Olin explains Browning choice

Status
Not open for further replies.

280PLUS

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
3,349
Location
gunnecticut
Steve Higgins, Register Business Editor
08/19/2006
-NEW HAVEN — Olin Corp. said Friday it granted Browning the license to produce Winchester rifles because it has a lengthy track record in the firearms business.
"Browning is a long-established developer and marketer of firearms, and they are committed to the brand," said Ann Pipkin, spokeswoman for Missouri-based Olin. "We’re proud of our heritage, and we decided on Browning because we believe that’s the best decision for consumers."
The alternative was a newly formed Greenwich company named American Firearms Co. that promised to keep in the United States the manufacture of the famed Winchester models previously made in New Haven, models 70 and 94.
The New Haven plant was closed in March after 140 years here, putting 186 employees out of work.
Sources involved with the licensing negotiations have said Morgan, Utah-based Browning officials made it clear they plan to move production abroad, possibly to Russia or Portugal.
Browning officials did not return telephone calls for comment Thursday or Friday.
Dave Bichrest, 65, executive secretary of the Winchester Arms Collectors Association in Silsbee, Texas, said he wouldn’t buy a Winchester model made overseas.
"I don’t want anything to do with it," he said. "I’ll buy a used American model, at a higher cost, before I buy a brand-new one made in Russia, or any other country."
Still, Bichrest said many gun buyers, including some within the 2,000-member collectors’ group, would continue buying Winchesters made abroad if the quality is the same. He noted that many collectors already buy other, lesser-known Winchester models made in Japan, Portugal and other countries.
Bichrest said he believes Herstal Group, the Belgian company that owned U.S. Repeating Arms Co. in New Haven and also owns Browning, mismanaged the New Haven plant at 344 Winchester Ave.
"It was losing money, and there is no excuse for them to lose money on a Winchester," he said. "They couldn’t keep up with the orders they had. They didn’t even have the barrels on hand that they needed."
Michael Blank, the St. Louis gun manufacturer who started www.savewinchester.com in January, said, "I’m disappointed. The first goal was to keep it in the U.S. and keep some presence in New Haven, its historic home. We talked about distribution, warehousing, engraving (at the New Haven plant)."
Blank said he believes Olin, which makes ammunition for Winchesters and also receives royalties on the gun sales, was afraid to risk going with an untested company.
"It’s a risk-averse play, but that’s what’s been plaguing the industry. No one is taking any chances or doing anything new," Blank said. "They played it safe."
New Haven Economic Development Administrator Kelly Murphy said city officials will try to find another type of buyer for the 225,000-square-foot complex, built in the early 1990s across the street from the original plant. "Some other businesses have expressed an interest in the building," she said.

Steve Higgins can be reached at [email protected].
 
"Browning is a long-established developer and marketer of firearms, and they are committed to the brand," said Ann Pipkin, spokeswoman for Missouri-based Olin.
I've had some exposure to corporate double-speak, so let me translate that for everybody:
"Browning offered us the most money for the licensing rights."
 
Well, unless the quality is as good as pre-64 Winchester made rifles, I have no need to buy a newly made Winchester.

I can go with an imported Japanese made Weatherby Vanguard Synthetic for $400 or less instead of a Model 70.

As for the Model 94, Winchester made over 2.5 million before the beancounters screwed things up.

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
Winchester's made the last few years in the U.S. were sad examples of the quality and craftsmanship. Stamping "Made in the USA" won't get customer loyality, you need a quality product.

Browning fit and finish has always been good....maybe now we'll see quality Winchester's as they should be made. Country of origin means very little to me. Some of the finest guns in my collection were made overseas.....Superpose's, FN/Fals, Peter Stahls, Sauers, Mausers, BHP's, Desert Eagle, etc....
 
Who really cares about "Winchester". They ceased to really exist many years ago
.

Well a new US owner would have been a nice symbolic move.
 
Ah! Doesn't Browning belong to FN Herstall ? The same owners of the Winchester that closed down? Surprise! Surpirise! Surprise! Keep the fudds buying.
 
Well - Actually they only rented the name from Olin Corp and had one more year
on the lease. Keeping the lease and keeping manufacture in New Haven was most
likely not a good business plan. The New Haven plant and people did not seem to have
much interest in quality. :(

allan
 
"Browning is a long-established developer and marketer of firearms, and they are committed to the brand," said Ann Pipkin, spokeswoman for Missouri-based Olin.

I've had some exposure to corporate double-speak, so let me translate that for everybody:

"Browning offered us the most money for the licensing rights."

And just what is wrong with getting the most money for whatever you are selling? Profit is the primary motive after all (as it should be), and any unprofitable company will fail, and pretty quickly.

Winchester died because people stopped buying enough of them. Plain and simple. Economics 101.
 
Can someone explain how this is different than FN owning Winchester, since FN owns Browning?
 
It's a name game. No matter what you call them they really aren't Winchesters or Brownings if made by some other company. Same goes for Remington with "their" new Mauser/Remingtons.
 
ilbob said:
And just what is wrong with getting the most money for whatever you are selling?
Who said there was anything wrong with it? It just amuses me when the real motive is so obvious, but a corporate spokesperson tries to make it sound as if it was based on some other, nobler principle.

ilbob said:
Winchester died because people stopped buying enough of them. Plain and simple. Economics 101.
It's not quite that simple. The Winchester guns built in the New England plant still sold fairly well. The problem was that the New England facility couldn't make them cheaply enough to actually turn a profit on the product. It's similar to the problem Chrysler was having with the Jeep brand a few years ago - they could sell as many of them as they could make, but they were losing money on every one they sold.
 
The Winchester guns built in the New England plant still sold fairly well. The problem was that the New England facility couldn't make them cheaply enough to actually turn a profit on the product.

The problem was that fundamentally, the people running Winchester didn't know what people wanted to buy. They were making products very few people wanted, while missing out completely on certain markets.

For example, Uberti made and sold tons of model 1866 and 1873 replica lever action rifles. These rifles sold for about twice what a Winchester model 94 was selling for. They were much better finished than anything Winchester made. Winchester totally missed out on the cowboy market. Instead they pumped out poorly finished lever action rifles with cross bolt safeties in 30-30. Instead of improving quality and charging more, they cheapened the guns and tried to charge less.
 
[QUOTE='Card]It's not quite that simple. The Winchester guns built in the New England plant still sold fairly well. The problem was that the New England facility couldn't make them cheaply enough to actually turn a profit on the product. It's similar to the problem Chrysler was having with the Jeep brand a few years ago - they could sell as many of them as they could make, but they were losing money on every one they sold.[/QUOTE]
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Jeep vehicles were and are cash cows to DaimlerChrysler. They made bundles on every one they sold, because they don't revamp the vehicles every couple of years as they do with cars. The design and tooling gets amortized in the first two to three years, and from then on it's profit city. Heck, the Cherokee was designed in 1983, went on sale in late 83 as an 84 model, and continued essentially unchanged through 2001. How could they lose money on 'em?

There is NO comparison between the USRAC "Winchester" rifles and Jeep vehicles.
 
186 jobs are lost here in the US.
Winchester quality was at best mediocre and let's all face it, they weren't producing products the masses really wanted to buy.
How many of you actually own a Winchester Short Magnum or a WSSM as a case in point.
How many of you actually own a Model 94 made in the last 10 years?

A Portugese location would give 400 people a job, a Russian location 800 or more.
Lower wages no doubt but more people working and that is a good thing.
I am willing to bet those lost wage employees from Winchester have already found new employment if they went out looking and aren't sitting around lamenting the impact.
Browning marketing representatives have a reputation of being saavy to what gun buyers want to buy.
This may end up being a good thing for American gun buyers and a needed wake up call for the American manufacturing sectre in general.

By the way, how many of you would like to see Winchester .22s again?
Pump, bolt and semi autos.
How about Model 12 and 42 shotguns with modern steel and choke tubes?
How about a pre-64 style Model 70 in .22 Hornet or maybe .250-3000?
I would and all this is possible and affordable when the products are produced overseas at lower manufacturing costs.
 
Hawkmoon said:
Heck, the Cherokee was designed in 1983, went on sale in late 83 as an 84 model, and continued essentially unchanged through 2001. How could they lose money on 'em?
So why did they cancel the Cherokee if it was such a cash cow? Sales of the Cherokee line were still strong, but in order to be competitive with others in the same vehicle class, Chrysler had to keep the price fairly low. At the price point that kept vehicles moving off the lot, Chrysler lost money on every one they sold.

Believe it or not, the same thing almost bankrupted Chrysler with those PT Cruisers. They didn't think they'd be very popular, so the first year they set the price fairly low. They were willing to take a loss to get some on the streets and let the design catch on over time. Instead, the car was extremely popular - they sold as many as they could make, with tons of orders coming in, and Chrysler lost money on every one of them the first two years they were on the market.

Which was exactly my point about the Winchesters. People were still buying them, but weren't willing to pay enough for them to allow Winchester (US Repeating Arms, anyway) to make a profit. Plants go out of business every day that are cranking out the product like crazy, guys. It's not how many you can sell, it's how much profit you can make off of each one. The Jeep Cherokee is a classic example of a product that's still popular, but has become too expensive to produce, and therefore they don't make them (or those old Winchesters) anymore.
 
I bought a new Winchester 94 in .44 2 years ago and am very happy with it. Solid, accurate and good looking. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm sure they made them better years ago, as with everything. I'm satisfied with what I got and can thread a needle with it. Maybe I was lucky?
kid
 
I bought a Winchester 94 Trapper in .44 Mag about 6 years ago. I use it in CAS matches and for home defense. It has fed literally thousands of rounds of .44 Special and hundreds or rounds of .44 Mag. Not a hiccup and just as pretty as the day I took it out of the box. No quality issues there.:neener:
 
Can someone explain how this is different than FN owning Winchester, since FN owns Browning?

My guess is so that FN could make a cleaner break from the CT plant and find some place cheaper to make the guns (preferably, some already existing plant so they wouldn't have to build from scratch.)
 
I do not own anything they have put out in the last 20 years, but I do own a mid-1970 Model 70 in 30-06, and I love the rifle. I know it's not a pre 64, but it is good enough for me.
 
Let me repeat - FN didn't "own" Winchester, they were renting the name and had
one more year on the lease. The lease was tied to the New Haven plant.

Apparently they got a better lease this time. :)

allan
 
Quote:
Can someone explain how this is different than FN owning Winchester, since FN owns Browning?


My guess is so that FN could make a cleaner break from the CT plant and find some place cheaper to make the guns (preferably, some already existing plant so they wouldn't have to build from scratch.)

Bingo ! Dump labor contracts and likely pension plan responsibilities as well. Cheaper to manufacture oversea's. That's been the business trend since the 1970's . No need to comment about personal feelings toward that trend - won't change a thing.
 
Wait a minute... Cortez! I don't remember shooting any Winchester 94 in .44 :sigh: Looks like I'm going to have to come back out there! :evil:

:D
 
I personally could care less bout the jobs lost over the closing of Winchester as they where all union jobs from what i understood. And as much as i love this country and want to support it, it is the greed of some and the laziness of others that will ruin industrial work in this country through unions.
 
redranger1 said:
I personally could care less bout the jobs lost over the closing of Winchester as they where all union jobs from what i understood. And as much as i love this country and want to support it, it is the greed of some and the laziness of others that will ruin industrial work in this country through unions.
"Shot fired, over."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top