Author Topic: Question about S&W #3  (Read 3202 times)

Offline willy

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Question about S&W #3
« on: August 04, 2019, 10:41:49 pm »
Looking at the repros and was wondering
1.which is closest to originals.
2. which models had the screw in the top strap
3. Is there a chance of the schofield model being pushed to far into the holster and releasing the latch?

Offline DJ

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 273
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2019, 11:21:03 pm »
1.  Which is "closest" is a tough question.  The repro of the New Model Russian is in the right caliber (.44 Russian) and close in dimensions but mechanically different and I feel it is "beefier" that an original.  The repro Schofields are in .45 Colt (and maybe others) that the original Schofield never chambered, and consequently the cylinder and (a few other internal things) are different.  You can shoot .45 Schofield in it, but that makes you more authentic, not the piece.  I believe even the S&W-made Schofield repro is different from the original--it's in the right caliber, but as I recall the firing pin system is different.  Maybe the forthcoming American?  Although the pictures look like a 1st Model American, but I understand it is chambered in calibers other than the original .44 American.  With a slight frame adjustment they could've maybe reproduced the Old Old Model Russian (I get the desire to chamber it in a readily available caliber, and .44 American is not that), but it doesn't look like that's the plan.  Plus can't tell dimensions from the photos.  So, I guess my answer is, I dunno.

2.  Among S&W Single Action Number 3s, the American Model, Old Old Model Russian (both on the American frame), the Old Model Russian, and  the New Model Russian had the topstrap screw.  All are "normal looking" screws except the New Model Russian, which has a screw head approaching the diameter of a dime.  The New Model and the Schofields don't have the top screw.

3.   It has been possible for me, at least, to unlatch a Schofield by pushing into the holster too far.  This was with a military flap-style holster.  I solve the problem by cutting away some leather where the latch could catch.  There are holsters where this would not be a problem.


Offline Coffinmaker

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5574
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2019, 09:54:28 am »

PLUS ONE too DJ   :D

And some additional.  You may occasionally run into a Schofield made by Armi San Marco which are to be avoided like the plague.  Pretty but not well made.

None of the reproductions play well with BP.  When Uberti built the guns to chamber 45 Colt, they extended the cylinder and eliminated most of the Base Pin Bushing (S & W did too) so the guns foul out almost immediately with BP Or Subs.  Good Luck.

Offline Trailrider

  • CAS-L Ghost Rider
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2136
    • Gunfighter Zone
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2019, 11:53:23 am »
The frames of most of the repro Schofields are of the same length as the original. The repro cylinders were lengthened to accommodate the .45 LC, thus eliminating the forcing cone extension of the original.  When S&W brought out the Schofield 2000, they kept the original cylinder length, but shortened the frame, thus eliminating the rearward extension of the barrel and the gap between the front of the cylinder and the rear of the frame of the original! I wasn't able to get confirmation, but I suspect S&W did that to prevent someone substituting a longer cylinder! None of these repros do well with BP.
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 willy

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2019, 04:43:01 pm »
Thanks for the schooling guys.


Offline DJ

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 273
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2019, 09:38:06 pm »
I shoot a repro New Model Russian in .44 Russian and, depending on humidity, can get about 50 or maybe a few more rounds out before it becomes too gummy to shoot (meaning that my wife or daughter hands it to me and says, "Can you fix this?  It doesn't work.")  A few squirts and wipes with a solvent (Hoppes 9 or Balistol, although even water or spit would probably do) keeps it going for another 20-30 rounds.  After that it needs to be squirted & wiped every 20-30 rounds or so.  The biggest problem seems to be fouling buildup on the face of the cylinder and the center pin.  This works for me.

I have shot a repro .45 Schofield, and it seems to gum up more quickly (more powder?).  I have tried rounds with grease wads  under the bullet.  What seemed to work is a lube wad about 1/8" thick on top of a pure (hard) 1/16"beeswax wad on top of the powder.  Oddly, what did not seem to work was an even thicker grease wad on top of a wax paper disk.  I can only surmise that the burned wax paper ash created a worse kind of fouling than the black powder alone.  I like the Schofield, but I haven't gotten it to the point where I enjoy taking it to the range because I only shoot black powder in it, and it gums so badly.

--DJ
(edited to clarify "repro" Schofield)

Offline Coffinmaker

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5574
Re: Question about S&W #3
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2019, 05:14:22 pm »

Often, one must be careful what one whines for.  In the not so distant past, altogether too may folks begged for a Schofield chambered in 45 Colt.  Uberti responded with what we have today.  Uberti said ok, now that you have it, good luck.  Be careful what you ask for.  You might just get it.   ???