Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Winchester changed their design after 1963 of some iconic guns in order to lessen production costs.
That lead to immediate drop in prestige of Winchester in general which caused market share to quickly decline.
But apparently the company may have been slowly bleeding to death anyway because these rifles were no longer profitable.
Perhaps in hind sight, Winchester should have raised prices and decreased production and held out until cheaper but very high quality production methods became available like were used to produce the 9422 ?
They would have maintained more of a quality prestige niche?
Perhaps too much plant and equipment to consider cutting production?
Or perhaps they were destined to dry up anyway as has happened to a lot of US manufacturing?
Apologies if this has been discussed before but I am curious what folks think.
What was Winchester to do?
-Mike
[email protected] said
Winchester changed their design after 1963 of some iconic guns in order to lessen production costs.That lead to immediate drop in prestige of Winchester in general which caused market share to quickly decline.
But apparently the company may have been slowly bleeding to death anyway because these rifles were no longer profitable.
Perhaps in hind sight, Winchester should have raised prices and decreased production and held out until cheaper but very high quality production methods became available like were used to produce the 9422 ?
They would have maintained more of a quality prestige niche?
Perhaps too much plant and equipment to consider cutting production?
Or perhaps they were destined to dry up anyway as has happened to a lot of US manufacturing?
Apologies if this has been discussed before but I am curious what folks think.
What was Winchester to do?
-Mike
Mike – there’s a lot of different factors to consider and perspectives a person could take on the question you pose. What came to mind immediately for me is the fact that Winchester wasn’t alone in their move to mass production/cost cutting measures. The, “pre-mil” and, “post-mil” Savages comes to mind.
Winchester took a lot of criticism for the changes they made, but possibly those changes were of concern to a smaller segment of the buying public. The, “masses” out there probably placed sticker price high on the priority list.
I am thinking back to the mid-1960’s when my Dad bought a brand new Winchester M100. He was particularly struck by how beautiful the impressed oakleaf checkering was 
Of course, every gun writer will rail over how aesthetically non-pleasing the impressed checkering was. Let’s remember, not every buyer is a gun writer.
I totally agree with what you said. Sticker price was/is very important to many if not most.
But I’m not sure consistent with Winchester’s model.
Like Cadillacs and diamonds, I think much more than price alone.
And I’m not arguing at all. There is no clear answer.
Winchester was between a rock and a hard place.
Mike
[email protected] said
Winchester was between a rock and a hard place.
Mike
If you read the history of Winchester they were always between a rock and a hard place. Went bankrupt a few times, especially in the early years.
Don’t forget the strong influence of the bean counters. There were probably times when they had more influence than others. Circumstances often added fuel to their influence.
steve004 said
Don’t forget the strong influence of the bean counters. There were probably times when they had more influence than others. Circumstances often added fuel to their influence.
Same philosophy applies to the 2020 presidential election.
steve004 said
Don’t forget the strong influence of the bean counters. There were probably times when they had more influence than others.
Not more than the Union!
clarence said
steve004 said
Don’t forget the strong influence of the bean counters. There were probably times when they had more influence than others.Not more than the Union!
Yes, it’s my understanding they were a big part of the downfall of the company.
steve004 said
Mike – there’s a lot of different factors to consider and perspectives a person could take on the question you pose. What came to mind immediately for me is the fact that Winchester wasn’t alone in their move to mass production/cost cutting measures. The, “pre-mil” and, “post-mil” Savages comes to mind.
Winchester took a lot of criticism for the changes they made, but possibly those changes were of concern to a smaller segment of the buying public. The, “masses” out there probably placed sticker price high on the priority list.
I am thinking back to the mid-1960’s when my Dad bought a brand new Winchester M100. He was particularly struck by how beautiful the impressed oakleaf checkering was
Steve004,
My dad also purchased one of those M100’s. As a 10 y/o boy, I thought the rifle was beautiful. It was dad’s first rifle. I think he paid $139.00 for it. Must have been 2 weeks salary. The ability to purchase that rifle meant he could hunt. All 5 of my siblings began to hunt because dad hunted. 55 years later our family still hunts. Dad is gone but his rifle is still used by one of his grandchildren.
Because Winchester made a business decision to market firearms that were affordable to the common man, it allowed my dad to hunt and start a family tradition still enjoyed and cherished by our family for over 50 years. And because of that, on this Thanksgiving, I am thankful!
Today I own a dozen M100’s in rifle and carbine nib. Oh yes, one embossed basket weave stock in remembrance of dad.
Steve Boguski
1 Guest(s)
