US ARMY 45 SCHOFIELD “BRIDGEPORT RIG”

[BMur]

I'm spending a lot of my spare time reading endless Military records and found something I didn't know.

In 1882 the US Army purchased several hundred listed in lots of 50, Bridgeport Rigs. They were tested and distributed from the San Antonio Arsenal in Texas. I can confirm over 300 from the records but some researchers claim up to 500!
That Arsenal was designed for both storage and distribution to the Western Frontier.

I've never seen a US issue Schofield 45 with a Bridgeport Rig but issuance to the Arsenal for storage was definite. So it's not a stretch to include the 45 Schofield supporting a Bridgeport Rig and being part of that initial test in the 1882 timeframe.

I haven't seen a follow up report yet but I'm still reading.

Murph

 

[Schof45]

Murph,
Interesting theory but I doubt it. Mostly because I have never heard or seen a Schofield with a Bridgeport but also the timing does not work so well. With patent date January 17, 1882 the U.S. Army was starting to phase out the Schofields around that time and I don't believe it would make sense to include Schofields in a trial.
Based on my information 500 Bridgeport units were manufactured for a U.S. Army trial issue and were attached to Model 1974 sable belts at the Rock Island Arsenal. The Army determined that it was not suitable for issue and sold the remaining devices as surplus. A smaller number of the Bridgeport rigs were manufactured for the civilian market where it enjoyed limited success among those on the Western frontier.
I have in my collection a S&W .44 DA Frontier (pictured below) with an original Bridgeport rig stud and the accompanying Bridgeport rig plate is a reproduction. This DA shipped from the S&W factory in October 1894.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/member...ort-picture29374-bridgeort-patent-picture.png
http://smith-wessonforum.com/members/schof45-albums-da-with-bridgeport-picture29377-side-left.png
http://smith-wessonforum.com/member...dgeport-picture29376-bridgeport-sideplate.png

 

[BMur]

Military Records

Thank You Petter for that input.

I have located more information from the Military records;

There is nothing in the records that I CAN FIND that mentions RIA involvement in the purchase of the BRIDGEPORT RIGS.

Captain Flatan of Camp County Texas wrote to the War Department in March of 1882 with support from Senators and Congressmen in Texas and convinced the Sec. of War to purchase 500 of the rigs listed as for belt, clothing ,or saddle use with either revolver or carbine.

An order was placed for 500 units on July 31, 1882 directly from Hartley and Graham.
The 500 units were delivered on June 26,1883 and ALL were delivered to the San Antonio Arsenal in Texas.

The records go further as to their issuance;

50 issued to the 16th infantry
50 to the 19th infantry
200 to the 8th Cavalry
200 to the 10th Cavalry

No criticism is recorded from the Ordnance Dept

Only one letter was found from the Cavalry:

Capt. Gunther in a letter dated November 1883 states:

"I consider the carrier inferior for Cavalry use"

Notes;
Revolver is exposed to weather
No security from accidental discharge
The revolver requires constant watching during the days ride to prevent accidental loss.

No negative reports found from infantry officers in the records.

VERY INTERESTING RESEARCH,

SO now it's all about the infantry and cavalry listed in the records.

Question: Were they issued Schofield revolvers?

I have already documented Military records as to Schofield issuance. I just don't have those notes with me right now and the weather at my mountain property isn't good so it will be a little while before I can follow up.

The only issue I can see here is the knob that fastens to the revolver. I'm about 99% sure the Schofield and Colt hammer threads are different. So the order placed with Hartley and Graham would have to be specific to gun type I would think.

Murph

 

[BMur]

9th & 10th Cavalry

I found some of my scratch notes for the Schofield and both the 9th and 10th Cavalry were issued Schofield revolvers!

Murph

 

[Schof45]

Hi Murph,

You have done some great research, thank you for sharing it.

Could you please share links or post copies of the documents you are referring to. There is little info on the Bridgeport out there and it would be great to add what you fund to my file.

I don't think that any possible Schofield and Colt hammer threads differences matters as the stud is connected to the sideplate, at least on my .44 DA it is.

Petter

 

[BMur]

Bridgeport Rig

Thanks Petter,

Nice Antique DA Smith & Wesson revolver.

Many researchers get frustrated during long hours and tend to bridge gaps with speculation. I refuse to do that. I simply stop the research and go on to another subject that is more active. In other words more information is easily found to document.

What generally happens is down the road you run into or pick up the trail because you stumble onto more documents. That's what keeps it fun for me. I refuse to get stuck in a rut and fabricate bogus info. That's when some collectors go ballistic and things get ugly. I'm only following period documents. Doing so will often refute some previous research.

The first authentic photo you can see this law enforcement officer has a Smith & Wesson hand ejector of later vintage. Likely a 38 special post 1905. So the rig was actually used for many years after 1882. The truth without speculation is simply that not many survived. Likely tossed out by someone who had NO CLUE WHAT IT WAS!

Second photo depicts twin rigs with different revolvers. One is a Colt SAA and the other is a large frame Bulldog. This simply provides proof that multiple gun types were used with this rig.

Third photo is very important because it's very detailed in its description of who was fabricating and selling this rig AFTER 1883.
THE BRIDGEPORT GUN IMPLEMENTS CO. Hence the name BRIDGEPORT RIG.

Notice also the bottom line where they require the make and model of your firearm so they can fabricate the button to fit!

Ads like this are seen up to the late 1890's in Distributor catalogs so the rig definitely sold and folk's definitely customized their individual carry style.

Final photo is listed as a U.S. Army issued Rig.

Murph

 

[Schof45]

The book "Packing Iron" has more information on the 3 photos but the add is not in the book.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


The Colt SAA 1873 is better suited to this kind of test. The ham-
mer screw on the Colt is nearly 1/4" in diameter and quite
strong. There isn't a comparable screw on the Smith & Wesson
and the ones in the side plate are very small (about .105" in
diameter).

A screw of .105" diameter will have only a fraction of the
sheer and tensile strength of the Colt .225" hammer screw.
This explains why Schof45's .44 DA has the special stud
threaded to the side plate where the stress can be shared
between all side plate screws. This is not easily undone ex-
cept to replace the side plate itself.

Replacing the Colt SAA hammer screw for the Bridgeport
stud is nearly trivial and switching back is just as easy.

Considering the costs of modifying the S&W initially and the
additional cost of converting it back, I could see restricting
the testing to Colt SAA's only.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Authentic vs Reproduction

It really is impossible to authenticate any examples without rock solid provenance.

Extremely easy to discount just about any example as a later fabricated reproduction. Even the confirmed reproductions sell for a lot.

Examining them up close and in hand I would recommend focusing on the patent stamp. Period stamps are not easily reproduced.

It's also very likely that the rig saw improvements over the years like any product early variations tend to have weaknesses to the design.

I suspect the clip and base was improved with better quality metals. The earlier rigs seem to have a tapered opening vs later clips having an even slit.

The early ad I posted confirms a bronze metal used. That too was likely only on early production pieces.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Timeline

I found a better example of the U.S Army belt with Bridgeport Rig. This example matches the one photo'd in the book packing iron to every detail.
A close up of this one reveals the name of the Arsenal on the leather belt. Makes perfect sense also.
The WATERVLIET ARSENAL is located in New York off the Hudson River.
Military records confirm the 500 were ordered through Hartley & Graham Distributor also in New York. They were agents for the BGI Co.
So Rock Island Arsenal is a stretch since they are located in Illinois and the belts are clearly stamped WATERVLIET ARSENAL.

The 10th Cavalry was definitely issued Schofield revolvers so my theory is supported by military records and documents from that period.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Hammer Stud

Oh,
I forgot.
The idea that the knob can't be installed on the Schofield without significant modifications?

For the layman collector this might seem apparent.
However, for a machinist it's a simple task.
See attached price list.

The Schofield hammer stud at that time cost 9 cents. So providing a modified replacement would not cost much. Nor would it be a huge project.
A machinist would simply modify a hammer stud to except a longer and likely larger diameter screw. (The knob)

The procedure to replace the hammer screw on a Colt is NOT exactly simple either. The kits would have been installed by the Arsenal machinist on the various revolvers used for the trial.

So the reality is the kits were manufactured by a machinist and installed by a machinist. No collectors were involved with the process. To me it's simple. To put them back to their original configuration would also be simple. The early ad I posted only requests the buyer provide the caliber, make and model so the machinist could fabricate the knob for your specific gun. I have also seen these devices on small frame bulldogs.

Also, with an open mind, I have never seen a 45 U.S. Army issue with the Bridgeport rig attached either. So they were likely removed after the test period was over and the gun put back to its original configuration.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Additional example

Here is an additional example.
If you look closely the machinist decided to use the upper rear side plate screw boss to install the custom knob on this gorgeous Merwin & Hulbert pocket Army. Those of us who have handled the Pocket Army have a clear understanding of how heavy they are. Even heavier than the Schofield revolver.

This example proves the modification can both easily be put back to original configuration and be strong enough to support a very heavy revolver using a smaller threaded frame screw as the base mount.

The Schofield revolver could have also been modified like this pocket Army to support the Bridgeport Rig during the trials.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Oh,
I forgot.
The idea that the knob can't be installed on the Schofield without significant modifications?

For the layman collector this might seem apparent.
However, for a machinist it's a simple task.
See attached price list.

The Schofield hammer stud at that time cost 9 cents. So providing a modified replacement would not cost much. Nor would it be a huge project.
A machinist would simply modify a hammer stud to except a longer and likely larger diameter screw. (The knob)

The procedure to replace the hammer screw on a Colt is NOT exactly simple either. The kits would have been installed by the Arsenal machinist on the various revolvers used for the trial.

So the reality is the kits were manufactured by a machinist and installed by a machinist. No collectors were involved with the process. To me it's simple. To put them back to their original configuration would also be simple. The early ad I posted only requests the buyer provide the caliber, make and model so the machinist could fabricate the knob for your specific gun. I have also seen these devices on small frame bulldogs.

Also, with an open mind, I have never seen a 45 U.S. Army issue with the Bridgeport rig attached either. So they were likely removed after the test period was over and the gun put back to its original configuration.

Murph

What this shows is a lack of understanding of how the parts
relate to each other. First off, on the Schofield the hammer
stud has to be installed before the hammer and side plate
are installed but this isn't possible with the Bridgeport stud.
It needs to be attached after the side plate and hammer are
installed. Therefore, just replacing the hammer stud will not
work. It will require additional modifications and parts to make
it work and be strong enough.

I agree the price of a replacement side plate is cheep enough
(even by 1880's standards) and would not be a deterrent but
the modifications needed to the side plate and other parts will
be decidedly more expensive.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you say "No collectors were
involved with the process." I'm sure no collectors were involved
with this process. Why would there be?

I'm also confused why you say "I have also seen these devices
on small frame bulldogs." I don't see how this furthers your
argument.

Lastly, you admit you haven't seen a period 45 with a Govern-
ment issued Bridgeport rig and I think that speaks volumes.
This puts the burden on you to prove your assertions.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Patent Stamp

All things considered I think focusing on the die stamps would be the best way to confirm an authentic rig.

Murph