Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Why did Winchester shorten stock
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 113
Member Since:
September 6, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
November 14, 2020 - 7:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Why did Winchester shorten the stock on the Model 94 in the early 1950’s?  Thanks for any info. 

-Mike

Avatar
Bert H.
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 12868
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
November 14, 2020 - 8:10 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Mike,

I will assume that you are referring to the forend stock, which was reduced in length at the end of the year 1950.  The most likely reason was simple cost reduction.  By shortening the length of the forend stock from 9⅛” to 7⅞”, it significantly reduced the amount of walnut consumed to make the stocks.  It also reduced the weight of the finished gun, thereby reducing the shipping cost.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 113
Member Since:
September 6, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
November 14, 2020 - 12:42 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thank you Bert. 

I misspoke.  Yes it is the forend I was asking about. 

Appreciate the info. 

Mike

Avatar
steve004
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 5173
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
November 14, 2020 - 2:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bert H. said
Mike,

I will assume that you are referring to the forend stock, which was reduced in length at the end of the year 1950.  The most likely reason was simple cost reduction.  By shortening the length of the forend stock from 9⅛” to 7⅞”, it significantly reduced the amount of walnut consumed to make the stocks.  It also reduced the weight of the finished gun, thereby reducing the shipping cost.

Bert  

And it made for a lighter carbine for the owner to enjoy.

Avatar
David McNab
CANADA
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 127
Member Since:
September 22, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
November 14, 2020 - 4:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

I think that shortening the fore-end portion of walnut that is forward of the barrel band was an esthetic mistake.

It makes the fore-end look “stubby” and less graceful.

I believe this was done to reduce breakage during production and later on during use.

The cost savings of an inch and a half of material would be negligible and same for any weight reduction.

However, there were shortages of good quality walnut in the post-war years as military production demand for gunstocks and other items had consumed a lot of timber.

Avatar
Bert H.
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 12868
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
November 14, 2020 - 4:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

David McNab said

The cost savings of an inch and a half of material would be negligible and same for any weight reduction.

However, there were shortages of good quality walnut in the post-war years as military production demand for gunstocks and other items had consumed a lot of timber.  

David,

I disagree with your assertion.  If you consider the fact that Winchester manufactured an average of 69,330 Model 94 Carbines per year from 1946 – 1963 (1,247,945 total made), the cost savings in material alone becomes quite noticeable.  With the stock length reduced by just 1.25″, it saved nearly 130,000 lineal feet of American Black Walnut stock blank material. Now, calculate the weight of that same amount stock material.  The cost savings was undoubtedly more than just negligible.

Winchester’s production methods were highly influenced by cost, which in the end led to their demise.  The Post 1963 guns are a prime example of what cost cutting Bean Counters can do to what was once a successful product and business.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
clarence
NY
Member
Restricted
Forum Posts: 7119
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
November 14, 2020 - 4:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

David McNab said

However, there were shortages of good quality walnut in the post-war years as military production demand for gunstocks and other items had consumed a lot of timber.  

Well, there was gumwood, often used previously on carbines  No military demand for that.

US economy was booming in the ’50s–strange time for Win to be pinching pennies.

Avatar
Bert H.
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 12868
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
November 14, 2020 - 5:00 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

clarence said

Well, there was gumwood, often used previously on carbines  No military demand for that.

US economy was booming in the ’50s–strange time for Win to be pinching pennies.  

Winchester ceased using the cheaper and lighter weight Gumwood for stock material in the early 1920s. I suspect they abandoned using it due to supply shortages.  

Corporate Bean Counters seldom ever pay much attention to the condition of the U.S. economy… it is all about profit margins!  The ongoing Korean conflict was also undoubtedly a contributing factor to cost cutting measures.

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
jwm94
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
November 14, 2020 - 6:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

steve004 said

And it made for a lighter carbine for the owner to enjoy.  

Which ended another chapter regarding carbines and the Winchester saga.

James

Avatar
steve004
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 5173
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
November 14, 2020 - 6:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I do agree that the longer forend was more aesthetically pleasing.

Avatar
David McNab
CANADA
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 127
Member Since:
September 22, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
November 14, 2020 - 10:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Bert H. said

David,

I disagree with your assertion. 

The above comes as no particular surprise.

D.

Avatar
jwm94
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
November 15, 2020 - 12:32 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

steve004 said
I do agree that the longer forend was more aesthetically pleasing.  

Me too, Steve.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 4623
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 222
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 7119
TXGunNut: 6408
Chuck: 5809
steve004: 5173
1873man: 4698
deerhunter: 2694
Big Larry: 2549
twobit: 2493
mrcvs: 2194
Maverick: 2029
Newest Members:
ross
Model94-2025
R.E. Moore
sjGUESTEST
WindsurfAruba
cedar swamp savage
tradecraft
Weida78
Alby
Lambeau
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 18
Topics: 14714
Posts: 131639

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2057
Members: 9982
Moderators: 3
Admins: 4
Administrators: Mike Hager, Bert H., JWA, SethJ
Moderators: Rob Kassab, Brad Dunbar, Heather
Navigation