H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
7,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
1 minute ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:
LEGAL.
Thank you, Sir.
I had guessed this was the case, but wanted to be sure.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:
If these are original and not reloads, you might want to look up collector prices & interest.
They are original. I found them at a gunshow for $55 a box. Got two boxes of this, and the box of Remingtons. Given how hard it is to find this ammo, and how harder it is to find brass, I figured it was a good price.-
1
-
-
I think it is, but I want to be sure.
To quote the Handbook...
REVOLVER AND RIFLE AMMUNITIONMay not be jacketed, semi-jacketed, hollow point, plated, or gas checked. It must be all lead. Moly-Disulfide, polymer coated bullets, or equivalents are acceptable. (Emphasis added.)
Okay, that lays the groundwork for why I think my ammo MIGHT be legal. But now, here is the ammo I am wondering about.
Okay, the box clearly indicates that the bullets are coated, not jacketed.
But here's what the bullets look like...
Okay, the top 2 are some Remington ammo with regular lead bullets, and the lower two are the "coated" ammo. You can see that some of it is rubbing off, and it is clearly not jacketed, as far as I can tell. But, it is coppery colored, so it gave me pause. I have no idea what "Lubaloy" coating is, so I figured I would post this information as ask for a ruling from someone more in the know than I.
-
Cheap
Factory Loaded
Cowboy Ammo
Pick two.-
2
-
1
-
-
Over the lifespans of some of our favorite firearms, they have gone through various descriptors that tell us, more or less, when they were made. Some of these designations are officially recognized by the people that made them, others are terms created by the collector market or that somehow developed organically over time. Sometimes, some of these designations can be further broken down into sub categories. Perhaps the most well known ones are the following....
Colt Single Action Army.
First Generation -- Can be further broken down to the so called, "Black Powder" and "Smokeless" frames.Second Generation
Third Generation -- Can further be broken down as "early" and "late" variants depending on if the cylinder bushing is removable or not. (And you can order one with a Black Powder frame. There is NO 4th generation, in spite of various points in the 3rd generation have been proposed to be the start of the 4th, but Colt does not give them credence.
Winchester 1894.
Pre-64Post-64
These are the most common designators. But Post-64s can be broken down as follows...
Pre-83Post-83
These designations basically mark the change from top to angle eject.Miroku is used for the current Japanese made guns.
Smith & Wesson Schofield
1st Model
2nd Model
And then there are ones that S&W made from 2000 to 2003. I am not sure what the "official" designation is. Since it is not really the same as the vintage ones, "3rd Model" would make sense, but as far as I know, Smith & Wesson never called them that. The only think on the pistols themselves that could be considered a model designation is how the right side of the front sight is stamped "Model 3 Schofield 1875," and the left side is stamped "Performance Center 2000." They "Letter" as a "Smith & Wesson manufactured replica of the Model 3 Schofield First Model." Your guess is as good as mine as to what they should be referred to as. I guess 3rd Model Schofield is as convenient a designator as any.
So... Are there any other guns of our era of interest that have different designations that are used primarily to identify when they were made? They may or not be on common usage, whatever that means.
If you include Wild Bunch era guns, I suppose you could say M1911 and M1911A1 could broadly count, as could Government Model, Series 70 and Series 80. -
6 hours ago, Muley Gil SASS # 57795 said:
There were only two Schofield models, the difference being the shape of the latch.
Only two, back in the day.
There is a 3rd version of the Schofield that came out in the year 2000. They are variously known as Performance Center Schofields, Schofield 2000s, and Third Model Schofields. I think the first one is the official designation, but I have seen the other two designations in various places. -
I'd strongly recommend you take it to a gunsmith and have the innards carefully cleaned, partly to make sure it's all there, and partly to, well, make sure it's clean enough to fire.
I recently took a friends 73 to have it repaired. The smith said there was over 100 years of dirt inside of it in places! Not the action or the bore, but the magazine tube and the inside of the but stock were incredibly filthy. -
This is turning out to be an unexpected fascinating thread. It's been enjoyable to read about the success, or lack thereof, that people have had running Schofields in a .45 Colt chambered 73/66/Henry, Marlin or 92. Given the number of people that it DID work for, I am likely to try tweaking me load to see if I can get it to work in the lever guns.
But am I the only one who has tried it with a Lightning? -
1 hour ago, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:
The real question is: why would anyone want to run .45 Schofield ammo in a .45 Colt chambered rifle?
Because I have a Third Model Schofield chambered in, well .45 Schofield. I know I can run the shorter round in my plethora of .45 Colt revolvers, and it would be nice to be to run it in a rifle so I only need one caliber at a match, instead of two.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well, what is "interesting" is that while with the lever guns, you either need to tweak the gun, or the load, or both, to run the shorter cartridges. But, to my amusement, the Lightning ran them with no modifications needed. To be honest, I am curious to try it with the Cowboy .45 Special, but I don't load that one.
What prompted me to try this, was how a cartridge I am "developing" a .45-70 trimmed to .45 Colt Length, (I call it the .45-45) works just great in my large frame Colt, but only marginally well in my 86's.
It's fun to try new things. -
On a whim, I just tried running some .45 Schofields in my AWA Lightning chambered for .45 Colt.
They worked flawlessly.When I tried them in my lever guns, 66, 73, or 92, they didn't work. One and a half cartridges tried to feed. I just realized I didn't try them in my Burgess, but I have a feeling it won't work in it either.
But, they worked in the Lightning...
So, if you wanna shoot .45 Schofield and you want a rifle that'll work with 'em, get a Lightning in .45 Colt.-
1
-
1
-
-
I do indeed mean .44 Magnum, the cartridge created by making the .44 Special longer. It has been humorously referred to as ".44 Russian Extra Long" on occasion here on the wire. I honestly don't know how popular it would be amongst Cowboy shooters in general, but amongst us Lightning fans, it might be. I mean, I'd enjoy the option of using one instead of my 92 when I trot out my .44 Mag pistols. Plus, every Lightning shooter I know, including myself, likes having multiple rifles in different calibers.
Getting one in .44 Magnum would very much give me an excuse to get another one. It would be my first Pedersoli, and would help to add something to my Colt/AWA/Taurus collection.
Yes, standard configuration would be one that looks like this...
When it comes to these old timey designs, I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to looks. I don't like the features or odd changes that most "updated" versions of these types of things have.
I do sometimes think that the "tachticool" versions of some of these guns are interesting, but they don't have bayonet lugs, so I don't bother. That's be a traditionalist in the other direction, I guess.
-
2
-
-
Still want the .44 Magnum in standard configuration.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:
USFAs never had a safety block since they weren't Ubertis.
Well...
Here's my pistol.
As you can see, it's not pristine, but is still in overall pretty good shape. Comparing it to some of my other Uberti pistols, I have to say that the wood to metal fit is much better.
And yes, it is a USFA
This is from the top of the barrel.
And, yes, it is also an Uberti
This is from the bottom of the barrel.
And yes.... It does have that weird hammer block safety.
So, apparently, the early USFA's were indeed made with Uberti parts.-
1
-
-
Look on the top of the barrel between the rear sight and the frame. That's where it is on an 1889 gun I have.
-
Once they switched to made in the USA parts, did they retain that weird safety thing in the hammer? If not, then they are closer to the SAA than the Uberti...
-
Found this article.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/this-old-gun-united-states-patent-fire-arms-tombstone-buntline/
It's about a specific model, but has some good information about these early USFA's. Apparently, Uberti parts assembled and finished here. Never thought I'd have a USFA of any kind. And now I sorta do.
Fascinating. -
I need some help understanding a newly acquired Uberti SAA clone. 4-3/4" barrel, nickel finish. It's got the ubiquitous Uberti style safety in the hammer.
When I got it home, I started entering it into my personal records, and of course, once of the things I wondered was who imported it. I started looking for markings, and this what I found...
Left side:Back of barrel near frame: 45 COLT
On frame below cylinder: Three patent date lines
Just behind trigger guard: 45CAL
Bottom of barrel, just in front of cylinder pin: A UBERTI - ITALY 45
In front of trigger guard and on bottom of frame: matching serial numbers 124xxx There is also a P above both serial numbers. It's also on the bottom of the grip handle.
All pretty straightforward. But here is where it get intriguingly mysterious to me.
Top of barrel: U.S. PT F.A. MFG. Co.
HARTFORD. CT. U.S.A.That last set of markings confuses the heck out of me. Is this actually a USFA made with Uberti parts? I've read here conflicting assertions as to if they ever did so. Is this proof that they did? What the heck have I found?
-
I wish the .44 Magnum had conventional sights and stocks. I'd buy one if it did.
-
2
-
-
Interesting. I guess the Massachusetts License to Carry Firearms does not qualify. I have never had a local FFL not call it in. Maybe I'll ask about it next time I buy a gun.
-
That's third gen, right?
-
On 1/22/2025 at 8:27 AM, Warden Callaway said:
Most of the same features as my Cimarron Eliminator 8s. Except the Eliminator 8s have 1860 Army grip frames. I had to put stronger main springs in them to get reliable ignition. Did a lot of work on both of them to get them to work. When the buzzer went off, I couldn't tell the difference.
SAA frame. 1860 grips. Octagon barrel. Where have I seen something like that before?
Oh yeah!
My custom made Big Iron.-
2
-
-
Load one, skip one, load four. Cock and lower on empty chamber.
What's so hard?-
4
-
-
Wranglers....
Didn't Tex have a low opinion of people who wore them?
Or are you talking about a pistol made by Ruger?-
3
-
Schofield's
in SASS Wire
Posted
Depending on who wants to buy them, that may help or hurt the value. For others, it might not matter. Assuming everything else about the pistols is in overall good shape, I'd offer you $1000 for the pair, but I'm in the hurt category.
Yes, I realize that this is a bit below what these things normally go for on the used market, but I really don't like my guns being so significantly altered from the way they were made. For the record, I have seen them on the market used, for $800 to $1500 for one, depending on condition, finish, grips and all the other usual modifiers. But I also live in Massachusetts where used gun prices can be a lot higher for things that you can't legally buy new in this state. Your milage may vary. And no, I can't actually make an offer. Since they are not already legally in the state, they can't be imported.