Schofield

Bucksnort1

New member
Am I the only person who thinks the top break Schofield style revolver is a much better design than the 45 Colt? Am I missing something? I know about the difference in the 45 Schofield and 45 Colt cartridges but is seems loading and unloading unfired cartridges in the Schofield is light years better than the Colt and, the Schofield ejects fired cartridges.
 
Schofield is not a generic term for S&W's breaktops.

It was one military version of their large-frame No3.

The breaktops in general are weaker than the Colt Peacemaker (limiting cartridge pressures), the two primary wear points at the hinge & the frame latch WILL loosen up over time, the design does offer faster loading & ejection, but was eventually deemed inferior to the Peacemaker overall.

Today, the Italians use modern tweaks & modern steels, but the guns still have their pressure limitations & still have their wear points.
Production quality also varies.

They are superior to a Colt or Ruger in ONLY the loading & extraction. :)
Internally, generally not as well finished, and the breaktop guts are not as simple as the Peacemaker's to work on.

Sight regulation on the Italian breaktops is also frequently something of an issue.

They're intriguing & fun, but not a better design.
Denis
 
"...Am I missing something?..." Yep. Sam Colt was a much better salesman.
"...Schofield ejects fired cartridges..." Only matters to a cavalry troopie. The guy who could afford a revolver of any kind didn't want to lose his brass in the 19th Century either.
U.S. Army dropped the Schofield for the same reason the M1 Rifle is a .30-06. They had lots of .45 Colt ammo in warehouses. The Colt would not fire in a Schofield, but the .45 S&W would fire in a Colt.
Politics rules. The design doesn't matter. Despite the faster reloading.
 
Ammunition was a large part of the equation, but not all.
Neither was Sam Colt's abilities as a salesman. :)
The Smiths were also harder to keep going in the field than the Colts.

Between maintenance, prices, and ammunition logistics, the Army gave up & stayed with the simpler & stronger Colt.
Denis
 
Samuel Colt wasn't much of a salesman for the 1873 Army. He was well dead long before it came along.
 
mcb66 said:
Samuel Colt wasn't much of a salesman for the 1873 Army. He was well dead long before it came along.


"...........he being dead yet speaketh" (The Bible, Hebrews 11:4)

Dead though he was, his name on a revolver practically assured its success. Colt often played loosely around the truth, but he did get his name, and his revolvers, at the fore front of the market.

Bob Wright
 
mcb66 . . . . how right you are! BUT . . his widow was certainly capable in marketing the '73 . . .

Personally, I prefer the SAA . . . but if someone sent me a S & W top break . . . I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers! Both are interesting and historical designs. :)
 
The S&W top break is an interesting design, but I am not going to say it is the better design. S&W eventually dropped the top break frame because it is extremely weak. That was fine with black powders, not so good with smokeless. It is a more complicated design than the Colt SAA, far more parts and screws. The primary advantage is reloading, and I would agree that a top break is easier and faster to load than a Colt SAA. Movie characters are always in combat, there must be a gunfight every five minutes, but in real life, pistols are carried more than they are shot. Durability is an advantage.

I have handled and shot an Italian top break. Non adjustable sights, a point of impact well away from point of aim, and a tiny rear notch just decided the issue for me. Don't want one.

This is an interesting S&W. A bud let me take pictures of it. This is a very rare target S&W.










 
It only seems light years ahead if you've never actually shot one. What the Colt has and always will is a better handling, better balanced revolver. It's more comfortable to shoot, easier to shoot and ejection is 100% positive. Get a case under the ejector of the S&W and you're up the creek without a paddle. I can operate a Colt fast one handed with no problem. The S&W's hammer is a bit of a reach. If you know what you're about with an SAA, the S&W's only advantage is in unloading. If it works right.
 
Howdy

Let's see, at last count I have five Antique Number 3 Top Breaks, so I think I am qualified to comment on this thread.

First off, yes the Schofield was just one of five separate Top Break models built on the Number 3 sized frame. I always say, all Schofields are Number 3s, but not all Number 3s are Schofields.

Let's go through four of the five separate Number Three Top Breaks.



2nd Model Russian, 44 Russian caliber, made in 1875

Russian02.jpg





1st Model Schofield, 45 Schofield caliber, also made in 1875

schofield02_zps140a93d1.jpg





New Model Number Three, the epitome of S&W Top Break designs. 44 Russian caliber, made in 1882, refinished at the factory in 1965

new%20model%20number%20three%2001_zpsnhtam3mu.jpg





44 Double Action. Top one is a target model, made in 1895, bottom one is a plain jane standard 44 Double Action, made in 1881. Both are chambered for 44 Russian.

Two44DAs02_zps927bf180.jpg





Not in my collection yet, the American model. 44 S&W American caliber, an obsolete round using a heeled bullet. This was the first of the large frame S&W Top Breaks, introduced in 1870, soon after the Rollin White patent on bored through cylinders for cartridges expired. In fact, the American model was the first Top Break of any size that S&W made. The US Army bought 1000 of these, in 1870; 800 blued and 200 nickel plated, several years before they bought the Colt Single Action Army.

11025208_5_zps4f771678.jpg




****************


Let's go through some of the comments so far.

Yes, absolutely, the Top Breaks are much faster to empty and reload than a Colt. Pop the latch, drop the barrel and all the empties are ejected. If you're careful you can lower the barrel a little bit slowly and retain any unfired rounds, while ejecting the empties. Then reload while it is open. Yes, hands down, much faster to reload than a Colt, which has to have the empties punched out one at a time, then the chambers loaded again one at a time. Can't recall getting an empty stuck under the ejector, maybe I am used to shooting them. If you flick the gun a little bit sideways while lowering the barrel, everything will fall out and nothing will get stuck. By the way, get an empty stuck under the ejector of a modern side swing revolver and you are just as out of luck.

No, they are not as strong as the solid frame Colt. No question about that. Yes, they can wear with time. That blue 44 DA of mine was a little bit loose in the lockup when I bought it. What do you want for a gun made in 1881? An expert smith was able to tighten it up for me. But shooting mild 'cowboy' loads, I doubt if you are going to loosen up one of the modern Italian replicas all that fast. I know a few guys who shoot them A LOT in CAS, and they have not loosened up. 'Extremely weak'? Not hardly.

I always get a kick out of those who claim the Top Breaks were more complicated than a Colt. Don't worry, you are in good company, the Army thought so too. Let's look inside one. This is my Russian. Super complicated huh? Hammer, trigger, pawl and a couple of springs. Not visible is the bolt, a simple L shaped part actuated by the trigger, not the hammer like a Colt. Anyone who has ever messed with the bolt on a Colt knows what a complicated, fussy part it is. Sorry, I just don't buy this stuff about how complicated the lockwork of the Top Break Smiths were.

halfcock.jpg



Let's see, what else. Sight regulation. Guess what? The originals tended to shoot high too. The Italians are simply mimicking the sights of the originals. I always remember when shooting my Top Breaks at a match to hold low. Problem solved. Sights are a little bit difficult to see? No more difficult than the V groove on the early Colts, at least not in my opinion.

The Colt is better balanced? Is that why some of the records made with New Model Number Threes at the Bisley range in England are still standing? Shot against Colt's entry into target shooting, the Bisley model?

Sorry fellas, obviously I am a huge fan of the old #3 Top Breaks. Just had to interject a dissenting opinion. Don't get me wrong, I love to shoot my Colts too, but I really love shooting my old Top Breaks.

Yes, I only shoot my Top Breaks with Black Powder, would not dream of putting Smokeless through them. However with the modern Italian replicas, Smokeless is no problem. Just don't put Ruger Only loads through them. And unfortunately, because of a design change when the Italians stretched the cylinders to accept longer rounds such as 45 Colt and 44-40, the modern replicas do not handle Black Powder very well.

************

Slamfire: Sorry to break it to you, but your pal's New Model Number Three with target sights is not all that rare. If it were a New Model Number Three 38 Winchester, chambered for 38-40, it would be extremely rare, only 74 were ever made. If it were a New Model Number Three Frontier (44-40) it would be pretty rare, 2072 were made. The actual New Model Number Three Target Model was chambered for two specific smaller caliber target cartridges, to reduce recoil over the standard 44 Russian cartridges. 38-44 (not to be confused with the predecessor of the 357 Mag from the 1930s) was an overly long version of the 38 S&W. The round extended the full length of the cylinder, there was no free bore in the chambers. Same with the 32-44 round, it too extended the full length of the chamber. Even so, the Target Models are not all that rare, 4,333 were made.

Notice how the target sights are the same as on my 44 DA target model. Pinned front sight and adjustable blade rear sight. Not all that rare, or else I got a terrific deal on it.

It is a little bit difficult for me to know exactly what cartridge your pal's revolver is chambered for, the rounds look a little bit longer than 44 Russian. But they are clearly a big bore, not a smaller 38 or 32 caliber.

According to the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Supica and Nahas, a New Model Number Three with target sights will command about 10% more value than the same revolver with fixed sights.
 
Last edited:
Shoot .45Colt (with its tiny rim) in the modern replicas and you will get one stuck under the extractor, a common occurrence.

Yes, after shooting both extensively, I can see why most favor the Colt SAA. More comfortable to shoot, better handling, better balance and better hammer access. Regardless of what records were set, when or where. There's also a big difference between the way the SAA handles versus the Bisley version.

The S&W's are great guns but I absolutely do not agree that they were "light years ahead".
 
Shoot .45Colt (with its tiny rim) in the modern replicas and you will get one stuck under the extractor, a common occurrence.

Interesting. Of course, none of the originals were chambered for 45 Colt, so it is a moot point for me. May I suggest shooting 45 Schofields instead of 45 Colts in the modern replicas? The wider rim, which was designed for the extractor of the Schofield revolver after all, will probably not slip under the extractor as easily.
 
DJ,
My comment about the more complicated Smith is not limited to its lock work.
You're forgetting the cammed ejector system, which IS more complicated than any part of the Colt's cylinder or ejector.

Overall:
The Smith has a hinge, which the Colt doesn't.
That hinge could & did get gummed up in hard field use (dirt, powder fouling, mud, rust) affecting loading & ejection.
It also did & does loosen. I had one Uberti Russian sample that developed hinge wobble in less than 300 cowboy-level loads.
Regardless of how soon it does or does not happen, it WILL happen if you continue shooting. The Colt has no hinge to loosen or freeze up.

The Smith has the frame latch, which the Colt doesn't.
Additional screws & parts to wear, back out, lose, keep in inventory.

The Smith's ejection system could & did (and it has for me on more than one Italian repro) bind up, either on opening or on closing.
It was far more susceptible to fouling & rust if not maintained well in the field than the Colt's ejection system.

More parts in the Smith ejector design that depended on each other to function than on the Colt with its direct-manual-manipulation.
The Smith also required more machining with that ejection system (internal parts & fitting the star to the cylinder, etc.), making it slightly more expensive.

The Smith, with more moving parts, required more parts inventories, and more armorer capability than the Colt in some areas (like that more complicated cylinder/ejection set-up).

Target shooting is not the sole arbiter of "balance". :)
Most feel the difference in general handling & balance lies heavily in favor of the Colt.

The Smith was an interesting design, but an inferior one, limited in power, and another evolutionary dead end, aside from nostalgia.
It WAS more a more complicated gun overall than the Colt.

And I say that having had several repros in hand from Navy's first intro in the '90s to a more recent one a couple years back. And one from the old Cimarron/ASM fiasco along the way.
In all barrel lengths & .44 Russian, .45 Colt, and .38 Special.

Denis
 
Interesting. Of course, none of the originals were chambered for 45 Colt, so it is a moot point for me. May I suggest shooting 45 Schofields instead of 45 Colts in the modern replicas? The wider rim, which was designed for the extractor of the Schofield revolver after all, will probably not slip under the extractor as easily.

True enough but the guns are chambered in .45Colt. Some shooters might have a bunch of .45Colt chambered guns and not want to deal with the burden of setting up for another cartridge. It's not like our lives are dependent upon swift and certain ejection like they might have been in the 1880's.

However, we should also keep in mind that the ammunition that the military used the most in the original guns was the .45 Government which had the smaller rim of the .45 Colt. Even smaller than it is today.
 
It wasn't so much of a case of the No. 3/Schofield being deemed inferior to the SAA; the military found much to like about No 3.

What they did not like, however, was its greater complexity, greater number of parts, and higher unit cost.
 
"...Am I missing something?..." Yep. Sam Colt was a much better salesman."


Samuel Colt died in 1863. He wasn't selling anyone anything in 1870 when the military started looking for a new service arm.


"U.S. Army dropped the Schofield for the same reason the M1 Rifle is a .30-06. They had lots of .45 Colt ammo in warehouses."

Incorrect.

After about 1874 US arsenals stopped loading .45 Colt ammunition and loaded .45 S&W ammunition exclusively for about the next 30 years, even AFTER the last S&Ws had been removed from military service and given to State Guard units.
 
"Sorry, I just don't buy this stuff about how complicated the lockwork of the Top Break Smiths were."

You're looking at the wrong end of the gun. The military's complaint wasn't about S&W's lockwork adding complexity to the gun.

It was the auto-ejector mechanism.
 
"The Smith was an interesting design, but an inferior one, limited in power..."

The S&W No. 3 design was capable of handling the power generated by any handgun cartridge available at the time.

The fact that it couldn't be chambered for .45 Colt due to the frame size limitation isn't a testament to its strength, it's a testament to the fact that S&W had absolutely no desire to redesign the gun at a time when they were selling everything that they could produce to the Russians.

The "power" advantage of the .45 Colt cartridge also apparently wasn't much of a sell for the military, because they ended up adopting the .45 S&W cartridge as the standard military round. After about 1874 .45 Colt ceased to be either loaded by US arsenals or carried in supply, even after the last S&Ws were surplussed out.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the military found the .45 S&W cartridge more than powerful enough for it purposes.
 
The discussion of the Schofield seems not to consider the application for which it was intended to be used. That is, in a military setting.

In regard to a casing getting stuck under the ejector, that would not necessarily mean disaster in light of the fact that Cavalry operated in multi-man units. That is, if your Schofield got tied-up while ejecting spent casings, your squad-mates would still be engaging the enemy.

Also consider the statement that the hammer was harder to reach (and that the balance of the gun was inferior to the Colt), than the Colt. When a cavalry man was not working, he was drilling. Such minor features would likely be negated by practice and familiarity...after all, I adapted to the very cumbersome M1 Garand.

As I see it, the draw-backs of the Schofield compared to the Colt in a military setting, were minimized by the higher rate of sustained fire of the unit (squad, troop).
 
"Also consider the statement that the hammer was harder to reach (and that the balance of the gun was inferior to the Colt), than the Colt. When a cavalry man was not working, he was drilling."

I wouldn't go that far.

For much of the post Civil War 1800s, training allocations were in the general vicinity of 24 rounds...

A YEAR.
 
Back
Top