Rupestris
Member
In the latest edition of Field & Stream they cover the 50 Best Guns Ever. Coming in at number one is the Winchester Model 70 (Pre-1964 [pay attention, this is where I’m confused])
The article says:
If quality steadily declined from ’45 ‘til 1963, why wouldn’t shooters/hunters be more inclined to buy a Pre-1945, or '54 or whenever a noticable decline in quality became evident?
The way the article is written it sounds as though the 1963 model may have been a “shoddy†low quality firearm. In which case, I’d rank the rifle less than number one in the 50 Best Guns.
Please don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Winchester or Field & Stream. I am just confused as to how one could call a rifle shoddy and call it the best at the same time. Is there something about the 70 that I’m missing?
Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
Chris
The article says:
…But the Model 70 has had a rocky road. Pre-WWII examples were fine but after the war the quality steadily declined, and the ones turned out before the old models demise in 1963 were shoddy indeed.
Winchesters then-president decreed that it must die because it was too costly to produce. In 1964 a new Model 70 that was cheaper and basically a good gun, but was big-time, serious ugly. Shooters beheld it and were outraged. Their fury…
If quality steadily declined from ’45 ‘til 1963, why wouldn’t shooters/hunters be more inclined to buy a Pre-1945, or '54 or whenever a noticable decline in quality became evident?
The way the article is written it sounds as though the 1963 model may have been a “shoddy†low quality firearm. In which case, I’d rank the rifle less than number one in the 50 Best Guns.
Please don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Winchester or Field & Stream. I am just confused as to how one could call a rifle shoddy and call it the best at the same time. Is there something about the 70 that I’m missing?
Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
Chris