Schofield vs. Russian?

H

Hafoc

New member
Anybody know how these compare? I have the Uberti Schofields myself, in five inch barrel length, but lately I've gotten a bug to have a Uberti Russian too, full-length barrel, possibly in .44 Russian. Although I already have .45 Colt all OVER the place, so that would be silly. Still...

I find the Schofield grips a pretty good size for me. I was wondering how the Russian grips compare, especially in length. Also whether anyone has opinions on the relative durability of the two latch designs. I suspect I'd never wear out either of them, but any chance to gun-geek is a good one...
 
FWIW: had 3 Uberti Schofields in 45 Colt, 2 were 7", one was 5" barrel. Never really enjoyed the grips but the sight picture was OK for my old eyes. Sold them before I got a preowned Russian last year with 6,5" barrel in .44 Russian, 2003 production. Factory grips were OK for me, better than the Schofields but the sights...well, they are PC, but pretty tiny.
Replaced the grips with plain Gripmaker PU ivory grips which are a bit fatter compared to those supplied by Uberti, had my smith open the chambers to accept my .44 Colt smokeless reloads (purely a logistics issue), and I removed the lawyer safety. Now, on a sunny day, she's a tack-driver, despite the old eyes.
Bootsie
 
The No. 3 Russian is much more comfortable for me than the Schofield. In my eyes it's also much more attractive. Between the two, it would be my preference but only in .44Russian.
 
Thanks for the replies. Yes, the Russian is a looker, in that interesting Victorian way. I'm sure it would be fine in .45 Colt, but I'm also sure the .44 Russian ctg would have its advantages, even in a cylinder made long enough to accept cartridges that are more standard today. I'm going to at leas try to handle a Russian, if I can ever find one. Probably end up getting one. Although I'm not going to trade in my Schofields, or at least not both of them!

(Somehow I don't think CAS, if I ever DID show up at a CAS match, would let me compete with one Schofield and one nickel-plated, 6" barreled S&W Model 25. Bet they'd like to look at the Model 25, though.)

I kind of wish the .44 Russian cartridge were still an issue in modern firearms. I don't know how many .45 Colts I've handloaded over the years; tiny pinch of smokeless powder in a honkin' huge case, with all the possibility of error that introduces, with all the accuracy problems. The .44 Russian case would avoid most of those difficulties.

These big handgun cartridge cases have too much capacity, if you're loading them smokeless for self-defense, utility, what have you. All of them do. With the Colt they invented the .45 Cowboy Special to handle that problem, and of course there's Trail Boss powder now. But other cases have the same problem too, in my opinion. .44 Special is too big, and .44 Mag isn't so big for added powder capacity, it's so big because you don't want to put it in a Special by mistake.

I'm a little disappointed they don't offer the .44 Russian loaded to .44 Special levels. According to what I've read, it pretty much WAS loaded to .44 Special levels anyway. You could re-introduce that, then take a S&W N-frame, or equivalent, lop maybe up to half an inch off the frame and cylinder length, and make a serious five-shot extra compact pocket-sized THUMPER out of it. It won't happen, because the cost of making a shortened, lightweight frame just for big-bore pocket snubbies would be astronomical. Still, from an engineering point of view, it's a good idea.
 
A few weeks ago I had a counter donkey at my favorite gunshop insist that it was the .45 Russian cartridge, NOT the .44 Russian.

Sigh.

I find the frame knuckle on the later No. 3 frames to be far easier to shoot rapidly and consistently than the early No. 3 frames, which had no knuckle.


"I kind of wish the .44 Russian cartridge were still an issue in modern firearms."

It is... sort of.

The .44 Russian and .44 Special had virtually identical ballistics. The shorter .44 Russian case wasn't quite optimal for use with the first generation smokeless powders.
 
The Russian is definatley an important gun of the old west and the cartridge was THE target round of the period. However for shootability I much prefer the Schofield. The grip of the Russian feels restrictive and sits too far below the barrel giving a broomhandle mauser feel. The grip tang prevents many shooters, myself included from being able to cock and fire the gun one handed without completly altering the firing grip every shot. The round back of the Schofield however is of classic American lineage and is what this great country's all about.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top