Smith & Wesson vs Colt: The Military Revolver Rivalry of the 1870s
In the early 1870s, the United States Army needed a new sidearm. The cap-and-ball revolvers that had served through the Civil War were obsolete, and the military wanted a modern cartridge revolver chambered in a heavy caliber suitable for frontier combat. What followed was one of the most consequential -- and politically charged -- firearms competitions in American military history. The two contenders were Colt's Single Action Army and Smith & Wesson's Model 3 Schofield, and the rivalry between them shaped military sidearm policy, ammunition standardization, and the commercial firearms market for decades. For a detailed look at the Schofield revolver itself, see our companion article on the Schofield Smith & Wesson Model 3.
The Army's Cartridge Revolver Problem
By 1870, the U.S. Army was still largely equipped with percussion revolvers -- primarily Colt 1860 Army and Remington New Model Army revolvers left over from Civil War stocks, some converted to fire metallic cartridges through the Thuer, Richards, or Richards-Mason conversion systems. These conversions were stopgap measures at best. The converted revolvers were mechanically compromised, the conversion cartridges were often unreliable, and the whole arrangement was unworthy of a modern military.
The Army Ordnance Board, tasked with selecting a new standard sidearm, established requirements for a large-caliber, single-action revolver firing a self-contained metallic cartridge. The new arm needed to be robust enough for hard frontier service, powerful enough to stop both men and horses, and simple enough for soldiers of varying skill levels to maintain and operate.
Colt's Answer: The Single Action Army
Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, based in Hartford, Connecticut, had dominated the American revolver market since Samuel Colt's original Paterson revolver of 1836. By the 1870s, Colt had deep relationships with the military establishment and decades of experience producing military revolvers. Their entry was the Model P, better known as the Single Action Army or, eventually, the Peacemaker.
Designed by William Mason and Charles Brinckerhoff Richards, the Colt SAA was a solid-frame, gate-loading revolver. To load it, the shooter opened a loading gate on the right side of the frame, rotated the cylinder by hand, and inserted cartridges one at a time. Spent cases were ejected individually using a spring-loaded rod housed beneath the barrel. The process was deliberate -- loading and unloading required both hands and several seconds.
But the Colt SAA had formidable strengths. Its solid frame was exceptionally strong, with no hinge point that could loosen or fail. It was chambered in .45 Colt, a powerful cartridge pushing a 255-grain bullet at approximately 855 feet per second from a 7.5-inch barrel -- genuine stopping power by any standard. The revolver was well-balanced, pointed naturally, and had a clean, predictable single-action trigger. And Colt's manufacturing capacity and political connections were formidable.
Smith & Wesson's Answer: The Model 3 and the Schofield Modification
Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, took a fundamentally different design approach. Their Model 3, introduced in 1870, was a top-break revolver. Releasing a latch at the top of the frame allowed the barrel and cylinder to pivot downward, simultaneously operating a star extractor that kicked out all six spent cases at once. The shooter could then drop in six fresh rounds, snap the revolver closed, and be back in the fight. The entire reload could be accomplished in a fraction of the time required for the Colt.
The original Model 3 "American" was chambered in .44 S&W American and had already attracted military interest -- the Army purchased approximately 1,000 in 1870, making it the first standard-issue cartridge revolver in U.S. military service. But the .44 American was considered underpowered compared to what the Army wanted for its new standard sidearm.
Enter Major George W. Schofield of the 10th Cavalry. Schofield proposed modifications to the Model 3's latch mechanism that allowed the revolver to be opened with one hand -- a critical advantage for a cavalryman whose other hand was controlling a horse. Smith & Wesson adopted his modifications, and in 1875, the Ordnance Board contracted for 3,000 Schofield revolvers (later expanded to 8,285 total), chambered in .45 caliber to match the Army's cartridge requirements.
The Ammunition Debacle
Here the rivalry took its most consequential and frustrating turn. The Army wanted both revolvers to fire the same ammunition, but Smith & Wesson's top-break design could not accommodate the .45 Colt cartridge. The problem was length: the .45 Colt case was 1.285 inches long, and the Model 3's cylinder and extraction system could not reliably handle a case that long. Smith & Wesson therefore developed the .45 Schofield (also designated .45 S&W), a shorter cartridge with a case length of 1.10 inches firing a 230-grain bullet at roughly 750 feet per second.
The .45 Schofield round could be fired in the Colt SAA, since the Colt's chamber was long enough to accept the shorter round. But the reverse was not true -- the longer .45 Colt cartridge would not fit in the Schofield's cylinder. This created a logistical nightmare. Ordnance depots had to track two different .45 caliber cartridges, and supplying the wrong one to a Schofield-armed unit meant those soldiers had useless ammunition.
The Army's initial solution was to standardize on the shorter .45 Schofield round for all units, since it worked in both revolvers. But this meant that Colt SAA users were firing a less powerful cartridge than their weapon was designed for, sacrificing roughly 100 feet per second of velocity and proportional energy. Neither side was fully satisfied.
The Conflict of Interest Question
The competition was shadowed by allegations of conflict of interest that have fascinated historians ever since. Major George Schofield held the patent on his latch modification and received a royalty on each Schofield revolver sold to the government. His brother, Lieutenant General John M. Schofield, served on the Army Board that influenced procurement decisions, and later became Commanding General of the Army. Whether this family connection influenced the adoption of the Schofield revolver, or whether it was adopted purely on merit, remains debated.
Colt partisans pointed to this relationship as evidence that the Schofield received favorable treatment. Smith & Wesson supporters countered that the Schofield's superior reloading speed was a genuine tactical advantage that justified adoption regardless of who held the patent. The truth likely lies somewhere in between -- the Schofield was a genuinely excellent revolver, but the family connection did not hurt its prospects.
Field Performance: Two Philosophies in Combat
Both revolvers saw extensive service in the Indian Wars of the 1870s and 1880s, and soldiers developed strong opinions about each. The arguments broke down along predictable lines:
Speed of reloading. The Schofield was dramatically faster to reload. Its simultaneous ejection and open cylinder made recharging the weapon a matter of seconds. In a mounted engagement where speed was life, this was a significant advantage. Cavalry units that received Schofields generally preferred them for this reason.
Durability and strength. The Colt's solid frame had no hinge to weaken or loosen over time. The Schofield's top-break mechanism, while well-engineered, introduced a potential failure point. After years of hard use, some Schofields developed looseness at the hinge, affecting accuracy and cylinder alignment. The Colt aged better.
Dust and debris resistance. The Colt's enclosed frame and loading gate kept dust and grit out of the mechanism more effectively than the Schofield's top-break design, which exposed the entire cylinder and action every time it was opened. In the arid, dusty conditions of the Western frontier, this mattered.
Power. When the Army standardized on the .45 Schofield cartridge, the power difference was neutralized. But soldiers who obtained .45 Colt ammunition for their SAAs had a more powerful weapon. The Colt could handle the hotter round; the Schofield could not.
The Verdict: Colt Wins the War
In the end, the Army chose the Colt Single Action Army as its primary sidearm and phased the Schofield out of front-line service by the early 1880s. The total Schofield purchase of approximately 8,285 revolvers was dwarfed by Colt SAA purchases that would eventually exceed 37,000 for military contracts alone. Surplus Schofields were sold to civilian dealers -- Wells Fargo famously purchased a batch with shortened barrels -- and many ended up on the frontier in civilian hands.
Several factors drove the decision. The ammunition logistics problem was the most significant: having two incompatible .45 caliber cartridges in the supply chain was intolerable. Since the Colt could fire both rounds and the Schofield could not, standardizing on the Colt eliminated the problem entirely. The Colt's greater durability in long-term service was also a factor, as was Colt's superior manufacturing capacity and established relationship with the Ordnance Department.
Smith & Wesson, for its part, found enormous success selling Model 3 variants abroad. The Russian Imperial government ordered over 131,000 Model 3 "Russian" revolvers chambered in .44 Russian, and the design saw military service in Japan, Turkey, Argentina, and numerous other countries. The commercial failure in the U.S. military market was more than offset by international sales.
Legacy: What the Rivalry Taught the Army
The Colt-versus-Smith & Wesson rivalry of the 1870s established principles that would guide military sidearm procurement for generations. The importance of ammunition standardization -- having one cartridge that works in all issued weapons -- became an inviolable rule. The tension between speed of operation and mechanical durability remained a recurring theme in firearms design. And the recognition that a weapon must be evaluated not just on its performance at the range but on its logistics, maintenance, and supply implications became embedded in military procurement thinking.
The rivalry also shaped the two companies' identities for decades to come. Colt became the dominant name in military revolvers and leveraged its Army contract into massive commercial success -- the Single Action Army remained in production, with interruptions, from 1873 to the present day. Smith & Wesson, learning from the Schofield experience, would eventually surpass Colt in the military revolver market by the early 20th century with their hand-ejector designs, which combined the solid frame's durability with a swing-out cylinder that offered reload speeds approaching the top-break while eliminating its structural weakness.
Conclusion
The Smith & Wesson versus Colt rivalry of the 1870s was more than a competition between two revolvers. It was a contest between two design philosophies -- the elegance of the top-break against the brute strength of the solid frame, the speed of simultaneous ejection against the simplicity of gate loading, the innovation of a new approach against the reliability of an established one. That the Colt ultimately won says less about the Schofield's quality, which was excellent, than about the practical realities of military logistics and long-term durability. Both revolvers earned their place in history, and both companies went on to shape the American firearms industry in ways that continue to this day.
The Smith & Wesson historical forum can be found here.
If you know of any forums or sites that should be referenced on this listing, please let us know here.
