Just to continue the speculation: This Schofield has a rather long, generous forcing cone, combined with a relatively tight (.008) barrel /cylinder gap. Forcing cones vary wildly on the Uberti's, from ones like mine to none at all. It is my thought that a more generous cone leads to better operation with BP, catching and holding more of the lateral dispersal behind the bullet until the pressure drop of the bullets departure draws more particulate matter down the bore. Also a tighter cylinder gap increases the velocity of the escaping gas/fouling, helping keep the cylinder face cleaner. (Bernoulli's law) My 5" Schofield has a decent forcing cone, but not as good as the new one. (That is actually older) I also have a Uberti #3 Russian in .44 RUssian, and it's cone splits the difference between the two schofields, and it's performance reflects it.
Most recent production I've seen tends toward the "None at all" end of the spectrum.
Simply put, I suspect the better performing Italian top breaks have proper forcing cones. Opening up the forcing cone to proper spec would help a lot on many I feel. Combine with a generous lube capacity in a smaller case (Russian, Schofield, C.S.) you might get acceptable performance. I cannot speak for the 2000 S&Ws, but it probably would not hurt to check.