Pre 64 Winchester.

quote:Originally posted by charliemeyer007
I say there must be substancial differenc in quality if a 1963 production is worth so much more than a 1965 model as determined the free market. I thinking I have 1000's of rounds out of Remington 700/721/722 in the last 45 years. Only one 721 in a 270W would fail to extract a loaded round, however it would extract a fired round. I was 10 and it was the first time I ever loaded my own big game ammo.


I've fired a ton of ammo through a 700 and 722 also. However, it doesn't change the way they are built. As far as extraction, the post '63 Win rifle has more extraction bite than a 700/721/722. Just look at the bolts and you will see what I mean. The Remingtons' are a 'clip' stuck in a groove. The Winchester is still a solid piece of metal in a "T-slot". Both have hammer forged barrels. Hammer forged is cheaper to produce and very accurate if compared in a 'mass rate of production' scenario. Cut rifled is only more accurate if it's done with a lot of 'hand guidance'. The fit wasn't as good with the stocks and that is a problem. But, that gets corrected with epoxy bedding the rifle, like any wood stocked rifle. Which brings us to the square bottom. Many types of construction have shown that square to square is better than round to round. The Remington receiver is round and IMO doesn't hold as well as square to square.




quote: originally posted by BertH
That is where you are wrong... Winchester is not "still here". "Winchester" got out of the gun making business in late 1980. It was the U.S. Repeating Arms Co. (U.S.R.A.Co.) that began fixing what was wrong with the "Winchester" name (even though they only leased the trademarked name). Today it is FN (Belgians) that manufacture the Model 70 in South Carolina. And it is the Japanese (under FN guidance) that is making the new Model 94. "Winchester" died a slow and painful death as a gunmaking entity in late 1980 as a result of the post-1963 debacle.

Technically, Winchester IS still here, they are just making the profits not doing the work. I think maybe you and I aren't so far apart though in our opinions about this. However, Winchester was done as I understand it in about 1932. Bought by Olin at a bankruptcy auction. That does not negate any of the great firearms they put on line during the 'golden age' of Winchester prior to that. Their problem was they pitched in to help the U.S. in WWI and got burned for it. Olin was certainly smart enough to capitalize on Winchesters brand name. And under that the pre'64 Winchester Model 70 came to fame. As I stated in the last thread though the real changes for the worse were with the Model 94. Today's model can be more economically produced using CNC than it could have being made of cast and stamped parts. Which, brings back accuracy. It's an improvement that can actually bring the manufacture back to the U.S.

Anyhow, suffice it to say, I believe Winchester had at least equal capability in the market after the changes as before. Their high quality, but labor intensive, menu for success wasn't working. By going to a lot of the Remington 700 style options saved them a lot of money in manufacture. We can agree or disagree on this, but no one here worked in the head office and saw the numbers. FWIW, Remington did not produce a quantifiable lever action at the same time Winchester was producing a top level bolt and lever action. Even the famed Savage 99 was losing sales at the time. The lever action wasn't holding it's own despite being an icon in American gun lore. Again, the discrepancies between gun rags and reality rears it's head.

I know a lot of you folks out there who actually lived through it have some hard feelings. I will just say that Winchester made some huge changes and still ended up with a decent rifle in the model 70. And, still had a functional rifle in the model 94. While the pre '64/post '63 debacle hurt them, I don't think it was the final nail in their coffin, by a long shot.