Turned it down. Too delicate. Went for the more robust Colt. But now that an Army officer worked on it, it was suddenly less delicate and deserved another look-see?

Can you say "nepotism"? Sure. I knew you could.

Uberti brought out their copy of the Schofield, and there rose a hue and cry among the cowboy shooters for S&W to bring it back. They'd rather shoot a REAL Schofield, instead of an Italian copy.

And S&W brought it back.

They made, in my opinion, two mistakes. First, it was a Performance Center gun, and cost 1500 while the Uberti was only 500. Ouch.

Second, they brought back the 1st Model, and the Uberti was the 2nd Model. There is a difference is in the shape of the latch.

The 2nd Model's is large and rounded. Thumb-friendly. The 1st Model's is smaller, thinner, square and sharp. The one gun I handled, and it might simply have been "new gun, very stiff", HURT to unlatch it. Go shoot a couple of hundred rounds, and my thumb would have felt and looked like hamburger.

Took me about five minutes of playing with it before I decided I did not need one.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

I think that the cowboy action shooters have rules against using the schofield, which is accurate enough and creams the SAA in terms of speed of fire.

I've wanted a repo for some time, but the prices they are going for is outrageous. I almost had one for $600 once, but was too poor at the time to justify buying it. Now, I don't think I've seen one for under $700 in years, and mostly they seem to go between 700 and 900. The S&W repos still go for well north of 1k, and no one seems to have a problem selling them when they get listed on gunbroker.

I have had a few Iver Johnson top breaks in 22lr, but none have worked well. And while they used to be cheap, demand has driven the price up on those too, now.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it but 45 Schofield can be shot from a gun chambered in 45c, but the reverse is not true.

 

[Breakaway500]

I own both an original S&W Schofield and a Colt SAA. Both are accurate. Both handle well.Both are dependable and built rugged.
However,if I needed to choose one for battle,it would hands down be the Schofield, as the unload and load is MUCH faster than the SAA. Snap the latch..empties are on the ground, and slide 6 more round in with NO gate to index. It really is NO contest when it comes to which one is easiest to reload.I can send 18 rounds downrange with my Schofield in the same time it takes an SAA to send 6 and reload.Try it some time. In the era when these revolvers were necessary...I'd have definitely carried a Schofield if I could afford and find one..and there was the big difference. Price and availability.
On that note..I watched a PC Schofield (blued 5" model) sell on GB for under $1700 last night. Pretty good deal on a real S&W Schofield...second generation I guess you could call it, with some accuracy. Why buy a copy when you can buy the real deal for easy money?

I would even go as far as to bet a top break auto-eject revolver can be reloaded faster than a Hand ejector model.

 

[Eltioloco]

However,if I needed to choose one for battle,it would hands down be the Schofield, as the unload and load is MUCH faster than the SAA. Snap the latch..empties are on the ground, and slide 6 more round in with NO gate to index. It really is NO contest when it comes to which one is easiest to reload.I can send 18 rounds downrange with my Schofield in the same time it takes an SAA to send 6 and reload.Try it some time. In the era when these revolvers were necessary...I'd have definitely carried a Schofield

Everything you say is true, and it great that you have both to compare. But I find that I can hit better with the Colt then with the Schofield, the hammer is easier to thumb for following shots and for me it points better. i would rather have a pistol that I can hit things then one that reloads easier.

 

[Breakaway500]

"i would rather have a pistol that I can hit things then one that reloads easier."
Fine if you are shooting paper targets. Not so fine if you are trying to hold off a dozen armed assailants. Believe me,you would learn to shoot the Schofield very quickly..

 

[Alpo]

If I'm trying to hold off a dozen armed assailants, I sure hope I've got more than a six-shot single action revolver. No matter how fast I can reload it.

And speaking of reloads, the cylinder is the same size as a Model 25. Regular speedloaders work with it.

 

[deadin]

A little more trivia.....

The original order for the Schofield by the Army was for 3000 1st models and 5000 2nd models and was filled by S&W. At the same time the Army had taken delivery of 15,000 Colts. The Army tried to order 8000 more Schofields in 1878 but S&W wasn't interested as they had their hands full filling Russians orders (and the Russians were paying in gold!) and launching their New Model#3. If the new order had been filled, Schofields would have outnumbered Colts in service. The Army continued to carry them into the 1880's . The Schofield wasn't so much as withdrawn as it was no longer stocked in the arsenals. (Some were still in use by regular Army units as of 1887 per Col. Chs. Pate).
When the Schofield was finally withdrawn from Army service. (Mainly due to the ammunition compatibility problem) many saw service with State militias as late as the Spanish American War. Many went to dealers and were sold in the civilian market. 600 went to Wells Fargo and are a desirable collector’s item today. (If authenticated. There are a lot of fakes out there.)
There have been claims that they were "unsuitable for use on horseback". I have found one officer's report that the latch "could" be tripped in the holster and therefore cause an unintended ejection when drawn. Other officers admired the rapidity and ease of loading while on horseback. Most negative comments I have been able to find is that many thought the Schofield to be "too complicated" and that rapid reloading was not that big a deal. Of course this was an Army that was still issuing what was basically a modified Civil War musket to its troops because they might waste ammo with a repeater.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

The "Real World" and Military Procurement are two completely different things! One of the things you won't find in documents but in real life is that much of the 1861 Army revolver is interchangeable with the 1873 Single Action Army. The grip frame isn't the same, but interchangeable. Almost every spring in the 1861 is the same in the 1873, as far as replacements are concerned. The units field "fix-it men" (there were no Company armorers) that could replace springs and time the 61's could do the same with the 73's (Many parts from Colt Dragoon and Navy revolvers are interchangeable also) This is a big deal when you are on the cutting edge of nowhere!

My Ubirti repro 1873's are all recessed rim chambers, But using 45 US brass and a 200 grain RNFP bullet at 850 fps (smokeless version of the Schofield load) and compared to 44 Russian, 246 gr RNFP at 840fps (smokeless version of the original Russian load) out of my Ubirti N0. 3 Russian repos, at 25 yards the Russians are far more accurate (even with the tiny sights!) From my collection that is as close to an "Apples to Apples" comparison as I can get.

One last Schofield comment; The Performance Center Schofield, I am very sure, they were made from Ubirti parts assembled and finished at S&W PC, so from their soul, they sing in Italian!

Ivan