Why The Schofield

Will Ketchum · December 02, 2006, 06:35:51 PM

Would someone please explain to me why the Schofield was felt to be superior to the American or Russian for cavalry use. Oh I know the latch placement is suppose to make manipulation of the latch with one hand easier but I have no problem doing so with my NM3s

I merely push up on the sight/latch with my thumb and either the barrel drops or I push it against my thigh. Isn't that about what you do with a Schofield?

Will Ketchum

Trailrider · December 02, 2006, 11:25:45 PM

Howdy, Pard,

Because Major Schofield's brother was a general, and was able to persuade the Ordnance Dept. to adopt the modified S&W. Today the whole situation would be under a conflict of influence investigation by Congress!

The fact that the Army ordered so few of the S&W's and got rid of the Schofields after only a very few years, was due in part to their getting out of order more quickly than the Colt's. It became a moot point after the introduction of the DA .38's. In point of fact, the Schofield had a better set of sights than the Colt's, and far better than the New Model #3 fixed sight version.

Also, the S&W's are not nearly as good for "buffaloing" drunken cowboys as a Colt!

Happy Holidays, Pard!

Fox Creek Kid · December 02, 2006, 11:46:19 PM

Trailrider is mostly right, however in its defense, there were many supporters of the S&W style "system", not the least of which was Ranald MacKenzie of 4th Cavalry fame. Fellas, I can't recommend enough the new book by Charles W. Pate on the S&W American Model. MOUNDS of info as well as gov't tests betweeen S&W & Colt.

St. George · December 02, 2006, 11:50:24 PM

The Schofield was a 'product improvement' over the earlier Smith & Wesson American - the first cartridge revolver adopted by the Army in 1870.

The Russian was criticized for its handling characteristics.

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.

It was more or less 'user-specific' to the Cavalry.

Both Colt and Smith & Wesson dearly wanted a Government Contract and there was considerable lobbying done on both parts, since an indorsement of that type would cause sales to rise markedly.

Colt 'still' uses that connection with their 'Single Action Army' and their 'Government Model' appellations.

The Schofield was well thought of, and was in service as of 1887, and the Army tried to order more of them in 1878.

That was the year that Smith & Wesson introduced the soon-to-be-popular New Model 3 that would replace the American, Russian and Schofield on the production line, and they weren't interested in producing any more for Uncle Sam - concentrating their efforts on the new model.

The Schofield was still in active service as late as the Spanish American War with Volunteer units.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Will Ketchum · December 03, 2006, 11:45:36 AM

I am not questioning why the Colt over the Schofield but rather why the Schofield latch system was felt to be superior to the earlier S&W latches? Were the American and the Russians different than the NM3s? I guess I have always thought they were pretty much the same.

I know that with my NM3s I have no problem opening them with one hand.

Will Ketchum

St. George · December 03, 2006, 12:36:36 PM

What part wasn't clear, Pete?

"The Schofield was a 'product improvement' over the earlier Smith & Wesson American - the first cartridge revolver adopted by the Army in 1870.

The Russian was criticized for its handling characteristics.

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.

It was more or less 'user-specific' to the Cavalry."

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Fox Creek Kid · December 03, 2006, 03:12:06 PM

The S&W American, as well as the Russian Models, had the latch on the rear of the barrel while the Schofield had the latch on the frame.

Here's a tidbit I found in the Pate book that I didn't know: the prototype Schofield had a ratchet in the breech face!! S&W declined to use it on production models. Will, the difference between the other S&W revolvers (re the frame latch) & the Schofield models is that it takes two hands to break open the earlier Model 3 styles as oppoed to one for the Schofield. I guess not everyone then rode with the reins in their mouth a la Rooster Cogburn!

Will Ketchum · December 03, 2006, 03:27:43 PM

St. George and Fox Creek, I know what you are saying I guess I should rephrase my question. Let's forget the Schofield for the moment. Is the latch system of the earleir model 3s different than the NM3s? I have handled the earlier models but I'm not that familiar with their latch system.

Will Ketchum

Fox Creek Kid · December 03, 2006, 07:36:32 PM

I don't know for sure as I am unfamiliar with the New Model, but I believe they are almost the same as the American & Russian Models.

http://armchairgunshow.com/Mod3-info.html

St. George · December 03, 2006, 10:14:03 PM

The American, Russian, and the New Model all feature 'barrel-mounted' latches.

The Schofield's latch was 'frame-mounted', and was also somewhat more robust in construction.

Being frame-mounted allowed the Cavalry trooper to manipulate the latch easily by hooking a thumb over the top of the rear sight and pulling rear and down, while 'wiping' the barrel across the thigh.

It was more secure and easier to do than having to push upward and possibly have to use both hands.

Control of the horse was a preminent factor in the Cavalry, and if the reins could be held in the left hand while the right handled the weapon - it was easier on the trooper.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Trailrider · December 07, 2006, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: Will Ketchum on December 03, 2006, 03:27:43 PM
St. George and Fox Creek, I know what you are saying I guess I should rephrase my question. Let's forget the Schofield for the moment. Is the latch system of the earleir model 3s different than the NM3s? I have handled the earlier models but I'm not that familiar with their latch system.

Will Ketchum

Howdy, Will,

No, there is no significant difference between the various top-strap mounted latches from the American to the NM#3. All lifted upward and forward. Yes, you can do it fairly easily with the thumb (IMHO, anyway). As an engineer, I think the top-mounted latches are more complicated to machine and keep from wearing against the projections on the frame to which the latch...uh...latches, whereas the Schofield is essentially like the sear notch on a hammer, pulling almost straight back. Also the sights formed by the Schofield latch are far easier to pick up on the originals than on the fixed-sight NM#3's. But as to ease of opening of the top-strap mounted latches, I never have had any trouble with them.

Your Pard,

Flint · January 27, 2007, 01:43:25 AM

Add to the ease of opening one-handed is the point that it had to be opened with gloves on, and that leaves the standard barrel mounted latch out of the picture. Schofield also greatly simplified and improved the ejector mechanism.

kcub · March 27, 2010, 02:26:17 AM

Once you have an empty Schofield do you not still have to use the other hand to load the cylinder?

St. George · March 27, 2010, 08:01:59 AM

Of course you do.

The difference is in the speed of reloading ability.

It's faster to reload an empty Schofield from your Dyer Pouch as you're turning your mount than it is to eject each fired round from a Colt Single Action Army and reload.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Shotgun Franklin · March 27, 2010, 12:27:55 PM

I still believe that if S&W had built the Schofield to use/handle the .45 Colt round it would have fared much better. Needing to issue 2 different kinds of ammo to any outfit can be a royal pain. I used to do firearms qualification for several different agencies. Each Officer/Deputy could carry the gun of thier choice. Supplying all that different stuff and making sure I had the right ammo at the range on the right day was a pain..

St. George · March 27, 2010, 02:24:07 PM

Sort of a moot point.

The original Colt Single Action that Ordnance Department had in its hands was chambered for a S&W round - the .44 American.

Ordnance later specified .45 caliber as a requirement.

The .45 Smith & Wesson cartridge became Government Standard for both the Colt Single Action Army and the Schofield revolvers in 1874...

The cartridges for both were packed by Frankford Arsenal - the box for the Colt being marked 'Colt's Revolver, Cal .45' and those for the Schofield '12 Revolver Ball Cartridges'.

The boxes for the Colt will be dated from November, 1873 through August 1874, and those for the Schofield from 1875 through 1881.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

Flint · March 27, 2010, 05:14:36 PM

Add to the one handed mix the fact that it is easier to open with gloves on. (I see I mentioned that before) It's surprising the triggerguard was not enlarged for that purpose as well. The Schofield latch as someone stated is more robust, and has a MUCH better rear sight than the other latch.

The Schofield hammer dives under the latch upon firing much like a Rolling Block Remington, this helps keep the gun closed upon firing recoil. Although the other #3m hammer and latch has a hook and notch system to keep the latch down, I think the Schofield would prove stronger in that regard.

As the S&W latches are held in place by the hammer when down, it is one of the reasons the mainspring is so strong. Too light a mainspring and the hammer can bounce, and the gun shoot open. Check the mainspring force on an original sometime if you get a chance, they are almost as strong as a cap & ball mainspring.

Drydock · March 27, 2010, 08:52:35 PM

To actualy answer the original question (what a concept!) it must be mentioned that Major Schofield held the patent on the latch, using it required a royalty payment on each revolver produced. Schofield waived the royalty on military purchases, but had S&W used it for civilian production, they would have had to pay. When the NM was designed the patent was still in force, thus S&W stuck with the older latch.

kcub · March 28, 2010, 06:17:52 AM

Quote from: St. George on March 27, 2010, 08:01:59 AM
Of course you do.

The difference is in the speed of reloading ability.

It's faster to reload an empty Schofield from your Dyer Pouch as you're turning your mount than it is to eject each fired round from a Colt Single Action Army and reload.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

If they could have contrived some way of balancing the open revolver (sticking the barrel in a hole in the saddle?) or place it in an open leather pouch designed for the purpose on the saddle maybe they could have even reloaded with one hand and still held the reins in the other without ever having to lose control.

St. George · March 28, 2010, 08:48:47 AM

But they didn't.

They didn't, because it wasn't important to them and the way they were trained to fight - the Trooper's primary weapon was the carbine, and not the revolver.

The whirling melee' that was common to the Civil War Cavalryman didn't happen during the Indian Wars, so tactics changed in order to fight an opponent who wasn't trained in the European manner of fighting by units, rather, they fought as individuals, and that's somewhat more of a free-spirited method of combat.

Real life is often quite different from what one garners from the 'John Ford Reference Library' and novels, and 'woulda if they coulda' has no place in what actually happened.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!