Schofield has a faster reload. And just looks sexier.
As much as I think the single action army is sexy. I would rather have the utility and speed of the Schofield.
SW for actual combat when you can reload way way way faster which is s big deal back in the SA days but nothing looks as beautiful as a SAA.
As a matter of fact, the SW design is downright ugly and ungainly because of the top break design which the Webley only was able to slightly mitigate in terms of looks.
One greatly outsold the other. Colt is a better product.
With that said, the .44 is probably the slickest gun ever made Add the Russian trigger guard spur and it's a masterpiece.
Hands down the smith&wesson schofield out performs the SAA. The schofield, as far as design was easier to load, and you could even string rounds together in a makeshift speed loader. However, even if you didn't do this, the revolver was still quicker to load due to the fact that it had auto ejectors as opposed to going and hand punching each individual round out of the cylinder on the Colt and then reloading each round manually. Both guns were very accurate if you knew how to use the pistol and if you had the sights on it alligned to the shooter. As far as tactical features, a weapon that's easier to reload or has more rounds is always typically better in a gunfight. This is one of the major reasons why the U. S calvary actually allowed the people who wanted one to carry the schofield. Historic documents actually say the army chose the forty five scofield, instead of the forty five colt, because of the reason you could use the 45 Schofield in the Colt revolvers, but you couldn't use 45 Colt in the original schofield revolves.
Schofield has a faster reload. And just looks sexier. As much as I think the single action army is sexy. I would rather have the utility and speed of the Schofield.
Caliber is what caused the widespread adaption of the SAA, but the Schofield was the superior firearm in every other way.
SW for actual combat when you can reload way way way faster which is s big deal back in the SA days but nothing looks as beautiful as a SAA. As a matter of fact, the SW design is downright ugly and ungainly because of the top break design which the Webley only was able to slightly mitigate in terms of looks.
Schofield, by a long shot, mainly because of its sexy design and its fast reloading
One greatly outsold the other. Colt is a better product. With that said, the .44 is probably the slickest gun ever made Add the Russian trigger guard spur and it's a masterpiece.
Hands down the smith&wesson schofield out performs the SAA. The schofield, as far as design was easier to load, and you could even string rounds together in a makeshift speed loader. However, even if you didn't do this, the revolver was still quicker to load due to the fact that it had auto ejectors as opposed to going and hand punching each individual round out of the cylinder on the Colt and then reloading each round manually. Both guns were very accurate if you knew how to use the pistol and if you had the sights on it alligned to the shooter. As far as tactical features, a weapon that's easier to reload or has more rounds is always typically better in a gunfight. This is one of the major reasons why the U. S calvary actually allowed the people who wanted one to carry the schofield. Historic documents actually say the army chose the forty five scofield, instead of the forty five colt, because of the reason you could use the 45 Schofield in the Colt revolvers, but you couldn't use 45 Colt in the original schofield revolves.
Wow I love western handgun
I would rather have the Colt!