U.S. Army "Altered the Schofields"

[Giorgio Italy]

Murph,
Your arguments are undoubtedly valid and convincing. And your research on this topic is very interesting, as well as useful. But - forgive me - I do the part of the devil!! If the US Army made the changes at home, at the National Armory, why not use the same Colt reamer? After all it is a few thousandth sof an inch! But the same thing could be said if the change had been imposed on the S&W.
I'll tell you the truth - I had never heard of a post-factory modification of Schofield's size. Not even C. Kenneth Moore (who normally talks about military Colt SAAs) mentions such an eventuality in his "Colt SAA Revolver Study - New Discovery", and dedicates the entire VIII chapter to the martial Schofield. He also devoted two further chapters to the cal 45 ammunition.

P. S. sorry for my grammar

Giorgio

 

[BMur]

Alteration

Giorgio,
I honestly appreciate your input on this subject and your interest.

I have no idea what the Armory was thinking. We don't have enough physical evidence to evaluate the alteration. Only that there was an Alteration of some type to the chambers of the Schofield to manufacture a dual purpose round.

There must have been since the original Schofield round was much different than the original Colt Round. Both in design and bullet spec's. They were obviously not compatible. If it was simply a case length and head diameter issue for ejection? The problem would be simple to fix. However, the letter clearly mentions the differences in the chambers and clearly advises "altering them" to a point that both guns could chamber the same round.

That's the point of this thread. Not only was the bore much different between the 45 Colt and the 45 Smith & Wesson but the chambers were different as well. Which must have required machining to closely match them. I'm going to have to dig out my Schofield revolvers and look closely at the chambers to see if the machining is still visible from the alteration. After 145 years? and being shot , cleaned, shot, cleaned, etc? Probably not.

I was hoping that a member had a Civilian Schofield in their collection that we could examine more closely. That's the only way to prove this alteration without question. Physical evidence. There should be a significant difference between a Civilian Schofield and the typical U. S. Army issued Schofield.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Research by the numbers

What brought me to this point was studying the bullet itself. Finding proof that the round was initially introduced by Smith & Wesson as an outside lubricated design like "all" of their revolvers prior to 1887.

Once I found proof from the early Ideal loader that the outside lubricated bullet did exist? I realized that the Colt and Schofield were not compatible.

(Photo 1) Photo of the "EARLY" Ideal field loader supporting an "outside lubricated bullet".

(Photo 2) is the early Arsenal round for the Colt only.

(Photo 3) is the "Dual Purpose round" introduced in late 1874 but likely 1875 considering the work that needed to be done to the Schofield chambers, etc.

(Photo 4) is actually the only known photo (drawing) of the "Early" Civilian Schofield round. Notice the difference between the Civilian round and the "Dual Purpose round"?

In my opinion there is more similarity with the Colt Arsenal round and the dual purpose round.

What strikes me is that the Civilian round looks thinner.....Once I found the Arsenal/Armory letter the pieces came together. "They altered "enlarged" the Schofield Chambers to closely match the Colt". NOT identical but "close enough" to manufacture a "dual purpose" round that would function in both revolvers.


So, it's not just the military letter. Lot's of pieces to this puzzle actually came together with the letter. The pieces all now make sense.

Murph

 

[DWalt]

What brought me to this point was studying the bullet itself. Finding proof that the round was initially introduced by Smith & Wesson as an outside lubricated design like "all" of their revolvers prior to 1887.

Once I found proof from the early Ideal loader that the outside lubricated bullet did exist? I realized that the Colt and Schofield were not compatible.

(Photo 1) Photo of the "EARLY" Ideal field loader supporting an "outside lubricated bullet".

(Photo 2) is the early Arsenal round for the Colt only.

(Photo 3) is the "Dual Purpose round" introduced in late 1874 but likely 1875 considering the work that needed to be done to the Schofield chambers, etc.

(Photo 4) is actually the only known photo (drawing) of the "Early" Civilian Schofield round. Notice the difference between the Civilian round and the "Dual Purpose round"?

In my opinion there is more similarity with the Colt Arsenal round and the dual purpose round.

What strikes me is that the Civilian round looks thinner.....Once I found the Arsenal/Armory letter the pieces came together. "They altered "enlarged" the Schofield Chambers to closely match the Colt". NOT identical but "close enough" to manufacture a "dual purpose" round that would function in both revolvers.


So, it's not just the military letter. Lot's of pieces to this puzzle actually came together with the letter. The pieces all now make sense.

Murph

It might be productive to ask for some information about the possible existance of any earlier civilian outside lubricated bullet version of the .45 Schofield on the IAA website forum. All of the deadly serious ammo scholars in the world (no exaggeration) hang out there. If you can't get an answer there, there is no answer.

BTW, I personally did a search through the IAA Forum, and could find no previous discussions which touched on the existance of an early production .45 S&W/Schofield cartridge, or predecessor of same, which was either civilian or had an outside lubricated bullet. If one exists, it must be very obscure.

 

[BMur]

Commercially Sold Schofields

DWALT,
Thank You kindly for the reference and your participation in the research part of the program.

I actually have documented several Commercially sold Schofields. See photo's below for just a few. The earliest one I documented was shipped to M. Robinson in October of 1876. The latest so far is August of 1877..

I suppose there must have been some cartridge producer making rounds for the "unaltered" Commercially sold Schofields at that early date. The question is who? and what did the cartridge look like...It's a "huge long shot" to find an early round since it is documented that only 685 Schofields were sold to the Commercial trade....That's pretty rare.

Early letters from Smith & Wesson to the Frankford Arsenal confirm that UMC was manufacturing an outside lubricated round. The Army is documented as complaining about this round having the lubricant melt off the bullet. Obviously, they were talking about an "outside lubricated round"...That doesn't happen to inside lubricated rounds. That was during the pistol trials and "prior" to the alteration to adapt both revolvers to the same dual purpose cartridge. They did also document that the round was "very accurate".

So, the existence of an early outside lubricated round is documented but likely "impossible" to find one in decent condition.


Murph

 

[mmaher94087]

I will only guess that the Order to have the chambers modified was an administrative piece of paperwork. In 1874, the Springfield Arsenal bought 8,000 Colts chambered in .45 Colt caliber. Smith & Wesson submitted the Schofield design to the Springfield Arsenal for evaluation (1875). This resulted in the request from the Springfield Armory/Government that the cartridge be the .45 caliber.

Smith & Wesson countered to say the .45 Colt rim was inadequate for positive extraction. S&W offered to redesign the .45 military cartridge to function in both the Colt and Smith & Wesson. This was accepted and 3,000 Schofields were ordered in 1875. 5,000 more were delivered in 1877. Reference: The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, 4thj Edition. Supica / Nahas, 2016.

.45 Smith & Wesson Schofield / .45 Colt Government. Designed for the 1875 Smith & Wesson Schofield. The .45 S&W cartridge became the Government standard for both the S&W and Colt revolvers. "Military packets" were labeled '.45 Revolver'. US Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1795 - 1975, Charles R. Suydam, 1977.

Once again, there is no mention of altering the Schofield cylinder to any other diameter from that which was offered by the factory.

 

[opoefc]

Murph, In compliance with your request above to measure the chambers on a civilian vs. a military, I have asked the top Schofield collector to measure said chambers on Ser.# 6, a civilian Schofield shipped to S&W distributor A.J. Plate, and a military/Wells Fargo , seri. # 16, and provide me the measurements. I'll post the results as soon as I get them, although the S&WCA Symposium may delay that until I return. Ed

 

[BMur]

Measurements

Hi Ed,
Excellent! Thanks kindly!

Murph

 

[BMur]

Case comparison

Here is a good example. If we compare the 45 Colt to the 45 Auto you will note the bullet diameter is .456 for the Colt 45 and .452 for the 45 Auto.
The case diameter of the 45 Colt is .480 and the .45 Auto is .473.
The 45 Auto literally drops into the chamber of the Colt being way undersized.
The exact same thing would have happened to the original Schofield round having an even smaller bullet of .450. It would be way too small for the Colt chamber! And the Colt round would be way to big for the original 45 Schofield. It's simple Math. The 45 Colt would also be way to big for the 45 Auto chamber!

The only way to match them would be to bore out the Schofield chamber to closely mimic the Colt. It's simple math. Since you can't match the bores the solution would be the undersized .450 hollow based bullet and a slightly thicker copper case to take up the gap with the smaller diameter bullet.

You can't get away with not altering the Schofield chamber to manufacture a dual purpose round. Can't be done from my perspective.

An original unaltered Schofield round would not function in the Colt chamber. It would be way too small in diameter.


Murph

 

[BMur]

Antique 45 Colt Cylinder

Here is a photo of an antique 45 Colt cylinder with a 45 Auto case inside one of the chambers...It literally falls into it. I tried every chamber. They are all the same result. Keep in mind that the Colt bullet is only 4 thousandths of an inch different from the 45 Auto. You can also feel how undersized the shell is. It rattles inside the chamber. This would also cause the primer to be out of alignment with the hammer firing pin. Causing an off center strike, even if the case head stopped the shell from falling into the chamber. The round would still rattle around inside the chamber.

The Schofield 45 is documented at .450 which is 6 thousandths different from the Colt. So the original Schofield round would be even worse. They were not compatible without machining.

Murph

 

[opoefc]

Murph, Having spent some time in Army Ordnance myself and have observed 100s of Schofields over 75 yrs of collecting guns, I seldom saw Schofields with their cylinder's serial numbers not matching the frame's number . If the Army really had 1,000s of Schofield cylinders removed to rebore and replaced, there's very little likelyhood that all the cylinders got back in their original frames and you would not see many military Schofields with matching numbers today. Just my opinion. Ed

 

[Giorgio Italy]

Hi all,

I add some meat to the fire, that is, some other document. The letter of August 20, 1874 departed from the Ordnance Office bound for Frankford Arsenal, signed by the Principal Assistant to the Chief of Ordnance, Lieutenant George W. McKee. As reported in the book by C. Kenneth Moore, the sentence concerning the size of the chambers is not there and it seems strange that a precise and fussy historian like C. Kenneth Moore does not report such an important passage, since he does not neglect even apostrophes. I cover it exactly as it is in the book: «I am instructed by the Chief of Ordnance to direct you to stop the manufacture of the Colt's revolver cartridges Cal. 45. The Com'd'g. Officer National Armory will send you a sample cartridge intended for both Colt's and Smith & Wesson's revolvers. When received at your post you will proceed to manufacture one million of them. The special designation of the labels therefore will be determined thereafter.»

But apart from this detail it should be noted that the communication was born from a kilometric letter from George W. Scofield of August 5, 1874 addressed to the Chief of Ordnance. Schofield, in addition to complaining because he had been asked for the change from the .44 caliber to the .45 caliber, went on to criticize the very system of the .45 cartridge supplied for a year, that is, the "Cartridge for Colt's revolver". In this letter from Schofield there is no reference to the bore of the barrels and cylinders of the two arms Colt and Smith & Wesson. Instead, he talks about the length of the cartridge and its rim too small for effective extraction with the Smith & Wesson extractor star. Evidently he could not yet talk about the size of the chambers and barrels since at that time the Smith & Wesson just tested was still in .44 caliber. But he talks about the cartridge.

And he wrote to the Chief of Ordnance:« .. It is found, that even with so long a cylinder it is not necessary to use so long a cartridge as that now issued with the Colt pistol and that a better cartridge even can be made for that pistol and one which can at the same time be ejected by the more approved mode of acting on the heads of rims. Sample of such a cartridge will, I understand, be forwarded to you tomorrow. In a trial today, at the National Armory, in the presence of Col. Benton (Arsenal Commander), better results were obtained from Colt's pistol firing this new cartridge than when firing the regular Colt cartridge.» Then on August 5, 1874, in the presence of the Commander of the Springfield Arsenal, a cartridge designed for a Smith Wesson, still in caliber 44 and therefore not yet built, had been fired on the Colt. So, if on that date there was already a cartridge that worked well on the Colt, how can we think that a few months later a Smith Wesson was born with a chamber not compatible with that cartridge? Here is my question!

C. Kenneth Moore then states that he did not find any other documents in the National Archives concerning this subject until February 1875. On February 18, 1875, the commander of the National Armory, Benton, sent a Colt's Army Revolver and a Schofield Smith & Wesson to Frankford Arsenal and a letter: « .. I also send standard and limit gauges, for the cartridge shell which are adapted for both weapons. no gauges are furnished for the bullet but samples are furnished of the best form of bullet to provide against the front end of bullet projecting beyond the front surface of the cylinder, in case it should be thrown out of shell by recoil of the pistol. This was found to be a likely circumstance where the short S&W cartridge is used in the Colt revolver, and the bullet is not made as blunt as that I furnish you. The condition requiring that the bullet should weigh but 230 grains necessitated deepenning the cavity in the base and you may find it essential to increase the powder charge from 28 to 30 grains in order to fill the space.»

Giorgio

 

[BMur]

Alteration Process?

Murph, Having spent some time in Army Ordnance myself and have observed 100s of Schofields over 75 yrs of collecting guns, I seldom saw Schofields with their cylinder's serial numbers not matching the frame's number . If the Army really had 1,000s of Schofield cylinders removed to rebore and replaced, there's very little likelyhood that all the cylinders got back in their original frames and you would not see many military Schofields with matching numbers today. Just my opinion. Ed

Hi Ed,
Thanks for your input.

I honestly have no idea what the Procedure would have been to increase the chamber on the Schofield to Function using a dual purpose cartridge with the Colt cylinder.

In my opinion dis-assembling say 3000 guns at once has no benefit. Just to have all the cylinders in one basket next to the lathe? In my opinion it would be a big mess. I personally don't see performing the task one at a time as being an issue since removal of the cylinder on the original Schofield is fairly simple.

**** Remember also that when we look to the original Army records they clearly show that the Schofields were not issued in the field until 1876. That's plenty of time to perform any alterations. Also, they didn't issue all 3000 the first year. The records reflect only 859 guns were issued in the field in 1876. The rest of the 3000 guns in the first shipment remained in the Armory. The bulk of the first shipment wasn't issued until 1877....That's plenty of time to perform any alterations required.

After 1877 they basically bird fed the field with lots no bigger than 331 guns per year issued. So nobody was in a hurry back then it seems. The slow paced life of the past. Must have been kinda nice.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Documents/ Letters

Giorgio,
Those are great points you bring up.

Lets try to put things into context first. Authors like myself often edit documents to focus on specific points of interest. Unfortunately, by doing so, you can edit out important points contained within said document.

Keep in mind also that all of these military letters took place basically during the trials. That was "prior" to the bulk orders and shipments of the Schofield revolvers that began in mid 1875. The trials began in early 1874.

So, the alterations were initially to the test guns only. So, it is still possible that Smith & Wesson got involved "prior" to receiving the bulk shipments via request by the Armory to increase the chambers to match or near match the Colts. That is possible.

The reason I don't believe it is simple. If they requested the chambers be increased? Why not change the bores as well to match the Colts? Problem solved. Why not change the chambers "all the way" to match the Colt round?

But.....They didn't... The latest serial number Schofield that I mic'd the bore on is serial number 7718...That's a late second model and it mic's at .449 groove diameter. That's no where near the Colt bore of .454-.456.

So, I'm not a believer. So, we still have to solve the "Chamber issue"...That's the point of this thread...NO WAY the Schofield chamber matched the Colt initially due to the bullet diameter and bore diameter differences between the two guns.

I'm still leaning towards the Armory being "ordered" to change the Chambers to "Closely" match in order to manufacture the "dual purpose round". That is what is documented in the letter.

Remember that this order was given when the Armory still only had the test guns. The bulk shipments came later. They did not receive them all at once. This process was over the span of approximately one year for the first shipment of 3000 guns that ended in June of 1876. My research suggests it started in about July, 1875. I have serial number 1348 and it was shipped on July 12,1875 to the Springfield Armory. So somewhere around that timeframe. Maybe just a little bit earlier.


This information only supports that the guns received were then altered..If they weren't? Why did it take so long for them to be issued. If the first shipment was received in July, 1875? Why didn't they get issued for another 6 months minimal and only 859 guns instead of a much larger number since they had 3000 on hand by June of 1876?


*** So, again, Why would the Armory not issue a brand new model gun for 6 months? Wouldn't you want to try it out in the field? Or,, perhaps it wasn't ready to be issued for some reason??

Murph

 

[DWalt]

From a cartridge collector friend in Buenos Aires (Federico Graziano). This is a dimensioned drawing of an 1878 internal primed .45 S&W cartridge, taken from the Pitman Notes (Brig Gen John T. Pitman Jr. was the superintendent of the Frankford Arsenal in the late 19th Century until 1898 and made personal drawings in his notebooks of everything Frankford produced). It may help a little.

 

[BMur]

Original Drawing

DWALT,

Awesome drawing!
You can see from the information provided by member Patbar and his early cartridge including the measurements of both cartridge and existing chambers? Also the photo that I provided of the dug up round? That this is actually a drawing of the early "dual purpose" round intended to be used in both the Colt and the Schofield.

It really does also prove along with Patbar's measurements that the Schofield chamber was different from the Colts chamber even after the alteration and that the original .480 Colt diameter cartridge will not chamber in the Schofield. Even after it was altered (enlarged) to except this multi-purpose round.

The question still remains. What was the original Schofield chamber specs and what did the original round look like. It wasn't a hollow based bullet as seen in this early 1878 arsenal drawing. It might actually be earlier than that. This might be the arsenals drawing after receiving orders to manufacture the multi-purpose round in 1874/5 timeframe.

Murph

 

[mmaher94087]

Question: Why would the Springfield Armory order 8,000 Schofield revolvers and, upon delivery, have the newly manufactured cylinders reamed to a larger diameter? It would be more cost effective to spec the cylinder dimensions to the revolver manufacturer. I can understand that the first few Trial revolvers might need reaming but to order 8,000 new wrong sized revolvers and then 'fix' them is ridiculous.

Once again, prior to the Armory contract for the Schofield, S&W redesigned the .45 military cartridge to function in both the Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers. This new designed cartridge led to the acceptance of the Schofield revolver.

 

[BMur]

Timeline

Hey Mike,
I actually agree with you on that one. I guess you have to put some time in the Military to really comprehend the concept of SNAFU? I personally think the idea of a "multi-purpose" 45 round could only be made up by the military...It's beyond idiotic. Why not just match the bores to begin with and match the chambers? Wouldn't that be a better idea? but that's not what happened. That much is proven.

It's documented:
"The report to the board, submitted with the recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance that 3,000 Schofield's be purchased, was approved by the Secretary of War on July 3, 1874."

So the actual order for the guns was placed after that approval. By factory letter on my early Model 1 Schofield? Serial number 1348 was shipped on July 12, 1875.

When we refer to the letter that I posted? That actually dates to February 24, 1875 that refers to the chambers having : Quote: "A decided difference in diameter"

The August 20, 1874 letter was only to suspend making Colt Cartridges. That only began the process to manufacture a cartridge that would fit and function in both revolvers. For some reason they waited until February of the next year to figure out that the chambers were actually "Decidedly different between the two guns!

Its laughable really but it is what it was. Smith & Wesson I'm sure was already cranking out the Schofield's by this time so altering the chambers was no longer an option. If the timeline is correct.

When you think about it? It must be correct because if they actually had a brain? They would have matched the Colt and the Smith & Wesson "before" they ordered the guns! At least match the bores! but they DID NOT. That's a no brainer from my end.

*** So, if this was actually done right? The Colt's 45 and the Smith & Wesson 45 Schofield would have had matching bores and chambers and would have chambered the same round. NOT an arsenal modified round with a hollow based bullet and the requirement to alter the Schofield upon receipt.

One last comment on the "multi-purpose round"? It's actually just "barely" within tolerance for the Colt chamber. It's definitely sloppy in that .484 chamber. So the Army gets an F' on this one.


Murph

 

[Giorgio Italy]

Hi,
Of course, always in defense of my theory about the absence of post-factory modifications, (excluding those on ammunition) I would like to quote another letter from the National Armory. It concerns delays in shipments of the Factory that would not be due to the completion of work on weapons but to heavy previous commitments of the Company. And in this sense it is interesting to read Benton's answer to Benet, who on August 2, 1875 asked the reason for these slownesses. On August 4, the Com. of the National Armory wrote to the Chief of Ordanance: « Mr. Wesson informs me that his acceptance of the order 15th of march '75 for 3000 revolvers was contingent on his first finishing 40,000 revolvers for the Russian Government at the rate of 150 per day, the full capacity of his factory. In conformation of this he has furnished me with a copy of his letter to the Dept. of march 17 which is herewith enclosed. The capacity of his factory & his obligation to the Russian Govt. under his contract will not therefore permit him to make any deliveries to the Ord. Dept. sooner than six months, a fact which he exceedingly regrets but is powerless to change.»

With reference to shipments from the factory, I would also add that the certificate of inspection was drawn up by the government inspector before the weapons were inserted into the wooden crates, after checking the dimensions.
Giorgio

 

[BMur]

Review

Giorgio,
That's amazing information. Thanks for posting.

I think we have enough information though to confirm that the Schofields were actually altered upon receipt to except the "Modified Dual purpose cartridge" manufactured by the Arsenal.

Lets review:

See photo's of The Schofield 45 cartridge specs and the Colt 45 cartridge Specs. Granted these are modern drawings so I'm personally still not convinced that the early Schofield round wasn't actually a bit smaller in case dimensions.

However, we can confirm several points here.

First: The Schofield 45 and the Colt 45 "ARE NOT" compatible. NOR will the Colt round chamber in the Schofield...NOT due to length as what is commonly claimed....It's Diameter that prevents the round from going in. So this fantasy about ejection issues and case length is just that...A fantasy. "NOT APPICABLE"!


Second: When we look closely at the drawings of both cartridges we will confirm without question that both cases are straight length cases. NO TAPER, NO Bottleneck.

Third: All revolver straight cases in order to chamber require a standard clearance of 4 thousandths to chamber reliably. That is common knowledge. Example: A 38 special case is .375 and the chamber is .379...The 45 Colt is .480 and the chamber is .484. etc

Fourth: Now lets take another close look at the "Modified Dual purpose 45 Round"....Look at the excellent drawing that DWALT provided? Notice that the round is NOT a straight case round. It is a "Tapered Round" The base diameter is .478 and the mouth is .475...That is a tapered case. In order for it to chamber in the Schofield chamber? You must have no less than 4 Thousandths clearance. So, the mouth of the chamber "MUST" measure .482 and the area surrounding the mouth of the case must then measure .479.

That requires a Tapered Chamber. Which is "EXACTLY" what is stated in the letter that I provided.

Tapering the chamber to closely match the "Dual purpose cartridge".


The Colt would not require alteration since the chamber already measures .484 but again, performance in the Colt would be "marginal" at best. The modified 45 round having a .475 case mouth and the Colt having a .484 chamber? Plus the case length of the modified 45 round is significantly shorter than the original Colt 45 round so a lot of "slop" in that chamber for sure.


Murph