Steve,

I can relate to that 35 Whelen 99.5%, its only flaw being the absence of an ebony or horn forearm tip, which is just a stying feature I like. We ought to ask Merino if he engraved the gun.

I’ve never seen a Custom Shop job I didn’t like. The problem that kept me from ever placing an order was I needed both my arms and legs and Winchester wanted two of any of them for Custom Shop work. Their prices and completion times sounded like a felony jail sentence:  “$5,000 and 27 months.”

I was disappointed when USRAC never revived the African, which is just more stylish than the Safari Express, to my eyes anyway. I’ve got one of the last Africans to come out of New Haven before Olin sold the gunmaking assets in 1981.

Do I have any use for a .458 Magnum, particularly the 1980 version, handsome as it may be?  No, I just followed Harry Selby’s lead. He owned and used the very same vintage African for his Safari work, before his retirement. Push feed and all. These images are of a 1967 African, not mine. The only difference is the 1980 version reverted to the solid (unventilated) red Winchester logo pad. The post ’63 Africans used the 1964 push feed action and a 22″ barrel, instead of 25″.  However, the stocks were subcontracted to a small shop and still hand checkered and inletted.  Like their pre-64 predecessor, they are overlight and will give you a headache pretty quick. 

Steve,

Good informative post for referencing.

Some very good stuff from Bill here also.

For me it’s enjoyable to read and learn other like minded collectors and pick up on there point of views. This is one of those times.

Anthony

The Model 670 was severely underrated. A hunting partner of mine had one and it was stylistically superior in its simplicity to the then current Model 70 — and very sturdy, reliable and accurate.

That’s the crazy thing about the post-63 Model 70s. I’m talking about the hideous 1964-67 rifles, particularly. They are ugly but overcame, out of the box, the accuracy-limiting action design and bedding problems of the old rifles. What kicked the Buddha’s gong was their cheap and tawdry appearance. The 670 avoided a lot of that criticism because it was intended to be a utility rifle and shot like blazes, too. Nobody complained about a cheap-looking floorplate because it didn’t have one, which helped its appearance. 

I think the contemporaneous introduction of the “new” sintered metal 94 contributed to the marketing disaster as much as the 1964 Model 70, and the flimsy looking 200 Series rimfires were another nail in the coffin. 

I still can vividly recall the sour look on the late Jack Mcbride’s face as he showed me a new 1965 Model 70. Jack had moved a lot of guns and his opinion carried a lot of weight with Central Texas hunters. And he was only one of many American dealers.

All in all, as unpleasant as it must have been for John Olin to get Olin-Mathieson out of making Winchesters, I think he did those of us who want to see the brand continue a favor.  While we might prefer to have a prewar Model 64 or 71 in our locker,  the fact that Winchester fans can now buy a brand new Model 92, 94, 95 — even a previously unthinkable Model 1873 and 1886 — should be very gratifying. The designs are just too good to be relegated to display.