Author Topic: Smith & Wesson Schoofield Model of 2000  (Read 1081 times)

Offline Coffinmaker

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6764
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Smith & Wesson Schoofield Model of 2000
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2021, 09:01:28 AM »
I agree with F C Kid.  I don’t think sales would support the Schofield limited to 44 Russian regardless of my opinion.

Oh well

Offline HamptonBogs45

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • SASS #: 110635
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Smith & Wesson Schoofield Model of 2000
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2021, 03:00:20 AM »
Howdy Trail Rider.

I'm gonna poke some holes in your theory.

Starting in 1869 with the American Model, ALL S&W Top Break revolvers had 1 7/16" long cylinders. These were a suitable length for the 44 S&W American and 44 Russian ammunition. Both of these models had the extended gas bushing pressed onto the cylinder that prevented fouling from being blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap and onto the cylinder arbor.

This photo shows the bushing on the cylinder of an American Model.






This photo shows the bushing on the cylinder of a Russian model.






Schofield Model






New Model Number Three






44 Double Action.






They all had a bushing with this sort of arrangement in relation to the barrel/cylinder gap. This photo shows the relationship between the front of the bushing on a Schofield and the barrel/cylinder gap. There was nothing new about this, S&W had been doing it since the American model back in 1870. There was nothing shortened about the Schofield cylinder in relationship to the barrel/cylinder gap, the arrangement of a 1 7/16" long cylinder with S&W #3 Top Breaks had always been that way.






S&W simply did not want to interrupt the manufacture of over 150,000 Russian models to make up new tooling for a longer cylinder and frame for the 45 Colt. Bear in mind, S&W made over 150,000 Russian models, but less than 9,000 Schofields. Why in the world would they jeopardize the profitable contracts they had with the Russians, Turks, and Japanese for an Army contract they were not at all sure they would win?




You are correct, the original 45 Colt cartridge held about 40 grains of Black Powder, and the malleable iron cylinders did blow up on occasion. And the charge was later reduced to 30 grains.






But according to Jerry Kuhnhausen in his book The Colt Single Action Revolvers, a Shop Manual, Volumes 1&2, Colt did not begin making frames and cylinders from low-medium carbon steels until mid 1883. Long after the question of what type of cartridge should the new S&W Top Breaks be chambered for had been answered for the 1875 contracts with S&W.

As for the wrong ammo being sent to the wrong units, I have heard speculation about that for years.

I have never seen documentations that it ever actually happened.

Cheers,

Driftwood

Great info in all your comments. I get about 30-35 shots out of my 5 inch uberti schofield when using 45 schofield brass, 250gr bp lubed bullet, 24gr of 3f black powder(I’ve used schutzen and goex) the schutzen seems to burn a little bit cleaner. With 45 Colt brass, the same lubed bullet and 30gr of 3f(my load I used in my saa, clones and conversion clones, and Cimarron/uberti 1866 carbine) I get maybe 10-15. I’d like to try the even shorter 45 cowboy special brass one day if it’s ever made again and figured out how to reload it with no dedicated dies available. Also, my loads mentioned above all use a vegetable fiber wad over the powder. I plan on getting one of cimarron’s new model 3 first model Americans they released in the last year or so when an 8” 44 special model becomes. When I can find the brass I want to try it with 44 Russian black powder loads. That brass is near impossible to find as well. Sad that we can’t shoot them the historically accurate way we want to. I can’t afford originals and wouldn’t want to wear them out anyway.

Lastly, are there any good gun Smiths or machinists that have attempted to modify these reproductions to add the bushing on the cylinders and modify whatever else to make them work or even a whole new cylinder? Is it even possible?
“Life’s hard, it’s harder if you’re stupid.” -John Wayne

“Who’s the fella owns this sh*thole?”-William Munny

“You gonna pull those pistols? Or whistle Dixie?”-Josey Wales

Offline HamptonBogs45

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • SASS #: 110635
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Smith & Wesson Schoofield Model of 2000
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2021, 03:10:34 AM »
For the sake of historical integrity, S&W called it a gas COLLAR, not a bushing.  ;)

As I have mentioned various times here before, S&W lengthened the gas collar THREE times after the original shorter one on the earliest American Models. This is all covered in great detail in the superb book by Pate:

https://www.amazon.com/Smith-Wesson-American-Model-Foreign/dp/1931464243

As well, if you want to shoot an Uberti S&W clone with real BP loads it can be done & done easily. Use the Big Lube style bullet, BUT generously lube the cylinder pin with a BP friendly grease. I once fired over EIGHTY real BP .44 Russian rds. thru a friends's Uberti Russian clone in quick succession with no problem. I repeat:  the secret is to heavily lube the cylinder pin with a good BP type grease. Just like a military M4 rifle they will run "wet" & dirty, but not dry & dirty.

P.S. If you really want to piss off a Colt lover tell them that the first SAA was chambered in .44 Russian, which is historically true.  :D

Which grease do you recommend? Only one I know of is bore butter but it melts on days over 75°F. And SPG doesn’t seem like it’d stay there?
“Life’s hard, it’s harder if you’re stupid.” -John Wayne

“Who’s the fella owns this sh*thole?”-William Munny

“You gonna pull those pistols? Or whistle Dixie?”-Josey Wales

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

© 1995 - 2021 CAScity.com