Uberti Top Break Hammer Safety?

[July Smith]

I would like to eventually get a top break revolver just because I think they are really cool.  Looking at the Schofields in 44WCF.  Do the Uberti top breaks have a hammer block safety?  I am asking about the hammer safety that is engaged when the revolver is set to half cock.  I will only ever load 5 rounds and would prefer to not have the hammer block safety. 

 

Would it make a difference if I ordered them through either Taylor's or Cimarron?  I know my standard Uberti Cattleman has a 1/2 cock hammer block safety, but my Cimarron (made by Uberti) Model P has a traditional Colt style hammer.

 

 

[Mink Shoals Bandit, #49388]

No

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

It has a hammer block but it is inside the frame.  A lot of folks remove it as it can cause light primer hits.  Once removed it operates just like an original.

 

Part number 656.

 

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=35&cat=Uberti+Schofield

[July Smith]

17 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

It has a hammer block but it is inside the frame.  A lot of folks remove it as it can cause light primer hits.  Once removed it operates just like an original.

 

Part number 656.

 

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=35&cat=Uberti+Schofield

Thank you for the information!  Do the Taylor's or Cimarron models have the hammer block too?  I have read a few online reviews about the Uberti top breaks, two of the reviewers complained about light primer strikes, both were cause by that silly hammer block.  Seems a real shame that a gun with an MSRP of $1100 needs work right out of the box. 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Taylor's and Cimaron are importers.  They do not make guns.  A Uberti is a Uberti regardless of who sells it so whoever yiou buy it from it will have the safety.  It is needed so it can be imported.  Once removed the gun will operate normally.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

Larsen has the answer. I shoot a pair of long barrel Uberti  Schofields 44wcf. I had a guy back east go inside and get rid of all the blocks etc. And now I can slip hammer them if I want to. He is no longer in business though.

 

Try them out before you buy. If you shoot dualist, I do, the hammers are very high, you really have to reach.  If you shoot 2 handed no big deal. And while there are some on here who have been able to shoot BP using synthetics mine start to bind a bit even with smokeless powder. Uberti made them really tight, and they moved the cylinder bushing to allow longer cartridfges.

Ike

[July Smith]

14 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

Larsen has the answer. I shoot a pair of long barrel Uberti  Schofields 44wcf. I had a guy back east go inside and get rid of all the blocks etc. And now I can slip hammer them if I want to. He is no longer in business though.

 

Try them out before you buy. If you shoot dualist, I do, the hammers are very high, you really have to reach.  If you shoot 2 handed no big deal. And while there are some on here who have been able to shoot BP using synthetics mine start to bind a bit even with smokeless powder. Uberti made them really tight, and they moved the cylinder bushing to allow longer cartridfges.

Ike

Thank you for the advice and tips.  The hammer block aside, I have read about some of the issues with the cylinder bushing.  Are the Schofield reproductions/new runs made by S&W any better?  I understand the S&Ws are considerably more expensive and only chambered in 45schofield, but they seem to be better quality and true to the original design.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

55 minutes ago, July Smith said:

Are the Schofield reproductions/new runs made by S&W any better?  I understand the S&Ws are considerably more expensive and only chambered in 45schofield, but they seem to be better quality and true to the original design.

 

The original Schofields were built during the Black Powder era and were designed to shoot Black Powder. The cylinder bushing was designed to shield the cylinder arbor from Black Powder fouling blasted out of the Barrel/Cylinder gap. Because the Italian replicas were designed for longer cartridges such as 45 Colt, the cylinders were longer than the originals. In order to fit the longer cylinder into a frame of the same size as the originals, the cylinder bushing was shortened, reducing its ability to shield the cylinder arbor from fouling blasted out of the B/C gap.

 

This is an original 1st Model Schofield made in 1875.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the cylinder. Notice the length of the bushing at the front of the cylinder.

 

 

 

 

 

This is how the bushing slides over the arbor to shield it.

 

 

 

 

 

The cylinder in the front of this photo is from an Italian reproduction. Notice how short the bushing is.

 

 

 

 

 

The Schofields made most recently by S&W were made in 2000. There are no new ones available anymore. Yes, they were chambered for the original 45 Schofield cartridge. There were a few modifications made to the design. They were excellent quality, but everything I have read said they do not perform well with Black Pwder. Smith and Wesson stated they were designed to be shot with Smokeless powder, not Black Powder.

 

[LostVaquero]

From the partsv diagram it would seem the Laramies have the same block but they must work a bit different.  My Laramies have three hammer positions, down, 1/3 to openblatch full cock.  The Schofield has four.  Laramie book says automatic rebounding hammer, each time it fires hammer bounces back so tip of the hammer is out ofb the frame.  The Schofield does not seem to do this.  I am not sure what is different inside other than the Laramies use coil mainsprings and the Schofield does not.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

Thanks Driftwood for answering July Smith's question. You have a great book of knowledge on these and other things.

Ike

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

Hey Driftwood,

Looking at those pictures, would it be possible to shave down the front of the uberti cylinder and machine out the bushing to match the original one? I assume this would permanently turn a 45 colt into a 45 schofield. I'm just trying to think of a way to make these guns shoot bp. If not that, then what else could be done. I have to assume someone has been able to find a work around at this point. These guns are way too cool not to be shot with BP

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

2 hours ago, LostVaquero said:

From the partsv diagram it would seem the Laramies have the same block but they must work a bit different.  My Laramies have three hammer positions, down, 1/3 to openblatch full cock.  The Schofield has four.  Laramie book says automatic rebounding hammer, each time it fires hammer bounces back so tip of the hammer is out ofb the frame.  The Schofield does not seem to do this.  I am not sure what is different inside other than the Laramies use coil mainsprings and the Schofield does not.

 

 

Howdy Again

 

I suspect you may have part of that statement backwards.

 

The Laramie is a replica of the S&W New Model Number Three. The NM#3 was the most sophisticated Top Break revolver S&W made.

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot speak about the hammer block in the Uberti replicas, but I can tell you about the lockworks of the originals. This is the lockwork of a Schofield. Pretty straight forward. This view is with the hammer all the way down. Notice the firing pin is protruding through the frame. Notice the bolt is in the popped up position, just like a Colt. If the cylinder were in place it would be locked in battery.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the 'half cock' or loading position. The bolt has been lowered into the frame to allow the cylinder to rotate. If the barrel latch were still in position you would see the hammer has cleared it so the barrel can open for loading.

 

 

 

 

 

Full cock. That's all there was in the Schofield.

 

 

 

 

 

The lockwork of the NM#3 was a bit different. After a shot the hammer would automatically rebound. I have read that not all NM#3s had this feature, but mine does. I am forcing the hammer forward with my thumb for this photo, otherwise it would have popped back. Notice the position of the sear (the upper tip of the trigger) relative to the hammer.

 

 

 

 

 

In this photo I have released the hammer. The trigger spring has wedged the hammer back slightly and the sear has popped into a tiny notch on the hammer. This is not the loading position. The bolt is still popped up and the cylinder is still in battery. The hammer has not yet moved back enough to allow the barrel latch to open. The cutout in the hammer has not cleared the shelf on the bottom of the latch.

 

 

 

 

 

This photo shows the half cock position. The sear has popped into the half cock notch. The bolt has withdrawn into the frame to allow the cylinder to rotate, and the cutout in the hammer has cleared the latch so the barrel can be opened for loading.

 

 

 

 

 

Full cock.

 

 

 

 

 

The New Model Number Three was first cataloged in 1878, five years after the Colt Single Action Army was introduced. I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect the engineers at S&W were trying to stay one jump ahead of the engineers at Colt by incorporating a rebounding hammer into the NM#3. I can tell you that I do not trust the rebounding mechanism in the NM#3 and I would never load mine with six rounds. You can see how tiny the cross sections are of the sear and particularly the how tiny the notch is on the hammer for the rebounded position. I am not going to try it, but I suspect a good blow to the hammer spur would shear something and the gun would discharge if a live round was under the hammer.

 

As I said, I cannot speak about the hammer block in the Italian replicas, I have never taken one apart.

 

 

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

23 minutes ago, Redwood Kid said:

Hey Driftwood,

Looking at those pictures, would it be possible to shave down the front of the uberti cylinder and machine out the bushing to match the original one? I assume this would permanently turn a 45 colt into a 45 schofield. I'm just trying to think of a way to make these guns shoot bp. If not that, then what else could be done. I have to assume someone has been able to find a work around at this point. These guns are way too cool not to be shot with BP

 

No. If you relieved the front of the cylinder that way you would be opening the barrel/cylinder gap to about 1/8"

 

But if you look at the photo with two cylinders, look closely at the one in the rear. It is an Uberti cylinder that has been modified to shoot Black Powder. The bushing was machined away and a counterbore was made for a new bushing. The new bushing has been pressed in place. This modification required relieving some material under the barrel for the new, longer bushing.

 

I took these photos in the shop of a master gunsmith who has since retired.

 

By the way, the same technique can be used on the Remington 1858 Model, which had no cylinder bushing at all. Particularly useful if one wants to shoot Black Powder cartridges with a conversion cylinder.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Great photos Driftwood.  Thanks for posting.  The photos reminded me that I have a NM#3 in .44-40 in a shoe box in the closet.  I need to get that out and put it back in shooting condition.  This one does not have a rebounding hammer.  I took the side plate off to look at the notches.  They are configured so it has half-cock and full cock but no rebound position.

 

 

[July Smith]

Thank you all for the replies and very informative pictures!  I think I will hold off getting my hands on these guns for a while at least.  The replicas are really cool, but the iffy hammer block safety and binding with black powder is a real turn off for me.  Might have to just save up for an original.