Log In
November 1, 2013
Offline
From the “Last Book” (and best, I think), 1984, the yr of his death: “One man who knew nothing about guns & their mfg. was put in charge of a great & famous company. He began by downgrading the entire line & firing about half of the execs. In his brief tenure he wounded the company so badly it’s doubtful if it will recover.” This company isn’t named, but he adds “I was called in to examine the pilot model that was going to replace one of the world’s greatest sporting rifles. It was a crude piece of junk & looked it.” Goes on to say improvements were made & “today [20 yrs later, in other words] it is a pretty good rifle, though not so good as the one it replaced.”
Odd that he wasn’t specific about the new CEO & the company he was talking about, because he didn’t shy away from naming others he considered incompetent or phony, but perhaps he assumed his readers would know exactly what he meant.
I assume the author was referring to the Model 70 but seems the Model 94 would also nicely fit his comments.
Mike
March 23, 2010
Offline
Never was a big Jack O’Connor fan.More into Elmer Keith myself.
Started a heated discussion there didn’t I .
Any way ,Jack hit it right about the rifles being a piece of junk .No doubt he was talking about the Model 70,I know he was a big fan of the Model 70,having one buried with him I believe.
As Mike stated ,he probably never spoke of the company by name ,as any one alive and into firearms in that time would have known without saying, just what company he was talking about.As Mike stated the comments could have gone for the Model 94 as well.Or the Model 12 that was redesigned ,as the Model 1200.
I remember back in the day, we considered these firearms to be junk.What amazes me ,is the prices being paid for some of the Model 94 carbines made in that time frame.We in the time, thought of them as junk that would never have any value ,especially when compared to a pre 64 Model 94.
As Jack stated the later rifles were better than the ones made right after 63,but those even though they worked okay,were no where near the pre 63 models.
Its too bad Olin at the time ,decided to wring as much profit out of Winchester firearms as they could .They could of made some cost cutting corners,that would of allowed them to made a decent product and profit, without going to the extreme they did to get maximum profit and in the end killed the company.
Remington at the time, was still putting out a good product and making money, although they had introduced cost cutting measures .Olin with Winchester, could of done the same.Its almost like they no longer wanted to make firearms,so they made cheap firearms that they charged a lot for and made a big profit for a short time.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
November 1, 2013
Offline
28 gauge said
Its too bad Olin at the time ,decided to wring as much profit out of Winchester firearms as they could .They could of made some cost cutting corners,that would of allowed them to made a decent product and profit, without going to the extreme they did to get maximum profit and in the end killed the company.
Incompetent leadership (John Olin by this time having relinquished active management) was one factor as Jack pointed out, but the other was this: https://www.laborhistory.org/newsletterarchive/288953
Again & again, US labor leaders have demonstrated they’d rather put their employers out of business than make concessions to the realities of competition.
March 23, 2010
Offline
Probably a bit of both.The strike in the article took place in 1969,six years after Olin had already started making poor quality firearms.Olin’s big money is in chemicals,the firearms division after John left, was something the corporate leaders of Olin did not really want, or understand.So they set about maximizing profit.
Again just my thoughts.
November 1, 2013
Offline
28 gauge said
Probably a bit of both.The strike in the article took place in 1969,six years after Olin had already started making poor quality firearms.Olin’s big money is in chemicals,the firearms division after John left, was something the corporate leaders of Olin did not really want, or understand.So they set about maximizing profit.
The ’69 strike was the first nail in the coffin; the ’79-80 strike sealed the lid, & in a study of that strike that I can’t now locate, the leaders of it were jubilant that they had “taught the company a lesson.” We know how that turned out.
March 23, 2010
Offline
Probably a bit of both.Olin’s wanting to get rid of the Winchester division started in 1964 after John left.Even without the strike,with the way Olin was running the firearms division, I doubt it would have lasted under Olin leadership.The strike did not help, that is for sure,probably speeding up the process at the time.
In the early 70’s they did try to fix things up a bit ,with some improvements to the Model 70 and 94 line.Also the introduction of the Super-X Model 1 and Model 9422,but it was a case of too little too late in my opinion.
1 Guest(s)
