Pathfinder45
New member
It's OK; we knew what you meant. It's not like it was load data....
.45 Scholfield in .45Colt
- Thread starter Tinbucket
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
I've mentioned this before.
Here's what I know of how this all played out.
When S&W was asked to submit its No 3 Model to the Gov to be tested along side the Colt 1873, the Gov. originally wanted it chambered in .45 Long Colt.
S&W said no, as they didn't want to redesign the gun and really had no ability to stop production and retool because they were working at near capacity making guns for Russia.
So, S&W designed the new round, the .45 Schofield, which had the same nominal bullet dimensions as the .45 LC, but was different in several critical areas:
1. The case was shorter. This allowed it to fit into the S&W's shorter cylinder and allowed the case to be full ejected by the break-top's mechanism.
2. The bullet was slightly lighter.
3. The powder charge was, due to the shorter case, lighter.
4. The rim was larger in diameter than the .45 LC's rim so that it could engage the automatic ejector mechanism.
Because Smith & Wesson was essentially proposing a new, non-standard cartridge to the government with its No 3 model, it also had to provide sufficient cartridges for testing the new gun since the .45 LC couldn't be used.
This is where things get a little confusing as to the "Schofield cartridge won't fit in the Colt because of the rim..."
Because S&W designed a new cartridge that was never intended to be used in the Colt, it didn't take rim diameter into consideration.
I've never seen any of the original batch of cartridges that S&W supplied to the government (chances are none exist), but I've seen several indications over the years that the round (apparently designed in conjunction with US Cartridge Company and manufactured there) had a rim that was SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the .45 LC's, and which was larger than today's Schofield rim.
That was to ensure that the round functioned perfectly with the S&W ejector.
It was later, in 1875, that Frankford Arsenal reduced rim diameter to a point that more closely matches today's dimensions, making it usable in both the Colt and Schofield revolvers.
Here's what I know of how this all played out.
When S&W was asked to submit its No 3 Model to the Gov to be tested along side the Colt 1873, the Gov. originally wanted it chambered in .45 Long Colt.
S&W said no, as they didn't want to redesign the gun and really had no ability to stop production and retool because they were working at near capacity making guns for Russia.
So, S&W designed the new round, the .45 Schofield, which had the same nominal bullet dimensions as the .45 LC, but was different in several critical areas:
1. The case was shorter. This allowed it to fit into the S&W's shorter cylinder and allowed the case to be full ejected by the break-top's mechanism.
2. The bullet was slightly lighter.
3. The powder charge was, due to the shorter case, lighter.
4. The rim was larger in diameter than the .45 LC's rim so that it could engage the automatic ejector mechanism.
Because Smith & Wesson was essentially proposing a new, non-standard cartridge to the government with its No 3 model, it also had to provide sufficient cartridges for testing the new gun since the .45 LC couldn't be used.
This is where things get a little confusing as to the "Schofield cartridge won't fit in the Colt because of the rim..."
Because S&W designed a new cartridge that was never intended to be used in the Colt, it didn't take rim diameter into consideration.
I've never seen any of the original batch of cartridges that S&W supplied to the government (chances are none exist), but I've seen several indications over the years that the round (apparently designed in conjunction with US Cartridge Company and manufactured there) had a rim that was SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the .45 LC's, and which was larger than today's Schofield rim.
That was to ensure that the round functioned perfectly with the S&W ejector.
It was later, in 1875, that Frankford Arsenal reduced rim diameter to a point that more closely matches today's dimensions, making it usable in both the Colt and Schofield revolvers.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
One point that Driftwood didn't mention, although it can be inferred from all the discussions about rim diameter: To reload .45 Schofield, you need a different shell holder or shell plate for your press. I discovered this to my dismay when I set out to start loading some .45 Schofield brass I bought from Starline. The one that's needed is #14 from Lee, and it isn't included in any of their standard sets of shell holders. I had to buy it separately.
And, being disorganized, it didn't occur to me that I also needed a #14 shell holder for my Lee hand-held primer tool ... which reminds me that I need to call them and order that.
And, being disorganized, it didn't occur to me that I also needed a #14 shell holder for my Lee hand-held primer tool ... which reminds me that I need to call them and order that.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
I suspect this quote may be every so slightly incorrect. The first cartridge revolver the US govt tested and bought was what we call today the S&W American Model. This was a large frame Top Break revolver, chambered for the 44 S&W cartridge. Not the 44 Russian, the 44 S&W used a heeled bullet, that is to say the outside diameter of the bullet was the same as the OD of the case. The Army purchased 800 Blue and 200 Nickel plated revolvers, in I believe 1871. This was before any Colt Single Action Armies were purchased.
American Model
As early as 1871 George Schofield was working on improvements to the American model, mostly redesigning the barrel latch to be frame mounted rather than barrel mounted as it had been on the American model. He wanted a mounted soldier to be able to open the revolver with one hand to reload while riding. This can be done by opening the latch with the thumb and brushing the barrel against the leg to shove it open. I'm not much of a horseman, but I can do it while sitting in a chair. Schofield was a military man, not an employee of S&W. He took out patents on his improved latch and S&W had to pay him royalties. Crafty old New Englander that Daniel Wesson was, he set his engineers to work to find a way around Schofield's patents. S&W never produced enough Schofield models to patent their own latch.
Schofield Model
I do not believe the Govt approached S&W to test the Schofield, I believe it was the other way around. Although S&W was up to their ears producing the Russian model, they did not want to be left out of all the lucrative govt contracts.
Yes, it is true that the govt wanted a 45, not 44 caliber revolver, which was not a problem, and it was also true that S&W did not want to come up with new tooling for a revolver long enough to shoot the 45 Colt cartridge. That is why the 45 Schofield cartridge was shorter. S&W only sold about 3,000 1st Model Schofields and about 6,000 2nd models to the Army. Then they turned their attention back to the lucrative Russian models, eventually selling about 150,000 to the Russians, Turks, and Japanese.
Later, S&W realized their error in not lengthening the cylinder and frame for a longer cartridge. The New Model #3, in addition to having a 1 7/16" cylinder chambered for 44 Russian and a bunch of other cartridges, also had a version with a 1 9/16" cylinder, and a slightly longer frame, to accommodate 44-40 and 38-40. the 44-40 model was called the New Model Number Three Frontier and only 2072 were made. The 38-40 version is very rare, only 74 were made.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Yup. But I knew that before I started loading 45 Schofield.
I have a shell plate for my Hornady press specific to 45 Schofield. I can't fit 45 Schofield in a 45 Colt shell plate.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I suspect this quote may be every so slightly incorrect."
No, it's really not. Because S&W would have to be asked to submit, or be given formal permission to submit, revolvers for widescale testing.
Remember, the original revolvers that Schofield was working with (originally on his own, and later quasi-officially with S&W) were chambered in .44 American, and the ones that were submitted to the government for preliminary testing, or proof of concept, were apparently a combination of .44 American and .44 Russian.
Once those handguns proved the concept to the government, Smith & Wesson was asked to submit additional versions chambered in .45 Long Colt for widescale testing.
That's when S&W demured on the caliber.
Jinks and Nahaus say that at that point S&W offered to redesign the military cartridge to a form usable in both the S&W and the Colt. I've seen claims that say that the original batch of cartridges S&W submitted with their .45 revolvers would NOT work in the Peacemaker because of the rim dimensions and it was Frankford Arsenal that redesigned the cartridge so that it would work in both guns, leading to the M1875 cartridge.
No, it's really not. Because S&W would have to be asked to submit, or be given formal permission to submit, revolvers for widescale testing.
Remember, the original revolvers that Schofield was working with (originally on his own, and later quasi-officially with S&W) were chambered in .44 American, and the ones that were submitted to the government for preliminary testing, or proof of concept, were apparently a combination of .44 American and .44 Russian.
Once those handguns proved the concept to the government, Smith & Wesson was asked to submit additional versions chambered in .45 Long Colt for widescale testing.
That's when S&W demured on the caliber.
Jinks and Nahaus say that at that point S&W offered to redesign the military cartridge to a form usable in both the S&W and the Colt. I've seen claims that say that the original batch of cartridges S&W submitted with their .45 revolvers would NOT work in the Peacemaker because of the rim dimensions and it was Frankford Arsenal that redesigned the cartridge so that it would work in both guns, leading to the M1875 cartridge.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Later, S&W realized their error in not lengthening the cylinder and frame for a longer cartridge."
There was no such error on S&W's part.
They modified their guns when they could logically do so.
Which would make greater sense?
STOP production on the massive Russian orders, very possibly pissing off your best customer, one that's paying you in GOLD, so that you can redesign your gun and retool just to meet a request from the US government, which MIGHT be interested in placing orders for revolvers at some point in the future?
Or keep your best purchaser happy by telling the tentative customer who might, possibly, someday, be sort of interested in buying a few thousand of your guns (the Russians ordered more guns than there were men in the entire US Army at the time) and MIGHT pay when all of the guns are delivered... in paper drafts.
Smith & Wesson didn't make a mistake in taking their time to lengthen the frame to accommodate longer cartridges. They made a very logical, ordered decision. Because when they finally retooled, the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese contracts had been fulfilled, and they were no longer struggling to meet all of the orders that they were receiving.
There was no such error on S&W's part.
They modified their guns when they could logically do so.
Which would make greater sense?
STOP production on the massive Russian orders, very possibly pissing off your best customer, one that's paying you in GOLD, so that you can redesign your gun and retool just to meet a request from the US government, which MIGHT be interested in placing orders for revolvers at some point in the future?
Or keep your best purchaser happy by telling the tentative customer who might, possibly, someday, be sort of interested in buying a few thousand of your guns (the Russians ordered more guns than there were men in the entire US Army at the time) and MIGHT pay when all of the guns are delivered... in paper drafts.
Smith & Wesson didn't make a mistake in taking their time to lengthen the frame to accommodate longer cartridges. They made a very logical, ordered decision. Because when they finally retooled, the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese contracts had been fulfilled, and they were no longer struggling to meet all of the orders that they were receiving.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Thank you for setting me straight on some details that I had wrong.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Some of what I've said is a bit of supposition based on how similar scenarios worked out (Remington-Keene and Winchester-Hotchkiss rifle trials), and some of it is logical inference based on known facts.
But, I feel strongly that the scenarios I've posited are largely, if not completely, correct.
But, I feel strongly that the scenarios I've posited are largely, if not completely, correct.
best customer? Of the moment, perhaps. But not really a trusted customer, as the only way S&W would deal with the Russians was payment in gold, in ADVANCE.
Perhaps it was not a "smart" decision on the part of S&W, refusing to disrupt production, in order to modify their gun, at that time, but it certainly was one of S&W's better business decisions to require the Russians to pay, up front, in gold.
I don't think it was especially "smart" of S&W to get advance payment in gold; the Russian ruble was not then, and is not now, a fungible currency - in other words, outside Russia or its close allies, no one wants that money since the recipient can't do anything with it, except buy from Russia or their allies.
It would have been no simple fix to make an S&W revolver work with a .45 Colt cartridge; both the cylinder and the extractor "throw" would have to have been redesigned, which effectively meant a basic redesign of the whole gun, raising the cost as well as increasing the design time. It is obvious that having two .45 revolvers in service would be a problem, which is why Frankford Arsenal (the Army's ONLY source of ammunition at the time) stopped production of the .45 Colt and from 1875 on made and issued ONLY the short "Schofield" round, with a rim made small enough to allow it to be used in the Colt revolver. So the Army did not know two .45 cartridges;; it knew only one, the Model 1875 revolver cartridge.*
As an aside, and FWIW, there were two Schofields, John McAllister Schofield, who was a Civil War general, later Chief of Staff, and an early proponent of establishing a U.S. base in Hawaii. Schofield Barracks is named for him. His two-year younger brother, George Wheeler Schofield, was a Brevet (temporary) Major General during the CW, but with the coming of peace reverted to his permanent rank of Captain, though he later became a Major. He, not his better-known brother, was the designer of the S&W Schofield revolver.
Nevertheless, George was a highly respected (and connected) officer, and it seems likely that S&W felt working with him would ultimately be to their advantage.
Jim
*The ..45 revolver cartridge, Model 1909, was a .45 Colt with a larger rim, but it has no bearing on this discussion since by 1909 both the SAA Colt and the S&W Schofield were obsolete and long out of service.
JK
It would have been no simple fix to make an S&W revolver work with a .45 Colt cartridge; both the cylinder and the extractor "throw" would have to have been redesigned, which effectively meant a basic redesign of the whole gun, raising the cost as well as increasing the design time. It is obvious that having two .45 revolvers in service would be a problem, which is why Frankford Arsenal (the Army's ONLY source of ammunition at the time) stopped production of the .45 Colt and from 1875 on made and issued ONLY the short "Schofield" round, with a rim made small enough to allow it to be used in the Colt revolver. So the Army did not know two .45 cartridges;; it knew only one, the Model 1875 revolver cartridge.*
As an aside, and FWIW, there were two Schofields, John McAllister Schofield, who was a Civil War general, later Chief of Staff, and an early proponent of establishing a U.S. base in Hawaii. Schofield Barracks is named for him. His two-year younger brother, George Wheeler Schofield, was a Brevet (temporary) Major General during the CW, but with the coming of peace reverted to his permanent rank of Captain, though he later became a Major. He, not his better-known brother, was the designer of the S&W Schofield revolver.
Nevertheless, George was a highly respected (and connected) officer, and it seems likely that S&W felt working with him would ultimately be to their advantage.
Jim
*The ..45 revolver cartridge, Model 1909, was a .45 Colt with a larger rim, but it has no bearing on this discussion since by 1909 both the SAA Colt and the S&W Schofield were obsolete and long out of service.
JK
Mike Irwin
Staff
"best customer? Of the moment, perhaps. But not really a trusted customer, as the only way S&W would deal with the Russians was payment in gold, in ADVANCE."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Fact...
It took the US Government nearly 20 years to purchase roughly 30,000 Model 1873 revolvers.
The Russian government purchased nearly 5 times that number in less than 10 years.
As for purchase arrangements, you make it sounds as if S&W requiring advance payment (as opposed to waiting an interminable amount of time for the US Goverment to eventually get around to paying) was some sort of horrifically evil cabal.
And that Russia was even more evil agreeing to it.
Fact: Your best customer is the one who pays you promptly for the quantity of goods ordered.
Fact: Your best customer orders large amounts of your product.
In both fact cases noted above, the Russian government was a FAR better customer than the US Army could have ever hoped to be.
So, once again, what are you trying to say, because I can't figure it out.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Fact...
It took the US Government nearly 20 years to purchase roughly 30,000 Model 1873 revolvers.
The Russian government purchased nearly 5 times that number in less than 10 years.
As for purchase arrangements, you make it sounds as if S&W requiring advance payment (as opposed to waiting an interminable amount of time for the US Goverment to eventually get around to paying) was some sort of horrifically evil cabal.
And that Russia was even more evil agreeing to it.
Fact: Your best customer is the one who pays you promptly for the quantity of goods ordered.
Fact: Your best customer orders large amounts of your product.
In both fact cases noted above, the Russian government was a FAR better customer than the US Army could have ever hoped to be.
So, once again, what are you trying to say, because I can't figure it out.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I don't think it was especially "smart" of S&W to get advance payment in gold; the Russian ruble was not then, and is not now, a fungible currency - in other words, outside Russia or its close allies, no one wants that money since the recipient can't do anything with it, except buy from Russia or their allies."
OK, additional fact time.
Gold was the standard currency of international trade.
When Remington supplied rifles to Egypt, payment was in gold.
When Smith & Wesson supplied revolvers to Japan, payment was in gold.
Virtually all international trade was conducted by transferring gold in one of two ways:
1. Actual bullion. Given that the price of gold was extremely stable internationally, it wasn't uncommon for transfers of actual gold to be made. In large part, this is what Russia did, sending gold on Russian ships to Boston to be delivered to S&W's agents.
2. International Gold Certificates. These were essentially the bearer bonds of the time for international trade.
OK, additional fact time.
Gold was the standard currency of international trade.
When Remington supplied rifles to Egypt, payment was in gold.
When Smith & Wesson supplied revolvers to Japan, payment was in gold.
Virtually all international trade was conducted by transferring gold in one of two ways:
1. Actual bullion. Given that the price of gold was extremely stable internationally, it wasn't uncommon for transfers of actual gold to be made. In large part, this is what Russia did, sending gold on Russian ships to Boston to be delivered to S&W's agents.
2. International Gold Certificates. These were essentially the bearer bonds of the time for international trade.
IIRC, that actual transfer of gold still takes place, though it is commonly done today by moving gold bars from a section in an NY bank vault marked, say, "France" to a section marked, say, "Canada." That type of actual gold transfer is done periodically (not every time a Quebecois buys a bottle of French wine) on the order of the paying country to "balance things."
So "outflow of gold" is not just a catch phrase used by politicians or a shuffling of paper, it is a real movement of real gold bullion.
Jim
So "outflow of gold" is not just a catch phrase used by politicians or a shuffling of paper, it is a real movement of real gold bullion.
Jim
After doing a bit of checking, it seems that several US gunmakers adopted a "cash up front, gold preferred" attitude when dealing with certain foreign governments, in those days. Gold on the counter, we make you guns.
Gold (or cash) in a US bank, under the name of the gunmaker, with the provision the funds were only released on delivery was also acceptable. Gold/cash in a foreign bank with a promise of eventual payment, was not acceptable. And, they had good reason for being that way.
Czarist Russia was not considered a good risk, due to their history of late, partial, and sometimes non-existent payments.
Merwin & Hulbert learned the hard way.
Gold (or cash) in a US bank, under the name of the gunmaker, with the provision the funds were only released on delivery was also acceptable. Gold/cash in a foreign bank with a promise of eventual payment, was not acceptable. And, they had good reason for being that way.
Czarist Russia was not considered a good risk, due to their history of late, partial, and sometimes non-existent payments.
Merwin & Hulbert learned the hard way.
Mike Irwin
Staff
It wasn't a submarine...
According to this article from American Rifleman, H&A badly underbid the contract, failing to take into account price spikes for the materials needed to build the rifles.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...model-1889-mauser-the-rifle-that-saved-paris/
I didn't realize that the Belgians attempted to reform their army while in exile.
According to this article from American Rifleman, H&A badly underbid the contract, failing to take into account price spikes for the materials needed to build the rifles.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...model-1889-mauser-the-rifle-that-saved-paris/
I didn't realize that the Belgians attempted to reform their army while in exile.
H&A did underbid, but a couple of years ago Dutch divers explored a sunken ship off the coast of Holland. It was full of H&A rifles which never got to the Belgians. Other evidence indicated that it had been sunk by a German submarine.
The rifles were junk after almost 100 years under water, but IIRC they did bring a few up and one is in the army museum in Brussels.
Jim
The rifles were junk after almost 100 years under water, but IIRC they did bring a few up and one is in the army museum in Brussels.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
I have no doubt that a ship loaded with H&A made rifles was sunk by a German submarine.
I just don't think that the facts support the theory that H&A went bust because a shipload of rifles was sunk. They had gotten paid in advance for the rifles, but underbidding the contract put so much financial stress on the company that it was doomed.
I just don't think that the facts support the theory that H&A went bust because a shipload of rifles was sunk. They had gotten paid in advance for the rifles, but underbidding the contract put so much financial stress on the company that it was doomed.