Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
The “re-imagining” of the Winchester firearms line that resulted in the 1964 rifles is only part of the story that ended in a sale of the Winchester gunmaking assets in 1981. One that has always interested me.
In Herb Houze’s corporate history, he relates that Olin ordered a postmortem by a committee formed for the purpose.
The committee reported a laundry list of causes of failure of the Commercial Gun Department of Winchester-Western, a very significant one of which was the failure of Olin to invest in modern gunmaking machinery after the close of WWII, and its inability to resolve its labor disputes.
Another cause, the report said, was the imprudent termination of popular and profitable gun models. When I read that, I wondered what guns they were talking about. I still do.
We all know the models discontinued after WWII and into the late Fifties. They are very popular with US (WACA members) but I can’t think of any that were big sellers to the general public because they cost too much and were losing out to the competition: The 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, 21, 12, 42, 50,59, 52, 75, all come to mind. [I either own or have owned, and dote on, all but the 21, 50, and 75.]
What popular and profitable postwar pre-64 Winchesters were they talking about? Anybody?
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Bill,
You can add to the list you mentioned, the Models 43, 67A, 69A, 72A, 74, 77. The the Model 12 (Y-series) was resurrected in the 1970s, and the Model 21 was not discontinued until Winchester ceased to own & operate the New Haven factory in late 1980.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Concur. I had a Model 69A full size rifle. Son has a 67A boy’s rifle. Had a newish tube magazine 77 somebody wanted worse. There were no flies on any of those and I’m inclined to think they were profitable. Same for the 43.
What puzzles me is WHY those were discontinued. They were not expensive to build, just looking at them. Made out of bar stock, surely.
I’m not sure about the 77 but I’m pretty sure the others were discontinued before McNamara’s Band showed up, so we can’t blame them. Gunmaking management must have been chaotic back then, what with the M14 contract, sharply increased union labor costs and strikes, rapidly rising raw material costs, and increasingly severe competition from Remington, SAKO, and FN, among others.
Also, something not often mentioned but which put a lot of pressure on the Commercial Gun Department, was a series of unfortunate and costly acquisitions parent Olin Industries engaged in during this time, which had nothing to do with guns or ammunition but made Olin’s board and senior management very intolerant of underperforming departments. Olin was the Wiley Coyote of Wall Street, constantly falling off cliffs or getting blown up. Such an atmosphere did not encourage risk taking or creative thinking in New Haven, I would venture.
In the end, I would have to put the blame on Olin Industries management for forcing Winchester-Western to find some way to make the Commercial Gun Department profitable, to the ultimate detriment of the Winchester brand and the near destruction of its gunmaking reputation.
For John Olin, the reputation of Winchester guns had sold lots of ammunition and I think, left to his own devices, he would have allowed the CGD to operate at a loss and consider it an ammunition marketing cost. Winchester-Western’s ammunition operation was always profitable.
The late Bill Ruger said anybody who did not know instinctively what his guns should look like, shouldn’t be in the gunmaking business. Ruger proved he knew what the public wanted, so many times nobody can argue the point. I think Winchester’s 1964 disaster was at bottom a failure of visual design, of cosmetics, if you will. While connoisseurs of the brand despise cheapened materials and less fineness of fit and finish, if the design is visually appealing and shoots well, it will sell. Just my opinion.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Interesting topic. I think it is worthwhile to attempt to ponder what the, “masses” thought of various Winchester rifles vs the more, “refined” (e.g. gunwriters). Obviously, many (most?) who purchased these guns were primarily interested in the firearms as a hunting and using implement (e.g. a tool).
As an example, I recall when my Dad bought his brand new Winchester M100 with the pressed oakleaf “checkering.” He found it very attractive and far preferable to earlier hand-checkered version. That assessment is of course completely out of sync with the more, “elite” (i.e. minority) among us.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I think you’ve touched on it with your reference to outdated machinery and labor issues, Bill. My theory is that many of the discontinued models were designed when labor costs were lower and many parts required numerous and sometimes complex operations to produce. In many cases these parts also required hand fitting by skilled craftsmen. Inefficient machines and increased labor costs combined to make labor costs a much more significant factor in the cost to produce a Winchester rifle. In my opinion the competition was able to manufacture their products more efficiently and sell at a price point Winchester could not meet profitably. Shifting costs and other accounting tricks were shortsighted tactics and eventually failed. The post-63 changes addressed some of those inefficiencies but were not well received for various reasons. I think Olin liked the same guns we enjoy and failed to respond effectively to the changing business environment.
Mike
steve004 said
Interesting topic. I think it is worthwhile to attempt to ponder what the, “masses” thought of various Winchester rifles vs the more, “refined” (e.g. gunwriters). Obviously, many (most?) who purchased these guns were primarily interested in the firearms as a hunting and using implement (e.g. a tool).As an example, I recall when my Dad bought his brand new Winchester M100 with the pressed oakleaf “checkering.” He found it very attractive and far preferable to earlier hand-checkered version. That assessment is of course completely out of sync with the more, “elite” (i.e. minority) among us.
Yes, the Post-63 Winchester 88 and 100 sold well enough and, according to Rule, more Post-63 Model 70 rifles were shipped out of New Haven before 1981 than their Pre-64 predecessors. Winchester sold a huge number of Winchester 94 Commemoratives, as Henry Mero has told us.
When I wrote Winchester’s GUNMAKING reputation was “NEARLY DESTROYED” I should have qualified that assertion by adding. “IN THE EYES OF the cognoscenti.”
I think the final driving reason for divestiture of the gunmaking assets was New Haven’s continued labor trouble with its machinists union, together with John Olin’s age (87) and deteriorating health. Olin loathed labor unions. I can’t prove it but that is what I think. EDIT: JOHN OLIN DIED IN SEPTEMBER, 1982 AT AGE 89.
I think there is a lesson to be learned from the collapse of New Haven Winchester that has only come into sharper focus with the more recent failure of the Remington and Marlin gunmaking operations: American conglomerates are untrustworthy stewards of sporting gun manufacturing.
Winchester and Browning are better off in Herstal Group’s hands. Colt is better protected by CZ. Sturm Ruger is publicly held but makes only guns and Marlin has now been saved by Ruger.
Kimber Maufacturing and Henry just make guns and are closely held companies.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
1 Guest(s)
