Author Topic: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports  (Read 39066 times)

Offline Virginia Gentleman

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1266
  • Here's a McRib for Allah
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« on: January 04, 2008, 06:57:52 PM »
I know this is kind of like asking which is better, Colt 3rd generation SAA or Cimarron US Finish when it comes to authenticity but, I am curious which gun is better any why in your opinion, the S&W Modern Schofield in .45 Schofield with the frame mounted firing pin or one of the nicer imports in .45 Colt? Personally, I prefer the imports as they are more utilitarian with being able to shoot .45 Colt and have a hammer mounted firing pin. 

Offline Kinda Sudden

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2008, 12:30:04 AM »
The S&W without a doubt are better in fit and finish but very pricey. I had the hots for a Uberti nickel with faux Ivories and fire blued pins. The fit was not real bad but the faux grips which I would probably replace anyways, fit poorly with a big space all around the top where they were cut too short. Also, the side plate fit very poorly. The plating was done well and the gun was tight. I wrestled with the idea of purchasing it but at 875.00, I could not bring myself to reach for the wallet. when I finally got up the nerve to take a second (okay third) look and saw that the dealer raised the price 100.00, I knew I did not want it.

Nice thing is, it is chambered for .45 Colt and probably more period correct then the S&W with its adjustable rear sight. If you touch the trigger at all while cocking the hammer on the Ubertis, the hammer will lock up. I don't know if this is the case with the S&W. with the Uberti, most remove the internal safety for a better trigger pull. The one I looked at though was not bad at all.

Offline Rancid Roy

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2008, 02:01:38 AM »
Howdy, the S&W Schofield may continue to rise in price and it may not.

I own two Uberti Schofields and mine as well as others I saw were not to far away from the finish of the S&Ws I have seen.

I personally think its a matter of preference based on your own use. If you want something that may or may not become collectible or an investment than the S&W is the best choice.

If you want a shooter that is reliable and parts are easy to get I would suggest the Uberti.

Regards.
Ne'er Do Well    Chicken Thief

Back Shooter     Ambush Expert

"You hold'em and I'll shoot'em."

GAF 104 Scout and Scoundrel

Advertising

  • Guest
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #3 on: Today at 10:39:07 AM »

Offline Kinda Sudden

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2008, 03:40:27 AM »
Is the S&W still available? Other then used on the auction sights?

Offline St. George

  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4827
  • NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2008, 10:08:15 AM »
No.

The ones on the auction sites feature new-in-the-presentation-box Schofields, for the most part - in both finishes and barrel lengths.

Smith & Wesson did market the piece with a two-piece cardboard box to lower the price - and those are correspondingly lower in overall cost, as they didn't feature the medallion or the literature that the oak box had - just the instructions/admonitions.

It's also a gun that 'can' be found at the better gun shows, and continues to rise in value, thanks to it's being produced  by Smith & Wesson.

When found at a show - wait until Sunday if you're looking to trade or buy - often, the prices will be more favorable.

Incidentally - the S&W doesn't have an adjustable rear sight, and the originals were built for the .45 Schofield.

When both the S&W and an appropriate import are handled - there's a slight bit of difference in balance - thanks to the slightly shorter cylinder and the correspondingly lighter weight.

Fit and finish on the S&Ws is impeccable - something that can't always be said of imported firearms - but folks do balk at paying the price.

I've noticed that you either love the style of the piece - or hate it - there's no real middle ground.

When you're used to the plow-handle grip of a Colt - the saw-handle grip of a Schofield requires a bit of muscle re-training before they're comfortable - but it's worth the effort...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!



"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."

Offline Pettifogger

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3613
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2008, 10:54:51 AM »
Not a whole lot of choice.  ASM made some Schofields for Cimarron.  They were junk and ASM is now out of business.  S&W made a limited run of Schofields and they have been out of production for about six years.  Uberti is the only company that still makes them and they are pretty decent guns.  Not as nice as an S&W, but heads and shoulders above the ASM.

Offline Kinda Sudden

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2008, 11:18:08 AM »
I should have explained better, I felt the Uberti was more period correct because of the fixed rear sight, not the caliber. I did however confuse the Smith Replica with the Laramie's adjustable rear sight. ;D

Offline Virginia Gentleman

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1266
  • Here's a McRib for Allah
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2008, 03:03:44 PM »
What was better about the S&W compared to the Uberti?  Fit and finish on my Navy Arms Uberti seems very hard to improve on.  One thing I don't like is the caliber roll mark ".45 L.C."  as there is only on cartridge that fits that bill and it is called .45 Colt.  Otherwise it is a very nice gun that has performed well too.

Offline Kinda Sudden

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2008, 04:35:02 PM »
What was better about the S&W compared to the Uberti?  Fit and finish on my Navy Arms Uberti seems very hard to improve on.  One thing I don't like is the caliber roll mark ".45 L.C."  as there is only on cartridge that fits that bill and it is called .45 Colt.  Otherwise it is a very nice gun that has performed well too.



Grip and side plate fit.

Offline Walker 1847

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • "Well then you better pull iron, boy!"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2008, 09:28:41 AM »
I have 4 Uberti Schofields in .45 and I agree with Virginia Gentleman, I think it would be hard to improve the fit and finish!
The sideplate and grip fitment on all are excellent also.
I did notice that the Navy Arms Ubertis have more correct looking markings on the barrel sides, also wish they would have left off the "Cal. 45 LC".
I honestly wish they would have kept to the .45 Schofield cylinder dimensions  keeping it the correct, authentic caliber, or at least offered that as an option. (I know, not practical)
(That would seriously reduce the demand in the .45 LC/.38 dominated Cowboy action market.)
I do not see why Smith & Wesson did not keep to the correct hammer firing pin configuration, just exactly duplicate the 1875!?!? Probably the liability/litigation fear, but that small aspect was a deal-killer for me. Looks good but not mechanically/visually correct. My opinion.
(Same question as to why Colt does not just exactly duplicate the 1st Gen SAA, I guess....)
Compromises in both directions.

Visually and mechanically, my Uberti Schofields are great..Love-em.
Walker
"Its hard to stop a man who's in the right and keeps on comin!"

Offline Virginia Gentleman

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1266
  • Here's a McRib for Allah
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2009, 02:01:16 PM »
Based on the fact that the S&W is no longer produced and the Uberti guns are the only game in town, there is a limited choice of manufacterers, but the guns that they make are very, very good im my experience.  S&W made a limited run of Schofields and quite honestly, I saw one at a gun show recently and it did not look any better in fit or finish to the current crop of Ubertis.  BTW, the S&Ws now go for about $2000.00.

Offline Doc Cuervo

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2009, 11:13:33 PM »
The Ulberti seems to be just a tad bit beefier than the S&W 2000. I have one of each. The S&W is a bit easier for my smallish hands to manipulate but it fires to the right. The Ulberti is dead on @ 10 yds. but it has developed a habit of the sear dropping into the half cock notch when the trigger is pulled.
I dearly love both of them and feel that no problem can not be overcome but upon close inspection of the inner workings of the Ulberti, I found some really bizzare workmanship. Ulberti will be informed of this and I hope to have the gun reworked.
The S&W exibits evidence that the cylinder is sliding backwards on its axle in recoil, as there are spots of bare metal on the rim of the cylinder corresponding with the lugs on the cylinder latch.
This is all a bit disappointing, as during 50 years of shooting and collecting firearms, I have been quite lucky with handguns out of the box, (other than rugers, which I stopped buying altogether), being of acceptable quality and performance.
Any way, that's my experiences and my 2 cents worth.

Offline Trailrider

  • CAS-L Ghost Rider
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2366
    • Gunfighter Zone
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2009, 11:50:55 AM »
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!
Ride to the sound of the guns, but watch out for bushwhackers! Godspeed to all in harm's way in the defense of Freedom! God Bless America!

Your obedient servant,
Trailrider,
Bvt. Lt. Col. Commanding,
Southern District
Dept. of the Platte, GAF

Offline St. George

  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4827
  • NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2009, 01:13:40 PM »
When S&W made their new Schofield - they reverse-engineered one that Roy Jinks owned.

They changed the innards to reflect modern manufacturing techniques and to preclude faking.

The nice thing about shooting that particular .45 S&W load, is that it feels exactly like shooting .45 ACP hardball - and to an old National Match Course shooter, that's a pleasant feel, in both the Schofield and the Colt Single Action Army.

Vaya con Dios, and Happy New Year...

Scouts Out!









"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."

Offline Shotgun Franklin

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2086
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2009, 05:43:33 PM »
Quote
When S&W made their new Schofield - they reverse-engineered one that Roy Jinks owned.

Yep, I kinda believe that if S&W had went ahead and built the gun to take .45 Colt ammo they would have sold enough of'm to keep'm on the market (longer). You couldn't walk into just any gun shop in 2000 and get a box of .45 S&W ammo. I wanted one pretty bad but they were just to pricey.
Yes, I do have more facial hair now.

Offline Col.Will B.Havoc

  • Very Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2010, 06:38:29 PM »
Does anyone have one of the Smiths for sale or trade? I've got a .45 Schofield Spenser and would like to have commonality of ammunition. Second question. Did any of the importers make one in .45 schofield?

Offline St. George

  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4827
  • NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2010, 11:46:07 PM »
Your best bet is going to be either www.gunbroker.com or www.gunsamerica.com, if you want a Smith & Wesson.

As to importers making them in .45 S&W - no.

As to commonality - shoot .45 S&W in your .45 Colt - there's no problem in doing so.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!
"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."

Offline Texas Lawdog

  • NCOWS Senator "Old School" Cop
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 11634
  • " We're all Here because We're not all There".
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2010, 01:02:56 AM »
I just bought one of the Beretta Laramie revolver. It should be here in a couple of days.  Does it qualify for a membership in BOSS? I am already an associate member.
SASS#47185  RO I   ROII       NCOWS#2244  NCOWS Life #186  BOLD#393 GAF#318 SCORRS#1 SBSS#1485  WASA#666  RATS#111  BOSS#155  Storm#241 Henry 1860#92 W3G#1000  Warthog AZSA #28  American Plainsmen Society #69  Masonic Cowboy Shootist  Hiram's Rangers#18  FOP  Lt. Col  Grand Army of The Frontier, Life Member CAF
   Col.  CAF  NRA  TSRA   BOA  Dooley Gang  BOPP  ROWSS  Scarlet Mask Vigilance Society Great Lakes Freight and Mining Company  Cow Cracker Cavalry   Berger Sharpshooters "I had no Irons in the Fire". "Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie"?

Offline Jake MacReedy

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2010, 08:10:03 PM »
Does anyone have one of the Smiths for sale or trade? I've got a .45 Schofield Spenser and would like to have commonality of ammunition. Second question. Did any of the importers make one in .45 schofield?

There is one listed for sale over on the S&W forum in their Classifieds.  It's not mine, and I have no connection with it...just thought I'd let you know.

Jake

Offline Flint

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: S&W Schofield Modern 2000 model vs. the Imports
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2010, 01:15:21 PM »
Another point in S&W developing the Schofield cartridge is the larger rim diameter.  At the time of its introduction, 45 Colt cases were balloon heads.  This produced a rim with all rounded corners (see a 22 LR case).  S&W was trying to prevent the dropping of extracted brass between the star and the cylinder, an irritating and potetially deadly thing to the soldier in a fight.

The small rounded rim of the Colt was also the reason no-one chambered rifles in that caliber.  The modern made solid head cartridge case, with sharper corners, particularly at the base of the rim, will extract from a rifle, and will extract more reliably in the Schofield.  The 45 S&W case is still a bit better with its larger rim.

Note also that the longer cylinder effectively removes the gas ring from the Uberti, and makes the gun more prone to black powder fouling.  Of course, the frame could have been lengthened, but Uberti didn't choose to do so.  The strength of the latch probably drove the decision to reduce to the Schofield's smaller powder charge, and was an issue even with the then inferior Colt cylinder material.
The man who beats his sword into a plowshare shall farm for the man who did not.

SASS 976, NRA Life
Los Vaqueros and Tombstone Ghost Riders, Tucson/Tombstone, AZ.
Alumnus of Hole in the Wall Gang, Piru, CA, Panorama Sportsman's Club, Sylmar, CA, Ojai Desperados, Ojai, CA, SWPL, Los Angeles, CA

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com