Zebulon said

Bert H. said

Zebulon said

Bert H. said

Zebulon said
Bert,  I hadn't realized the 05/07/10 sold in any respectable numbers
  

The 1907 and 1911 did.  The total production for each;
M1905 - 29,113
M1907 - 58,490
M1910 - 20,786
M1911 - 82,774
  

Thanks.  I didn't realize the 1911 sold in such numbers. I knew the later  Model 40 was withdrawn from the market and replaced with Model 12s, but was the Model 1911 a "financial dud" because of high production costs?  It sold better than the centerfire rifles. 
  

Yes, the excessively large number of production changes (80+) that Winchester found necessary to make to it during its 14-year production run caused it to be the first Winchester model to run a negative financial ledger.  It was that sour experience that caused the Model 40 to be pulled from production so quickly... Winchester (Olin) management did not want to repeat that failure.
Bert
  

Now you've said something I'd really like to know more about -- a "negative financial ledger", which I take to mean a cost accounting report that set the allocated production costs of all the Model 1911 units made against the associated net revenues from sales of the model. If I've got it right, is this something Winchester did for other models regularly or was it a one-off, as part of a postmortem on the 1911?
  

Winchester tracked the production costs versus realized profits on all of their products. 

For a more detailed explanation of this, I highly recommend reading “Winchester: The Gun That Won The West” by Harold  F. Williamson.  I gave Mike a copy of that book a couple of years ago... he might be persuaded to loan it to you for your reading enjoyment.

Bert

Bert H. said

Zebulon said

Bert H. said

Zebulon said
Bert,  I hadn't realized the 05/07/10 sold in any respectable numbers
  

The 1907 and 1911 did.  The total production for each;
M1905 - 29,113
M1907 - 58,490
M1910 - 20,786
M1911 - 82,774
  

Thanks.  I didn't realize the 1911 sold in such numbers. I knew the later  Model 40 was withdrawn from the market and replaced with Model 12s, but was the Model 1911 a "financial dud" because of high production costs?  It sold better than the centerfire rifles. 
  

Yes, the excessively large number of production changes (80+) that Winchester found necessary to make to it during its 14-year production run caused it to be the first Winchester model to run a negative financial ledger.  It was that sour experience that caused the Model 40 to be pulled from production so quickly... Winchester (Olin) management did not want to repeat that failure.
Bert
  

Now you've said something I'd really like to know more about -- a "negative financial ledger", which I take to mean a cost accounting report that set the allocated production costs of all the Model 1911 units made against the associated net revenues from sales of the model. If I've got it right, is this something Winchester did for other models regularly or was it a one-off, as part of a postmortem on the 1911?

Zebulon said

Bert H. said

Zebulon said
Bert,  I hadn't realized the 05/07/10 sold in any respectable numbers
  

The 1907 and 1911 did.  The total production for each;
M1905 - 29,113
M1907 - 58,490
M1910 - 20,786
M1911 - 82,774
  

Thanks.  I didn't realize the 1911 sold in such numbers. I knew the later  Model 40 was withdrawn from the market and replaced with Model 12s, but was the Model 1911 a "financial dud" because of high production costs?  It sold better than the centerfire rifles. 
  

Yes, the excessively large number of production changes (80+) that Winchester found necessary to make to it during its 14-year production run caused it to be the first Winchester model to run a negative financial ledger.  It was that sour experience that caused the Model 40 to be pulled from production so quickly... Winchester (Olin) management did not want to repeat that failure.

Bert

Bert H. said

Zebulon said
Bert,  I hadn't realized the 05/07/10 sold in any respectable numbers
  

The 1907 and 1911 did.  The total production for each;
M1905 - 29,113
M1907 - 58,490
M1910 - 20,786
M1911 - 82,774
  

Thanks.  I didn't realize the 1911 sold in such numbers. I knew the later  Model 40 was withdrawn from the market and replaced with Model 12s, but was the Model 1911 a "financial dud" because of high production costs?  It sold better than the centerfire rifles. 

Zebulon said
Bert,  I hadn't realized the 05/07/10 sold in any respectable numbers
  

The 1907 and 1911 did.  The total production for each;

M1905 - 29,113

M1907 - 58,490

M1910 - 20,786

M1911 - 82,774

Obviously the Simmons merger was a disastrous mistake but wasn't WRA motivated to do the merger because it was already in financial distress?  I had thought the company was being pressed hard by its lenders. 

There were two major contributing factors in the financial failure of the original W.R.A.Co., starting with the merger with Simmons and the diversification into the Sporting Goods and Hardware items and quickly followed by the Great Depression. 

Allegedly, the only money maker during the dark period was the Winchester battery production.  Winchester overextended itself with Simmons and then the Great Depression struck a fatal blow.  If Winchester had simply stuck to manufacturing just firearms and ammo, I believe they would have survived and not suffered bankruptcy.

Bert

The Model 1903 rimfire automatic;

The Model 1912 shotgun; 

The Model 21 shotgun (1930);

The Model 52 rimfire bolt action (1919);

The Model 54 centerfire bolt action (1925).

The Model 1895 - marginally, if sales to Imperial Russia are excluded.

What I don't have at my fingertips are production numbers.  I know the Model 21 was a low production (lifetime about 30k units) item that could not have had a material effect on WRA profitability. 

I can easily believe they sold a lot of Winchester ammunition, well before John Olin perfected the idea.

Were any of these designs so popular they contributed in a major way to WRA's sales of its baseline commercial guns of the period, Models 90, 06, 97, 92, 94, 73, 86 - and variations such as the 53, 55, etc.?

If any did, I'd guess it would be the '03 and the 12 but that is only a guess. 

It's one thing to ask the questions; the answers will take some work. The larger question being, to what extent did WRA's failure to successfully pursue popular trends in sporting guns -- hammerless repeating rifles and automatic shotguns --contribute to its failure and liquidation?

Zebulon said
I believe I can defend this thread as "Winchester related" --seriously. 
Illuminating the history of the original Winchester Repeating Arms Company [for brevity, "WRA" infra] is one of the core purposes of our Association. 
This forum exists to further that purpose, among others.
The rise to prominence of WRA in the post-Civil War years and the reasons therefor continue to be worthy of historical research and published studies. 
Likewise, the withering of WRA's almost monopolistic position in commercial repeating firearms, finally ending in receivership, and the external forces and internal mistakes and failures causing the descent, are matters of great historical importance worthy of study, reporting and discussion.  
Yes, the Reconstruction Era recession, the impact of World War I and its ending, and the Great Depression, all played a part. 
But after the brilliance of the Klondike Model 1894,  WRA began to lose its edge to serious competition from Remington and ---- Savage.  Particularly in the matter of hammerless arms. 
The nature and effectiveness of WRA's competition during that critical period is necessary to study and appreciate. Without it, WRA's weakening and failure is impossible to understand completely. There is a scholarly gap. 
An indirect indicator of just how effective was the competitive impact of the Savage 1895/99, is how desirable high condition specimens are among our own membership. For the same reasons we dote on the Winchester 1886, the Savage hammerless repeater was a game-changer and one very neat piece of work! WRA was too slow to respond. Why?
I rest my case.
  

Excellent post, Bill!  Said like a true lawyer!

Illuminating the history of the original Winchester Repeating Arms Company [for brevity, "WRA" infra] is one of the core purposes of our Association. 

This forum exists to further that purpose, among others.

The rise to prominence of WRA in the post-Civil War years and the reasons therefor continue to be worthy of historical research and published studies. 

Likewise, the withering of WRA's almost monopolistic position in commercial repeating firearms, finally ending in receivership, and the external forces and internal mistakes and failures causing the descent, are matters of great historical importance worthy of study, reporting and discussion.  

Yes, the Reconstruction Era recession, the impact of World War I and its ending, and the Great Depression, all played a part. 

But after the brilliance of the Klondike Model 1894,  WRA began to lose its edge to serious competition from Remington and ---- Savage.  Particularly in the matter of hammerless arms. 

The nature and effectiveness of WRA's competition during that critical period is necessary to study and appreciate. Without it, WRA's weakening and failure is impossible to understand completely. There is a scholarly gap. 

An indirect indicator of just how effective was the competitive impact of the Savage 1895/99, is how desirable high condition specimens are among our own membership. For the same reasons we dote on the Winchester 1886, the Savage hammerless repeater was a game-changer and one very neat piece of work! WRA was too slow to respond. Why?

I rest my case.