The dire future of Winchester collecting|Page 3|General Discussions & Questions|Forum|Winchester Collector

steve004 said

clarence said

As long as it comes to being the target of hurled projectiles… I agree… Winchesters made after 1963 are not “pre-64” and firearms manufactured under the Winchester brand name after 1981 are not “Winchesters”…  Sure… Semantics? Focus on Corporate structure as the be all/end all determinant of what’s important?? Louis Luttrell said

The guns continued to be made by the same hands on the same machines in the same factory bldgs until at least 1989.  Operations under FN-ownership continued until 2006, when those shops were finally shut-down & the remaining workers laid off; regardless of legal changes to the deed to the property, or whether you think well or poorly of the guns still being manufactured there, the last fully assembled gun to leave before that date was as much a “Winchester” as all those that preceded it.

  

Interesting thoughts are emerging on this topic.  The corporate/management influence on those workers operating those same machines is, as we know, huge.  The bean counters who motivate changes in materials used, the time spent finishing those materials and so on … can take what was once a great rifle/brand and turn it into a very sad version of what it once was.  There was a rise and fall of Winchester.  That transition came in bits and pieces.  Different people will draw different lines.  For me, for the most part, the guns made after 1963 might have the name, “Winchester” stamped on them but they are fundamentally different.

This reminds me of people I’ve known who have had something bad happen to them.  I can think of examples of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia … while these people had the same name, wore the same clothes and for the most part looked the same… they were different people.  The spark of who they were was gone.  

  

Very interesting topic and comments!

Anthony

Let me add the same thing happened with Marlin, Savage, Remington.  And it happened for the sake of survival.  Pre-64’s Winchester M70’s are sometimes described as essentially handmade rifles.  And I suppose compared to those produced after 1963, they were.  Anyone comparing the two could see it.  I wasn’t collecting back then but I’ve read magazine articles from that time and there was an outcry over the dramatic change made to the rifle.  It wasn’t the same rifle – both in the materials used, design, care in assembly, etc.

I can name other rifles that this didn’t happen to.  Take Bullards.  They were quality from beginning to end.  But of course, what happened to Bullard?  There’s likely more than one reason they aren’t around anymore but I can assure you that a major factor was they were an expensive rifle to build.  Winchester (and Savage and Marlin) were motivated to survive.  Say what you want about management and the bean counters, but their agenda was for the company to survive.  We see this in manufacturing in nearly every aspect of our lives.  Quality steadily slips.  Things don’t last like they used to.  We’ve become a disposable society.  I well understand why Winchester (and other manufacturers) quit making rifles like they had.  The very cool thing is a lot of those rifles didn’t get disposed of – they remain in circulation and available to acquire  

clarence said

steve004 said For me, for the most part, the guns made after 1963 might have the name, “Winchester” stamped on them but they are fundamentally different.

  

Different certainly, but “fundamentally”?  The transition from rust & charcoal bluing to hot bluing was a major shift in technology, but would you say those hot blued guns are “fundamentally” diff from the same models that preceded them?  A general deterioration in quality began much earlier than ’63, it began in the early post-war yrs; to me, the pre-war/post-war divide is as significant as the changes inaugurated in ’63, yet I wouldn’t say there’s a “fundamental” diff between pre- & post-war guns.

  

I think each person decides what a, “fundamental” change is to them.  I agree there was a divide between pre-war to post-war guns but for me, it didn’t trip the trigger to fundamental until 1964 came along.  And for the post-63 M70, it was a confluence of factors that tripped the trigger for me.

steve004 said
Let me add the same thing happened with Marlin, Savage, Remington.  And it happened for the sake of survival.  Pre-64’s Winchester M70’s are sometimes described as essentially handmade rifles.  And I suppose compared to those produced after 1963, they were.  Anyone comparing the two could see it.  I wasn’t collecting back then but I’ve read magazine articles from that time and there was an outcry over the dramatic change made to the rifle.  It wasn’t the same rifle – both in the materials used, design, care in assembly, etc.

I can name other rifles that this didn’t happen to.  Take Bullards.  They were quality from beginning to end.  But of course, what happened to Bullard?  There’s likely more than one reason they aren’t around anymore but I can assure you that a major factor was they were an expensive rifle to build.  Winchester (and Savage and Marlin) were motivated to survive.  Say what you want about management and the bean counters, but their agenda was for the company to survive.  We see this in manufacturing in nearly every aspect of our lives.  Quality steadily slips.  Things don’t last like they used to.  We’ve become a disposable society.  I well understand why Winchester (and other manufacturers) quit making rifles like they had.  The very cool thing is a lot of those rifles didn’t get disposed of – they remain in circulation and available to acquire  

  

As you know (if you drew a white bean and actually got your Spring Collector in the mail), in 1966 I was trying to buy my first centerfire rifle, a  Winchester Featherweight like the one I’d seen in 1956. I was offered the loathsome 1966 standard rifle instead, which I refused.  That experience soured me on post ’63 Winchesters for many years, until about 1990, when I was looking to lay in a nice .22 repeater for my little son.  A new 9422 XTR changed my mind. It is one made under license by USRAC.  

I’ve since acquired, in some cases restored, but in all cases have shot and enjoyed a number of pre and post WWII Winchester rimfire repeaters, from the 69.to the 52C Sporting, and the 90, 67A , 61, 62A, 77, and 63, in between.  Just my opinion but the 9422 I bought and bestowed is just as finely and precisely made as any of them. 

To twist the knife, anybody who has had the pleasure of owning and using a “Parker by Winchester” DHE made by Olin-Kodensha will laugh at the notion it is an inferior product. 

To sum up: despite intransigent and, in some cases, self-interested, protestations to the contrary, the Winchester line of firearms is not stuck in the Purgatory of 1964. Like Colt and Marlin, the inherent quality and popularity of its designs, progress in manufacturing technologies, and the farseeing decisions of certain businessmen, have enabled Winchester to survive and even prosper.  For that we should be grateful because it lifts everybody’s boat. 

Bert H. said

Jeremy P said

Perhaps it’s time for a POST-64 section of the forum? You may now throw rocks at me…

  

More correctly, it is “Post 1963”.  A Winchester is either a “pre-64” or it is a “post-63”.

The issue that I envision with a “Post-63” Winchester forum is the lack of researched documentation & information available for the majority of the models that were manufactured, further compounded by the general lack of interest and expertise in them.  Who among you would be willing to step up to the plate and become the “Post-63” forum Winchester Guru?

Bert

  

Understood on the “63” designation…that’s a valid concern, I picture a pinned sticky that explains that for all visitors maybe? (That sticky would be including the company history and progression through WRACO and the like that you repeatedly have to give to folks!) Even if there’s not one here, a wayward deserving soul may soon inhabit it!

Zebulon said

steve004 said

Let me add the same thing happened with Marlin, Savage, Remington.  And it happened for the sake of survival.  Pre-64’s Winchester M70’s are sometimes described as essentially handmade rifles.  And I suppose compared to those produced after 1963, they were.  Anyone comparing the two could see it.  I wasn’t collecting back then but I’ve read magazine articles from that time and there was an outcry over the dramatic change made to the rifle.  It wasn’t the same rifle – both in the materials used, design, care in assembly, etc.

I can name other rifles that this didn’t happen to.  Take Bullards.  They were quality from beginning to end.  But of course, what happened to Bullard?  There’s likely more than one reason they aren’t around anymore but I can assure you that a major factor was they were an expensive rifle to build.  Winchester (and Savage and Marlin) were motivated to survive.  Say what you want about management and the bean counters, but their agenda was for the company to survive.  We see this in manufacturing in nearly every aspect of our lives.  Quality steadily slips.  Things don’t last like they used to.  We’ve become a disposable society.  I well understand why Winchester (and other manufacturers) quit making rifles like they had.  The very cool thing is a lot of those rifles didn’t get disposed of – they remain in circulation and available to acquire  

  

As you know (if you drew a white bean and actually got your Spring Collector in the mail), in 1966 I was trying to buy my first centerfire rifle, a  Winchester Featherweight like the one I’d seen in 1956. I was offered the loathsome 1966 standard rifle instead, which I refused.  That experience soured me on post ’63 Winchesters for many years, until about 1990, when I was looking to lay in a nice .22 repeater for my little son.  A new 9422 XTR changed my mind. It is one made under license by USRAC.  

I’ve since acquired, in some cases restored, but in all cases have shot and enjoyed a number of pre and post WWII Winchester rimfire repeaters, from the 69.to the 52C Sporting, and the 90, 67A , 61, 62A, 77, and 63, in between.  Just my opinion but the 9422 I bought and bestowed is just as finely and precisely made as any of them. 

To twist the knife, anybody who has had the pleasure of owning and using a “Parker by Winchester” DHE made by Olin-Kodensha will laugh at the notion it is an inferior product. 

To sum up: despite intransigent and, in some cases, self-interested, protestations to the contrary, the Winchester line of firearms is not stuck in the Purgatory of 1964. Like Colt and Marlin, the inherent quality and popularity of its designs, progress in manufacturing technologies, and the farseeing decisions of certain businessmen, have enabled Winchester to survive and even prosper.  For that we should be grateful because it lifts everybody’s boat. 

  

There is variability.  Quite the contrast between that c. 1966 M70 you refused vs. the 9422 you purchased for your son.

With each passing year, more things become, “collector” items.  We see examples of Winchesters, Marlin, Savages made in the 70’s 80’s (and well beyond) are now collector items.  I’ve collected Savage lever rifles but have always focused on much earlier specimens.  A M99 in .375 Big Bore is quite the collectable now.  But from a quality perspective, it bears no relation to the earlier M1899 and earlier M99’s.  

Collectors like the option to search for hard pieces that are uncommon and hard to find.  The Savage M99 in .375, .284 and the various versions such as DL, Monte Carlo stock, etc. provide find hunting fodder for collectors.  Even with the Winchester 9422, there are an amazing amount of variation, special editions, Trapper versions, camo stocks and the like.  That helps create a collector following.  And if those rifles appeal to someone, go for it.  If a person likes to play the speculator game, there is plenty of opportunity.  I can recall in the early 1980’s, J&G Sales was closing out Savage 99 in .375 Big Bore.  New in the Box for about $200.  Likely there are similar pieces available now that will follow the same path.  My point is there are all sort of paths and focus area to enjoy our hobby.

Bert H. said

Zebulon said

Bert H. said

Jeremy P said

Perhaps it’s time for a POST-64 section of the forum? You may now throw rocks at me…

More correctly, it is “Post 1963”.  A Winchester is either a “pre-64” or it is a “post-63”.

The issue that I envision with a “Post-63” Winchester forum is the lack of researched documentation & information available for the majority of the models that were manufactured, further compounded by the general lack of interest and expertise in them.  Who among you would be willing to step up to the plate and become the “Post-63” forum Winchester Guru?

Bert

The first order of business ought to be documenting the chain of succession of the rights to practice the patents, know-how, and show-how, including conditions and limits.

 I assume what you mean by the “absence of documentation”, is the absence of it in readily researchable form. While I don’t presently know and you may, I would think the records gifted to Cody would include those generated between, say, late 1962 and the post closing months of 1981. If they don’t exist there, please tell me so.

Now that the tangible and intangible assets of the gunmaking part of what was once the Winchester-Western Division presently reside either with Herstal.Group or one the Browning domestic corporations, I am not so sure manufacturing and sales information for post 1980 production (up to a date after which it iwould not be deemed advisable to share), could not be charmed out of Browning. I haven’t as yet tried. If someone has and been rebuffed, I’d like to know it. 

As for a general lack of interest, if that is measured by the quantity of post 63 collections displayed by the active membership of the Association, it may well be because we discourage it. I have, however, noticed a subliminal interest in the 9422, the Olin-Kodensha guns; and all of the Winchester branded Miroku guns seem to find adherents. 

I am old enough to have appreciated the early post WWII production quality of Olin’s WWD in real-time, as seen in the hands of my more forunate friends at Christmas. I missed its diminution in the late Fifties because I discovered  half the World’s population was interestiingly different.  When i shopped for my deer rifle in 1966, the new Model 70 was an ugly pie-in-the-face.

But that is not the end of the brand’s story, although it would not be the easiest to tell and preserve in scholarly detail. One way to assist in that project is to encourage those who wish to do so, to contribute their experiences and bits of knowledge in a Forum Topic.  And perhaps Browning d/b/a Winchester Repeating Arms might be persuaded that it is in their interest to help. 

  

In past years, I have spent a fair amount of time at the CFM (conducting various research projects), and to the best of my knowledge, they did not receive any records beyond those that they state on their website that they have. No records what-so-ever after 1963.  Keep in mind that Olin gifted everything to the Buffalo Bill Historical Museum in the mid 1970s and began the process of shipping it all out west in 1976.

In regard to the records after 1963, the GCA of 1968 further hampered the access to any records.  By Federal law, all of the production records that were still on hand in New Haven as of the sale and transfer of the factory to the newly formed U.S. Repeating Arms Company (in early 1981) should have been turned over to the BATF.  I do not know if FN Herstal turned over the U.S.R.A.Co records to the BATF when they permanently shutdown the New Haven factory in March 2006.  What I do know, is that neither the CFM or the Browning Arms Company (BACO) has the U.S.R.A.Co production records (1981 – 2006).

I have (in the past) written and posted information regarding the chain of succession for the Winchester brand name firearms. However, and for the benefit of those that have not yet read my old posts;

“There is no “Winchester” firearms company in existence today (or for the past 44 years). The original Winchester Repeating Arms Company (which was a division of Olin Industries) made the decision to get out of the firearms manufacturing business in the late 1970s, and they were officially out of that business in December of 1980.

Prior to them shutting down, they reached an agreement with the Buffalo Bill Historical Center Museum of the West to donate everything they had in the Winchester Museum, and in the archives at the factory. They filled more than a dozen semi-trucks, and then shipped everything including what was left of the original factory production records out west in the late 1970s. In December of 1980, they signed over the deed to the original factory in New Haven to the newly formed U.S. Repeating Arms Company (USRACo) and also leased them the rights to use the legendary WINCHESTER trademarked name for the next 25-years. At that point in time, the Cody Firearms Museum at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center became the sole keeper of the original Winchester museum firearms and historical records.

in 1992, the USRACo got into financial trouble, and was subsequently purchased by Belgium company Fabrique Nationale (FN) Herstal.  In January of 2006 (after a legal feud with the EPA and the Commonwealth of Connecticut) FN made the decision to permanently shut down the New Haven CT factory and dissolve the USRACo company.  In March of 2006, the New Haven factory was permanently shuttered.  With that act, production of the Model 94 and Model 70 ended.

In 2008, FN Herstal opened a new factory in Columbia SC, and they resumed production of the Model 70. Additionally, and at the same time, FN (also the owner of the Browning Arms Company) secured a new lease to the trademarked “WINCHESTER” name from Olin Industries, and they formed a “Winchester” division of the Browning Arms Company.  When you search the internet today for Winchester, that is who you will find.  Their website is in my opinion intentionally misleading, and most people mistakenly believe that they are the same “Winchester” company that began business back in 1866… they most certainly are NOT!“

Bert

  

Hmmmmm.  There are several ways to acquire the assets of a going or bankrupt corporation.  In the cases at hand, these were not a “purchase of interest” – whereby the purchaser buys the stock of the acquired corporation.  In the case of USRAC, it bought the tangible and intangible gunmaking assets of the Winchester-Western Division and got non-transferrable licenses to use the name and marks and probably some other rights as well.  The French holding company GIAT did something similar and then the Herstal Group did the same.  Fresh licenses from Olin all along. 

For the matter of that, the Olins, John Sr., John Jr. and Spencer, did not acquire the common stock of Winchester Repeating Arms, which wasn’t the same corporation as the one Oliver Winchester chartered because of the Simmons Winchester debacle.  If memory serves, Western got a loan from a consortium of lenders, guaranteed by the Olins individually for a time, and bought the assets out of receivership, which were operated as a division of Western for a while, etc.  

I suggest that “Winchester” is not a particular ownership or operating entity, but rather a bundle of designs, patents, expired and otherwise, and names and marks whether owned or licensed, that have made and still make the firearms we like to collect, preserve and use. 

If USRAC’s bankruptcy trustee did not transfer the production records of that entity to GIAT because it sent them exclusively to BATFE without retaining copies or summaries, and BATFE is therefore the only source of information, perhaps it is subject to an FOIA request, although they may have destroyed them.  Of course, the corporate records probably went to GIAT or were archived. I wish Browning’s old historian were still around. He was an affable soul and usually willing to lift a finger.