FWIW, neither the Uberti's or the S&W 2000 are "duplicates" of the original Schofield! The Uberti, of course, has the longer cylinder to handle the .45 Colt's (modern term .45 LC), and is beefier in the top strap area. It is what Smith & Wesson would have like to produce back when the original Schofield was designed. Why? Because it would have eliminated the interchangeability of ammo problems the Army encountered. Eventually the Army was forced into dropping the .45 Colt's round in favor of the shorter .45 Revolver Ball cartridge (modern term, ".45 Schofield"), as they not only fit both the Colt's SAA and the Schofield, but didn't tend to blow the early Colt's iron cylinders! I can't prove it, but I'd bet that S&W originally tried using a longer cylinder in the original Schofield, but found the gun wouldn't stand the gaff with the 40 gr. Colt's charges (the Army actually dropped the charge in the .45 Colt's Revolver to 35 grains and changed the bullet weight from 250 down to 230 grains). What I'd bet S&W did was to shorten the cylinder by 0.100" and extend the forcing cone of the barrel back to meet the shorter cylinder. What Uberti did was reverse the process. Clue: the frame size of the Uberti's and the originals are the same!
With the S&W 2000, they shortened the frame to preclude anyone putting in a longer cylinder that would handle the .45 LC round. I've seen an original Schofield that, while the cylinder was original, somebody lengthened the chambers so it would handle the longer case. Of course, you had to use short-nosed 200 grain bullets to keep the rounds from sticking out the end of the cylinder! NOT a good idea, but I saw it done!
Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year, Pards!