Problems with Schofield.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foto Joe i have a question for ya and this also goes out to anyone else who has had schofield problems. When you recieved your schofield and it was broken what color were the grips? Were they light colored wood or dark colored wood? I bought 2 schofields, the dark wood one worked great but the light wood one was broke, i returned it and recieved another one broken and it also had light wood grips. Then i recieved my 3rd one and it has dark wood grips, i inspected every inch of it to make sure there were no flaws and even had the gunsmith test fire it. It seems to work great, im still waiting to shoot it because we have a waiting period up here for handguns. My hunch is that ones with light wood are of lower quality compared to the dark wood ones. I know you could probably tell this alot easier with serial #'s but like a fool i didnt write down my last 2 serial #'s on my broken firearms that they sent me. Were any of your schofields that you recieved broken have light wood grips on them? Like i said its just a hunch. I really like hearing yall conversing about these schofields and the ammo to use with them. I sure learn alot even with the side conversations.:D
 
Is this what you mean by dark grips? Though I no longer own it, mine was perfect with no problems (except for shooting black power). Serial range was in the four digits.

dfw2ki.jpg
 
SAA Gunslinger,

All of mine had dark wood grips including the Russian.

Interestingly enough, I went to a gun show yesterday (very small but a good showing of 19th Century arms) and came across an original Schofield. I once knew what it was but have forgotten. It had a Russian style release on it but was chambered in 44-40 and had a different trigger guard than a Russian. The trigger guard was huge by comparison to what we normally associate with a Schofield. Since my memorie isn't working on who S&W made these for, maybe somebody subscribed to this thread can remember. I didn't get a chance to fondle it so I can't say about any markings, I don't think the Wells Fargo models had any differences other than a stamping, but I could be wrong.

What caught my eye most was the blast ring on the cylinder, the thing was at least a quarter of inch long!! If only our Italian friends had thought to duplicate "that" part of the gun, they'd sell a lot more of them.
 
I realize that Wells Fargo Schofields have a bad rap brought about by unscrupulous people. I don't think this one was a WF though. I seem to remember something about those extra large trigger guard models being made for a foreign country other than Russia.

Unfortunately, I've got too much "Cliff Claven" trivia in my brain and some of the important stuff gets bumped out of the way to make room once in a while.
 
Correct me if im wrong but i thought most wells fargo schofields were 5inch barrels, they were cut down after being released from the army. Wouldnt a wells fargo model have US military markings, Serial #'s and 5inch barrel?
 
SAA GunSlinger said:
Correct me if im wrong but i thought most wells fargo schofields were 5inch barrels, they were cut down after being released from the army. Wouldnt a wells fargo model have US military markings, Serial #'s and 5inch barrel?
Click to expand...

Correct. I think 1887 is when the government gave up on them and dumped the lot as surplus to distributors.

=================================================

Also, I figured out what I was looking at on Saturday at that gun show. It WAS NOT a Schofield but an S&W Top Break Double Action. Like I said, I didn't fondle it, I only got to look, shows how much I know about S&W's huh?

It was driving me nuts as to exactly what it was so I've been scouring the info on Al Gore's internet for the answer. It was found at "The History of Smith & Wesson Firearms" by Dean K. Boorman, scroll down to page 37 for the model I was looking at.
 
Wells Fargo didn't buy many guns. Employees furnished their own for the most part. What guns they did buy were from whatever the local purveyor had in stock.
 
I know that the Schofield was a partial success but i dont understand why the military gave up on it. This is just opinion but i think the schofield design is much better then the peacemaker design. Im not discrediting the peacemaker at all, its a fine firearm but unloading and loading of the schofield is so amazing to me and im surprised that the military didnt see its potential as well. Yes i know that the military didnt like that they couldnt use the normal 45.colt in the schofield which was chambered for the shorter 45. S&W but it was good to see that their were some people out there that took notice to the schofield such as, the james brothers, the earp brothers, john wesley hardin and Theodore roosevelt. Its just too bad that Mr.Schofield took his life with one at Fort Apache.:( I know it may be cheesey to say but at least the firearm was recognized enough to be mentioned in the movies, Unforgiven, The quick and the dead, and 3:10 to yuma.:D I know that i may be off topic but it is nice to chit chat about this historic firearm until i can pick up my new replacement and test fire it.
 
I've been considering one for the wife's coffee table gun when I travel. Simpler to her to reload than a normal side opening DA.
 
It's my understanding from the reading I've done about it that the Schofield got dropped simply because of supply problems. It's hard to use 'em when there ain't no bullets left.

Smith & Wessons attitude was similar to Colt's in that we don't need to do what that other company did, we're S&W!! Therefore the 45 S&W cartridge. I think that it also had to do with the fact that S&W and Colt's were not buddies. Sam Colt was the type of business owner that would protect his patent rights with a vengence and even after his death the company continued to frown on anyone who they perceived as a threat. It's possible that introducing the Model 3 chambered in the competitors cartridge could have led to a law suit thus slowing its introduction. This is purely speculation on my part, but I know from my reading that those two companies were brutally competitive with each other on research and development.

Personally, I think that Uberti blew it when they made the decision to not chamber their gun in 45 Schofield but that's just my opinion and I like historic cartridges, even though there are much better rounds out there than that one.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the Model 3 is a superior weapon when it comes to unloading and loading. That and it feels right in the hand. As far as being a "Fight Stopper", the 45 Schofield was a distant second to the 45 Colt round though. I don't know if you've ever gotten the chance, but if you do, stuff 40gr of 3f into a modern 45 Colt brass and top it off with a 235-250gr RNFP bullet. Depending on the gun, it might not be very accurate, but what a whollop those babies make when the firing pin hits the primer. The downside of course is that with that much powder the gun will be so hot after two or three cylinders you'll have to let it cool off before you can even unload it.
 
That is extremely interesting Fotojoe. We could only wish that the companies back then could of put there differences aside and produce a fantastic firearm. Unfortunately that was not to be. I am saving up all my brass, i do not reload but im slowly but surely buying my equipment to do so. I need your advice, what would be a good powder to reload with? Something really good and safe i dont want my schofields to get damaged :D lol there my babies. Also do you think that the 44-40 out performs the 45 colt? I was thinking about getting another schofield chambered in it or a nice marlin 1894 chambered in it. Thanks agian:D Oh and one last thing, have you ever had the privilege to shoot 45.S&W if yes, Whats your take on the cartridge?
 
Last edited:
SAA GunSlinger said:
I need your advice, what would be a good powder to reload with?
Click to expand...

I am by no means ANY type of authority on smokeless powders or reloading. I don't think that you've ever mentioned what caliber your guns are but I'll make the assumption that they are 45 Colt. What I would suggest is that you hit the Reloading Section of THR for information regarding powders. Personally, I use Universal simply because that was a powder that Lee loading dies had information for in their data sheets. It works well for me on 44-40, 38 Special and 9mm, but from what I understand it's not as well suited to the low pressure loads associated with original Black Powder cartridges like 45 Colt and 38 Special, I could be wrong though.

As far as which cartridge out performs the other, I don't have any personal data on that, because all my 45 Colt loads are Black Powder and my 44-40 loads are smokeless right now.

I will say that 45 Colt is a pistol cartridge that some manufacturers are chambering rifles for. The 45 Colt cartridge is a straight wall that back in the day wasn't as popular for rifle as the tapered 44-40 round. The straight wall brass doesn't eject as easily after firing as a tapered cartridge. Of course if my facts are incorrect on this somebody will most probably take me to task on it.

In my opinion, the 44-40 is probably ballistically more potent, especially when fired from a rifle. I know that loading a 44 Special with 26gr 3f and sending it down the barrel of a '94 Marlin produces a just barely sub-sonic round. Adding another 14gr to get to the 40gr load of a 44-40 would probably be VERY impressive in a rifle. Of course if you're going to mash 40gr of 3f into a 45 Colt brass and do the same, the bullet will be 235-255gr instead of 200-210 so the range won't be as good, but the impact energy at the muzzle will undoubtedly be pretty huge. I know that a 235gr with 40gr 3f behind it fired out of my SAA with a 12" barrel produces an average MV of 1,065 fps at 592 ft.lb., so it's probably higher with a longer barrel. Whereas the 44 Special with 26gr 3f and a 200gr RNFP gets 1,079 fps and 517 ft.lb. out of the Marlin. My money would be on the 44-40!!:D

The downside to 44-40 is finding the brass. Starline now has it, but the stuff isn't easy to come by in a hurry, but it is available. From a historical standpoint, I'd prefer the 44-40 simply for the WOW factor when you let one fly.

As far as shooting 45 S&W (Schofield), no. But I used to load 44 Russian which is slightly longer brass. If I recall the 45 S&W only held 23gr of powder and didn't really have the poop that the 45 Colt had even after it was downloaded to 30gr.
 
Thanks for all the info it really helped when i was maken purchases. Another question for you guys. I got my schofield back and i went out and shot it. It worked great but it shoots to the left!!! How do i fix this? Is there someway that i can possibly adjust the sights on it?:confused:
 
For reference, here's a photo of the Uberti's rear sight:

http://gun-specifications.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/495/media/images/2_203.jpg

Here's the Uberti parts diagram showing the replacement sight part:

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=35&cat=Uberti+Schofield

That's always a potential problem with fixed sights and sometimes even with an adjustable rear sight if it does not have enough range for adjustment.

There's only so many options for making windage adjustments. Either the rear sight notch needs to be opened up on the same side as the impact is needed to be moved to. Or the front sight needs to be moved in the opposite direct of where the impact is needed to be moved to.

For the rear, that involves filing or milling the existing notch, or installing a replacement rear sight with an improved notch.
I suppose that someone could fill in the original notch entirely, either with molten metal or an insert, and then recreate a better notch that way.
For the front, that involves either making a dovetail for a new front sight so that the new sight can be drifted into alignment. But that entails removing the original front sight.
Or sometimes it's possible to bend the front sight enough to obtain the correct alignment.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the tip, i bent the front sight a little and tinkered a little with the back sight and what do you know! TA DA!!! I was shooting soda cans from 35 yards away!!! Finally I HAVE SCHOFIELDS THAT FUNCTION PROPERLY!!! I bought them in February and finally in April i have finally got them working right. After 3 returns, shipping cost, and tinkering and a whole lot of cussing i finally have 2 working schofields. Thank you all for your help i greatly appreciate it! Lets hope they hold up when i begin shooting in the SASS. I wish the best of luck to the rest of everyone and there schofield issues as well and feel free to ask me any questions. Ive gained a little knowledge since i had to tinker with so many of them. Thanks agian all and keep your powder dry:D
 
Thank God I came across this thread before I wasted my money on a No 3....
They look great.. the concept is awesome.... I guess the manufacturer just doesnt have the build down..
Maybe its too complicated for them..
As everyone seems to testify that their other offerings are solid...
The Schofield must have too many working parts that they cant get synchronized.

You guys saved me a bunch of money and some precious hair.. Not that I have any to loose... I would have been trying to pull out what little I have left if I had to deal with a brand NEW broken pistol.
Thanks again!!
 
I've got an Uberti #3 New Model Frontier/45 Colt from Taylors.
750+ rounds through it. Not even a breath of a problem.
Running
- Ultramax 250gr LRNFP
- Lyman 452424(30-1)/Unique/8.0gr/1.605"/crimped mid cleaning band
- Lyman 452424(30-1)/W231/7.2gr/1.605"/crimped mid cleaning band
- Lyman 452190(30-1)/Unique/8.0gr/1.615"/crimp on ogive (Go2 Load)
- Lyman 452190(30-1)/700X/5.5gr/1.615"/crimp on ogive
- RCBS 45-270(30-1)/Trailboss/5.2gr/1.575"/crimped mid cleaning band

Smooth as silk
Windage adjustable rear sight
Accurate as all heck (5 rnds/1.3" at 25/benched)
Same 25yd POI for all loads/bullets/powders above

My fun let's-just-out-in-the-evening-and-shoot-the-gong gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top