Ode To The Winchester Model 71… Asking the question, destined to fail from inception/inaction?
Americans came home from “The War to End All Wars” schooled in the doctrine of the bolt action rifle as the finest instrument of an era. In 1925, Winchester introduced the Model 54 bolt action with advertising furor and hype. Also beginning a process to have almost doubled its sales beyond the Remington Model 30 Competition in about half the production period. The evolutionary/revolutionary Model 70, only some months behind the Model 71 intro.
With the Model 71, a specific decision to consolidate versatile, (relatively) heavy chamberings into a single cartridge, the .348. With relatively small engineering changes, the ‘new & improved’ simply a slightly updated Model 1886 with improved metals. The point, little seeming reason or additional investment required to offer the new lever in multiple chamberings. Yet, against the force of the forthcoming Model 70 in multiple chamberings, the 71 shackled to a single new cartridge offering. Take it or leave it! That with, fanciness aside, two basic configurations. A model success bet suddenly hinging on this rifle/round package. Significantly too, Model 71 the exclusive ‘heavy cartridge’ rifle to compete with the Model 70. Internal competition frequently a ‘push-pull, urging internal regulation/manipulation.
Locations stocking ammo suddenly with the need to carry this round. That against one single gun requiring it. That competing for shelf space with other Win lever offerings in multiple chamberings including the ever popular 30-30. Other cartridges across a wide spectrum of rifles. Almost to wonder if the 71 principally a marketing afterthought. What to do with the aging Model ’86? The fact of putting all the chips on that one single round, hardly seeming wise; more of a condemnation.
My belief, the Model 71 largely an ‘also ran’ speculative convenience. Filling a perceived ‘gap’ in lever action potential. Yet specifically avoiding too closely approaching the widening chambering choices of the Model 70. To wonder, if they’d marketed the 71 in such as an upscale Winchester 94 in brush gun configuration; with ammo already on dealer shelves such as 45-70 & 33 Win. (One thing to offer a “special factory order chambering” likely involving months; quite another to have it on hand, ready to examine/covet/purchase.) Perhaps even… rimless chamberings too! A popular 270 bore round in appropriate length.
To speculate, the ‘hole’ filled by the 71, mostly marketing generated rather than market force drive. Production ‘putting along’ until extinguished by the then radical Winchester 88. That with its own lever ‘say what’ to overcome. Yet multiple chamberings coming! Also, though relatively successful ‘perhaps’, another indication of where the consumer was… the Model 70.
The eulogy for the 71. Winchester’s pinnacle of fine Browning design which in the single chambering/limited configurations, never to seek its true potential. I, a long time coming to my single, early Model 71. Too many pre ’64 Model 70 rifles, too little time. Finally, the right 71 at the right time/price. Appreciating the quality of ‘real steel’ and walnut as reflected. Yet still, the mid-century species seeming a Winchester inspired, market reflected ‘anomaly’… RIP.
My take

Bert H. said

Steve,

I have verified (2) of them in 33 WCF, and (2) in 45-70.  There are rumored to be several more of them out there in each caliber.

No, the Model 71 did not come from the factory with a Pachmayr recoil pad.  They were offered with the Winchester solid red rubber pad, and a NoShoc recoil pad.

Bert  

Now I’ve figured out why I thought M71’s could be ordered with a Pachmayr pad from the factory.  On page 353 of my Winchester Big Book, on the bottom of the page there is a photo of a M71 with a recoil pad.  In the caption Mr. Madis states:

“Pachmayr made recoil pads for Winchester, and some of their pads will be found the model 71.”

The above statement also suggests there were other models fitted with their pad.  Interesting. 

steve004 said

Now I’ve figured out why I thought M71’s could be ordered with a Pachmayr pad from the factory.  On page 353 of my Winchester Big Book, on the bottom of the page there is a photo of a M71 with a recoil pad.  In the caption Mr. Madis states:

“Pachmayr made recoil pads for Winchester, and some of their pads will be found the model 71.”

The above statement also suggests there were other models fitted with their pad.  Interesting.   

TXGunNut said
Interesting analysis, one could conclude the Model 71 was a failure. I don’t feel it was. Its predecessor, the 1886, wasn’t generally a big seller, probably never meant to be. The 1892 and 1894 were likely produced to appeal to the masses but the 1886 wasn’t and I doubt Winchester envisioned the 71 having a broad appeal. I think the 71 was an attempt at niche marketing, or whatever they called it back then. There will probably always be a narrow market for a quick-handling, hard-hitting levergun and the 71 had that territory well covered. I’ve always liked medium to large bore lever action brush guns so it seems the 71 was meant for folks like me, I’m glad someone took good care of it until I decided I “needed” one.

I wish the .348 WCF cartridge had been a bit more successful, putting some rounds together is beginning to be quite an adventure.  

No inference intended that the Model 71 was a marketing failure. Rather a ‘limited success’, the single chambering a tactical tool holding an intentional line limiting internal competition with the Model 70. While in general, I’d hardy describe the 71 as ‘niche’ product. Such not, simply in terms of duration and volume. Yet in sense of marketing as you’ve commented. To agree. ‘Niche with intent.’ Multiple over the counter chambering, full magazine, straight grip butt stock options… ‘What might have been!’ I wonder how many readers in this Thread, truly believe the Model 71, as marketed, achieved its ‘highest and best’ potential.
Again…
My take