Why The Schofield

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq.]

American cavalry (even during the ACW) was much more in the mold of the traditional dragoon or mounted infantry than European "cavalry."

As noted the primary weapon of the American cavalryman was his rifle.  The pistol was secondary weapon.  This does not mean it wasn't important, only that it was not the first weapon of choice.

[kcub]

So what about all those Russell and Remington pictures from the era where there are running gun battles on horseback between the cavalry and plains Indians?  Are they equally as bogus as Hollywood?

[St. George]

When you view those works - think 'Romance of the West', before anything else.

There's a world of difference between a running battle or a skirmish on the Llano Estacado than that of a pitched attack as seen at Brandy Station.

Going with what he knew best, Russell didn't chronicle the Trooper so much as he did the Cowboy - it was Remington who travelled with the columns and associated with the Troopers and Soldiers.

There are some good depictions of what was worn and how it was worn in both.

As romantic and dramatic as a Cavalry action was - the Indian Wars were won by Infantrymen - and there's nothing 'romantic' about that line of work.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Forty Rod]

It was felt that the newly-designed and patented frame-mounted latch was easier to manipulate by a mounted man - retracting it with the thumb and 'wiping' it across the leg in order to complete the ejection, while the other hand controlled the mount.

I've owned both and disagree with the Schofield being "easier to use" by anyone. 

I could, even with my relatively short thumbs, push the latch on the Americans and Russians (and the later No. 3 SA and early DA break tops) UP much easier than I could shift  the gun around and try to pull the latch BACK on the Schofields.  Maybe that's why after making only about 7,000 Schofields and Paying a huge (for its day) royalty on each one, S&W went back to the older system.

[Flint]

The reason the Schofield was not chambered in 45 Colt is the rim.  Especially the period balloon head case with its rounded corners and small diameter would slip out from the extractor star of the S&W, and that is a difficult jam to clear.  The S&W cartridge has a larger rim diameter.

The balloon headed soft cornered rim is also the reason period rifles were not chambered in 45 Colt.  modern made solid head cases have enough rim to get a grip on by a rifle's extractor, and (barely) enough to stay in a S&W extractor star. 

[Jake MacReedy]

As we all know, some of the Schofields were sold off to private dealers (i.e., Schuyler, Hartley & Graham) in the early 1880's, and a lot were transferred to State Militias (much like today's National Guard units).  Some Schofields were still in use by State Militia units as late as the Spanish-American War.  Another interesting fact is that, before divesting itself of the remaining Schofields, the U.S. Army twice went back to S&W to try and get them to  make more Schofields for issue and use. Messrs. S&W declined, as they had already turned production over to the "later" Russian and New Model Russian frame style, and told the Army that it would be prohibitively expensive to set up the machinery necessary to make the "old-style" frame once more.  So they were not as "unpopular" in the Army as some might think.

Regards,
Jake

[Forty Rod]

Using "the Army wanted them" argument would also suggest that the M-16 is dearly loved by the soldiers in the field.

[Jake MacReedy]

forty rod,

Could you please tell me what that possibly has to do with what I wrote concerning historical events in the 1870's?  I don't mean to be contentious here, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making...that the Army was interested in procuring more, and that they did have quite a following among cavalry troopers.  As to the M-16..or the M-4 family as it's now known...you go with what you're issued.  Having carried and used an M-16 and CAR-15 quite a bit during my 22 years in the military, it may not have been my first choice in a battle weapon, but I kept mine cleaned (religiously, I might add), and it never failed me.  Would I rather have a .30 caliber rifle in hand, you bet!

Regards,
Jake

[Forty Rod]

forty rod,

Could you please tell me what that possibly has to do with what I wrote concerning historical events in the 1870's?  I don't mean to be contentious here, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making...that the Army was interested in procuring more, and that they did have quite a following among cavalry troopers.  As to the M-16..or the M-4 family as it's now known...you go with what you're issued.  Having carried and used an M-16 and CAR-15 quite a bit during my 22 years in the military, it may not have been my first choice in a battle weapon, but I kept mine cleaned (religiously, I might add), and it never failed me.  Would I rather have a .30 caliber rifle in hand, you bet!

Regards,
Jake

[Montana Slim]

Please....Lets not discuss "modern" stuff which is non-applicable to the discussion.....no need to make this sound like "work" 

Slim

[WaddWatsonEllis]

I too have 20+ years in the Air Farce, as a medic on HH-43s, HH-3s- HH-53s, H-1s, HC-130s, and C141s.

Let us accept that I have time on the aircrew S&W K-38 Combat Masterpiece.

When I shot my first Schofield, it felt like I was shooting a K-38. The gun naturally points with the hand, is a nail driver, and I will offer to load both of mine in the time it takes to load one Colt Peacemaker or Peacemaker Clone.

Fast and accurate

'Nuff said.

[St. George]

Let's just all keep this focused, or I'll just delete posts not germane to the original thread.

Scouts Out!

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq.]

Let's just all keep this focused, or I'll just delete posts not germane to the original thread.

Scouts Out!

"The gol, dang Germans got nothing to do with it!!!"

Sheriff Buford T. Justice

[Short Knife Johnson]

Looks like the tangent started when the point was trying to be made that factors other than being suitable for the job are at play when selecting military hardware. 

Anyway, my thoughts on the S&W top breaks are they are my new favourite pistols.  However, to clean them is very time consuming and full of lots of small parts floating around.  Compared to my SAA type pistols where there are three relatively big chunks of gun to deal with.  Instantly the realization was made by me why they were considered to be more of a gentleman's choice - because they would be the ones who had lots of time and space with which to take them apart, and clean them without losing parts.  It would be a quartermaster's nightmare to keep troopers supplied with tiny srews, and so forth.

And leave the Germans out of this.

[St. George]

This is difficult to imagine - given today's attitudes towards 'weapons maintenance' - but there was surprisingly little detail-stripping done during the era - and any 'true' maintenance done on a military weapon was 'not' done by the guy who was issued with one.

Cleaning the bore and charging holes was enough - and oil was applied liberally - 'oil' being thought of as actual 'care'.

Internals weren't dug into - for fear of lost parts (a real factor with the Schofield).

If 'you' want to clean the internals of your S&W's - but don't want to play 'Anagrams' when you drop a couple of them - merely remove the sideplate and hose out with WD-40.

Though often vilified - WD-40 does have the ability to melt away a lot of age-hardened crud, and you can use round toothpicks to dislodge more.

After that - blot it clean and apply a favorite lubricant and replace the sideplate and stocks.

Colt always tied it's fortunes to securing military contracts, and they advertised that fact heavily in print ads.

Smith & Wesson targeted the civilian trade, and made great inroads, but never had the same name recognition as did Colt.

Back then - any lever-action was a 'Winchester' and every revolver was a 'Colt' - so strong was the 'name' of those products.

Any talk of 'modern' weapons belongs on a different forum, where the like-minded can hash over their tales and suppositions and misgivings.

This one's for Old West weaponry.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Trailrider]

Smith & Wesson targeted the civilian trade, and made great inroads, but never had the same name recognition as did Colt.
(snip)

This one's for Old West weaponry.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Smith & Wesson didn't do too well with selling to the U.S. gubmint in the 19th Century, it is true.  But they did pretty well with other governments, notably Imperial Russia, and Turkey, and to a lesser extent Japan, etc.  Incidentally, the question of how you load a topbreak while on horseback and holding the reins can be answered this way:  (NOT sure if this is historically correct, but at least Hollyweird showed it!  )  In one battle fought by a British officer who had lost his left arm, but still retained enough of a stump to tuck the Webley under his armpit, he then held the reins in his good right hand, while inserting cartridges in the exposed cylinder at the same time!   Where there's a will, there's a way, I guess!

[Will Ketchum]

For those who think a modern, Uberti made Schofield handles well, you really owe it to yourselves to handle an original New Model number 3.  Most agree that it is the best balanced and handling single action revolver of the 19th Century.  Too bad they didn't put better sights on them.     Of course I seldom use the sights on mine for CAS.

Will Ketchum

[Jake MacReedy]

Will, I totally agree!  I've had the opportunity to handle several original Schofields...sure wish the Uberti's had the same balance and feel! That said, I still like the Uberti's very much.

Regards,
Jake

[Flint]

There is little need to concern yourself with losing little parts, if you ever need to remove the sideplate at all more than once a year to spray it out with brake cleaner then re-oil it, no parts can fall out unless you take them out, and beyond the first out of the box checkup, spring smoothing (get rid of the grinder marks) and removal of the hammer-block, there is no reason to remove the sideplate when you clean the revolver after shooting, clean the cylinder and bore, the insides stay pretty clean.

[Montana Slim]

I have to say I like the sights on my #3 .....at least for now 

Regards,
Slim