H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 The original Smith & Wesson Schofield revolver saw two versions, the First Model Schofield and the Second Model Schofield. I have seen a couple or articles that sometimes refer to the ones made by S&W in the early 2000's as a "Third Model Schofield." I don't believe S&W ever used this designation, but I have seen it. Anyone know where the term might have originated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 It is an informal designation created from outside S&W by gun media to differentiate the PC 2000 Schofields from the originals. From S&W PC Schofield product literature: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 Because S&W created this so-called Schofield in 2000, I imagine some folks might have termed it a "Third Model Schofield". This gun was supposed to be a complete replica of the original. I was at the SHOT Show when the gun was introduced. As a matter of fact, I even talked with Roy Jinks, the expert on S&W revolvers. Mr. Jinks told me that S&W had used one of his originals to create the Model 2000. Unfortunately, the 2000 is NOT an exact replica of the original! You see, the cylinder of the originals were long enough to acommodate the ".45 Revolver Ball" government cartridge, but not long enough for the .45 LC. The length of the frame on the originals was long enough for the Colt, and to span the gap between the shorter cylinder and the forcing cone, the breech end of the barrel was brought back to meet the front of the cylinder. This arrangement made it okay with black powder cartridges, smokeless not having been developed yet. When Uberti, et al, brought out their replicas of the Schofield, they wanted their guns able to take the longer cartridge, so they kept the length of the original frame, but they lengthened the cylinder and shortened the rear of the barrel. "Unfortunately", this did not make it really suitable for BP. Apparently S&W was concerned about people hopping up the loads of smokeless powder if they made their M2000 capable of handling the .45 LC. So, they shortened the frame to prevent a longer cylinder from being installed in the gun. But the result made the M2000 not handle BP very well. Apparently, again, that limited the desirability of Smith's gun, versus the Italian replicas. I'm not sure when S&W discontinued their gun, but I'd bet not handling either the .45 LC or BP had something to do with it. I've heard that some folks with the Uberti models can get them to work with BP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 Posted August 10, 2022 Author Share Posted August 10, 2022 I have an Uberti Schofield and a S&W 2000 one. I don't own an "original," but I can say that to the naked eye, the Uberti seems to be a much closer replica than the new "real" S&W's. That being said, the new ones do have a "coolness factor" all their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 I realize that some folks are disturbed by the differences between the 2000 and an original. None of that bothers me. When I went looking, I wanted a "real" S&W, made by S&W. I wanted the deep, fluid blue, and the precise manufacture of S&W firearms. And I wanted the original caliber - .45 Schofield. So i have a pair with 7" barrels. And they make me smile. LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 Well, my comments were simply to inform. I own neither of the reproductions, so am impartial. Either way, enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.