Pre 64 Winchester what???

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TABING

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
151
Location
Tucson, AZ, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E
It's my understanding that "pre 64 winchester" quality rave applies only to the model 70 rifle, and yet on various online guns for sale sites sellers are touting their model 94s and other models as being "pre 64". Am I wrong, are they ignorant, or are they depending on the iignorance of the buyers?
 
After '64 it's my understanding that Winchester quality in general went down a bit for some time.
 
The wierd thing is what exactly did Winchester do with all the profit from the extremely successful and lucrative lines that caused them to 'cheapen' things up after 1964???????
Case in point, Winchester 63 verses a Winchester 190/490.

Manufacturers of the time claimed it was getting too expensive to continue to produce the guns and be able to sell them at a profitable margin.
Maybe, but that would indicate poor management that didn't plan for the future and in my mind that is an admission that no company wants to publically admit unless something else was at play.

Remember this era was less than 6 months after John Kennedy was assassinated and the whole country was furious at and down on the gun industry.
The gun industry killed Kennedy, not the mob, not some useless snit with a chip on his shoulder,,,, the gun did the dirty deed.
The other theories came much, much later.
Sound familiar? Because that card was played then as now.

I think Winchester and many other manufacturers really felt that legal American gun production was nearing an end at that time and began to divest themselve of expensive and hard to resell production machinery before the end came.
When the end didn't come they bought new money saving machinery and the new techniques that went along with these new machines.

Still, what did they do with all those profits?????
 
Onmilo,

I don't agree with you assessment at all.

Winchester came out of WWII, into a market which was flooded by cheap war bring backs, but a greater demand from the private sector for gun purshases by returning GI's.

Quality as far as labor spent on each rifle was at its peak during the Pre War years during the depression. Simply labor was dirt cheap and it was cost effective to produce firearms in that fashion.

WWII changed all of that, labor skyrocketed in real terms, and the tooling which was used during WWII was used hard, and not replaced. Enter post war and Winchester resumed producing commmercial guns. Most of the tooling was brought out of mothballs, or redirected from military contracts. By 1952 Winchester management had a good handle on how they were not competetive on the model 70 and all post 1953 Model 70's incorporated cost cutting methods to still produce the model 70 and make it competetive in the market place. But quality was sacrificed, gone was a all steel bottom metal, the bolt removal mechanism was changed slightly, there were probably a dozen minor tweaks to reduce production costs and still maintan a quality rifle. Winchester continued with this for another 10 years, and no significant changes were done in the model line. By 1963 the original tooling that the model 70's was built on was worn out and needed replacing, both with more modern tooling and new production technics to reduce labor costs further. A cost analysis of the model 70 was it was not a profitable item, even after the 1953 production changes it was still too expensive to manufacture. With these realities in hand Winchester turned to there Marketing guru's who felt that the model could be discontinued, redesigned, and reintroduced, and the shooting public wouldn't notice. All of the older designs were cheapened in a single years timeframe, as this must have been the new corporate bussword for at least a year or two. The only designs that this didn't impact was the very few models that were introduced in the 50's and they were pretty much shotguns.

Well post 64 Winchesters hit the market place and the rest is pretty much history. Winchester marketing Guru's had blundered monumentally, the post 64 models were directly compared by the buying public to the pre 64 models, they didn't like what they saw and promptly quit buying Winchesters, Remington had the new Model 700 as direct competion, which was still cheaper to make, and a superior design when compared to the new pushfeed model 70. I do agree with your assessment of the gun industry as a whole during the rest of the decade, things were not the same for gun manufacturers and they never would again. This commercial side of the business was coupled with Winchester didn't win any major military contracts during the Vietnam war. The only revenue trail of significance was ammunition.

A brief summary of the history of Winchester is that it was owned by the hiers of the original founder until 1931 ( less than 2 years after the stock market crash ) when it was sold to Western Cartridge Company ( modern Olin ). From this period until Olin sold it in 1981 is was a subsidiary of Olin, and a non revenue generating one at that. This was further complicated because Olin's real interest in Winchester had been the ammunition industry which complemented their chemical and gun powder production. Bankers and investors being what they are expect both profits and payments on time, and the gunmaking part of the now Winchester did not fit into either a corporate strategy and was not a core industry of the corporation, and it had dismal rates of return.

Post 1981 after Olin sold it to US Repeating Arms, it was a corporate acquistion in the big sense, which gave Winchester both badly needed dollars, and broadened the base, as Browning is part of the same corporation.

Currently USRA is licensee for the Winchester name, the corporation really wasn't Winchester after 1931, and formally ceased to exist almost 25 years ago in 1981.
 
Well post 64 Winchesters hit the market place and the rest is pretty much history. Winchester marketing Guru's had blundered monumentally, the post 64 models were directly compared by the buying public to the pre 64 models, they didn't like what they saw and promptly quit buying Winchesters
Click to expand...

Not if these sales figures are correct

Winchester Pre 64 Model 70 Information
Year S/N start S/N end Quantity
1954 282,736 323,530 40,795
1955 323,531 361,025 37,495
1956 361,026 393,595 32,570
1957 393,596 425,283 31,688
1958 425,284 440,792 15,509
1959 440,793 465,040 24,248
1960 465,041 504,257 39,217
1961 504,258 545,446 41,189
1962 545,447 565,592 20,146
1963 562,593 581,471 15,879

Winchester Post 64 Model 70 Information
Year S/N start S/N end Quantity
1964 700,000 757,180 57,181
1965 757,181 818,500 61,320
1966 818,501 855,860 37,360
1967 855,861 873,694 17,834
1968 G873,695 G929,990 56,296
1969 G929,991 G965,200 35,210
1970 G965,201 G1,000,436 43,236
1971 G1,000,437 G1,041,884 33,448
1972 G1,041,885 G1,088,291 46,407
1973 G1,088,292 G1,130,146 41,855
1974 G1,130,147 G1,176,878 46,732
 
Quote:
--------------------------------
It's my understanding that "pre 64 winchester" quality rave applies only to the model 70 rifle, and yet on various online guns for sale sites sellers are touting their model 94s and other models as being "pre 64". Am I wrong, are they ignorant, or are they depending on the iignorance of the buyers?
---------------------------------

Winchester was faced with several problems -- an aging workforce, aging tooling, and increasing manufacturing costs. Several other manufacturers had gone the "cheap" route -- Savage, for example, had brought out the Model 110 which was openly designed for low-cost manufacture. Remington had lower cost rifles.

Winchester began experimenting with lower-cost production methods prior to '64 -- the test bed was, in fact the Model 94. It was the first one to get the treatment, which included a stamped cartridge carrier instead of milled and so on.

It was the Model 70, however, that got the brunt of the criticism. Ross Seifried remarked that Winchester went from making what was arguably the best production bolt action in the world to what was arguably the worst. Part of the problem was the Model 70's cachet -- it WAS reputed as the best, and many people felt Winchester sinned to cheapen it. Marine snipers in Viet Nam wanted the Model 70, but refused to go with the "new" Model 70 -- and that's part of how Remington got the sniper market.

The "Post '64" Model 94s are not as bad, relatively, as the early post-'64 Model 70s. I bought one of the first post-'64 Model 94s (at the Fort Sill, OK PX) in early 1964, and have had it ever since. As a shooter, I see no advantage to the pre-'64 Model 94s.

On the other hand, the early post-64 Model 70s were really awful -- although they got better as time went on. The currnet "Classic" Model 70s are actually a blend of the basic pre-'64 design and improvements introduced in the post-'64 era.
 
Racenutz,

I checked your numbers and the are nuts on, but raw numbers aren't what the accountants eye and pen use.

They expect numbers that show growth, reasonable numbers are 10% increase per year. This coupled with the hit to the bottom line, on repayment of capitol investment on upgraded tooling. The years 68, 69, and 71 must have been nightmare three bad years in a five year period.

Coupled with the competition Remington that were outselling them 2 to 1 on the Model 700. The production numbers for the 700 is 3.5 million since is was introduced in 1962. Total model 70 numbers since the beginning are half of that at best. And the 700 was cheaper to make to boot. Remington was very smart back in 1941 when they introduced the new model 721, they were simply almost 20 years ahead of Winchester in a modern design. Cosmetic fixes in the new 700 to correct butt ugly from the 721 ancestor, left Remington with both a more modern product and one that was cheaper to the consumer.

Corporations usually don't immediately blow up and cease to exist. It is measured in years, as they are survivors and doing everything they can to correct problems and return to profitability. But in my mind 1964 was the beginning of the end for Winchester, it just took 17 years to make it final.
 
I was reading the magazines and haunting the gun store racks in the 1960s. Couldn't afford to buy or feed a centerfire rifle on what I was making sacking groceries after school.

The '64 M70 redesign was not a bad rifle, mechanically, but the stock was just plain fugly. Stamped checkering and a barrel channel wide enough - to insure free floating after warpage of the cheap wood - wide enough to drag a cat through by the tail. Ick.

The '64 M94 redesign included an unbluable alloy receiver and a stamped lifter. Even with that, I recall a 1965 magazine article covering the new mutants in which the M94 was more accurate than the M70.

They started re-revising in 1968 with an anti-bind bolt and better looking stocks on the 70 and a solid stock (cast?) lifter in the 94.
 
The pre-64 Model 70's have a certain charisma unmatched by any other production bolt gun. They feel like a bank vault in my hand.

Yeah, they're overpriced now and they don't handle escaping gas from a ruptured cartridge as well as other models but they're cool just the same.

Basically, 1963 marked the end of Winchester's "good stuff", i.e., the 62A, 63, 61, 75, 67A, 12 and all the other expensive to manufacture but great guns.

Tim
 
It was a bad enough blunder for Winchester...

That they came out with the "new" pre-'64 claw extractor models, in an effort to recapture what they had lost. I'm not so certain it has, either. :(
 
You've got an excellent point there -- for Winchester to recapture what they had prior to '64 will be a real struggle. They lost pride of place in the market, and virtually have to start all over. The magic is gone, and they have to earn a place now.
 
Don't forget the model 88. The only "pre-64" year of production of the .284 Win chambering of that rifle was 1963. A model 88 in .284 made in 1963 is worth some money.
 
Sodbuster.

I had one in my hands today exactly the the gun you described. Around $1K original, oh 85-90% condition. ( I count 5% for the box ) if I hadn't just bought 3 guns recently I would have jumped on it. I know I am going to regret not purchasing it after playing with it for 15-20 min. One of the three finest lever actions ever made. Basically a lever action, bolt action rifle, all the bad stuff about levers was fixed on that model; low pressure, bad trigger, sorry cartridges, bad sights. Plus I love 284 Win what a underated great cartridge. Actually thinking about it maybe it was the best lever ever. Yet another short sighted plan by the now defunct Winchester.

At the very min. I wish USRA would do a special one year run in these, chambered for the 284 and the 358 Win, Sigh......itsn;t going to happen though. :(

I have loved Winchester for years, but what is left is real hard to love, and anything really worth having they still make ( the new 404 Jeffrey in a safari express ) you need to be a politician, doctor, lawyer, or Yaseer Arafat to afford.
 
1964 was a significant date at Winchester, and not just for the Model 70. The 94 was cheapened too. The difference is obvious if you hold a post 64 and a pre 64 model 94. I used to have a post 64 94, but now have two pre 64s, and sold the post. No comparison in quality. Also have two pre 64 70s.
 
"It's my understanding that "pre 64 winchester" quality rave applies only to the model 70 rifle, and yet on various online guns for sale sites sellers are touting their model 94s and other models as being "pre 64". Am I wrong, are they ignorant, or are they depending on the iignorance of the buyers? "

Tabing- Both the Models 70 and 94 underwent major changes in 1964. Maybe other guns in the Winchester line, too, but I know the 70 and 94 incorporated significant redesigns in 1964 to facilitate manufacturing. In other words, they were made cheaper.
 
When you pick up a pre-64 model 94, do the following.

Shake it, HARD, and listen.

Does it rattle, vibrate or seem to give a bit? Does the trigger wiggle back and forth, does the lever rattle?

The Post 64's generally do, the Pre-64's generally don't. Now add in the better bluing fit and finish and you have a "no brainer" decision. Why buy lesser quality?
 
My examination of the guns indicate mostly it was about the Model 70. Purists thought it was a real sell out on Win's part. They also jettisoned the Model 12 shotgun and replaced it with the horrific Model 1200, iirc. The whole gun line was cheapened and had that horrendous pressed in checkering. Whoever said they had been declining since 1952 was also right, but the big difference to the uncritical eye was 1964.

The model 1894 is a utilitarian deer rifle. A pre 64 would be more desirable than a post, but only by so much. The model 70 is a big difference between pre and post as far as collectors are concerned.
 
My Model 94 was purchased in '64, and was one of the early "redesigns." A practiced eye can tell the difference between it and an earlier gun, but it functions and shoots very well.

One difference in the post-'64s Model 94s is the metal of the receiver -- it was blued by a special process, and when it wears off with years of handling, you can't re-blue it. You can try, but it looks like hell.
 
One difference in the post-'64s Model 94s is the metal of the receiver -- it was blued by a special process, and when it wears off with years of handling, you can't re-blue it. You can try, but it looks like hell.
Click to expand...
This is very true. A few years ago, when I still lived in NY State, I asked my gunsmith, an older fellow who did good work, to reblue my Winchester 94. He immediately balked at the idea, and said he swore off ever rebluing Winchester 94s years ago because the receivers won't take a blueing. I assured him that mine would, as it was made long before they switched to the cheaper alloy receivers. He didn't know anything about it, but I finally persuaded him to do it so long as I promised not to complain when it came back looking like crap. I promised, because I knew it would take the blueing fine. When he was done, he was amazed that the receiver took the blue. He couldn't believe how good it looked. I guess from that point on he didn't just flat out refuse to reblue 94s, but first looked into the manufacture date to see if it would work.
 
I guess from that point on he didn't just flat out refuse to reblue 94s, but first looked into the manufacture date to see if it would work.
Click to expand...

I loaned mine to a friend for a hunting trip out of state -- when he brought it back, to "thank" me, he had it re-blued. It still looks like it has leprosy. :eek:
 
The pre- and post-64 mystique applies to the Model 70 and Model 94 Winchesters. They had already discontinued most if not all of their other traditional steel guns in 1957-1963.
 
The pre- and post-64 mystique applies to the Model 70 and Model 94 Winchesters.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I have to say only a conniseur can really tell the difference between a pre- and post-'64 Model 94. (Except for the un-blueable receiver.) The post-'64 Model 94s handle, function and shoot as well as the pre-'64s.

That is definitely not the case with the post-'64 Model 70, especially the early ones. As a friend of mine said, "If you think abortion is not a sin, look at a post-'64 Model 70." :neener:
 
In all fairness, I have to say only a conniseur can really tell the difference between a pre- and post-'64 Model 94. (Except for the un-blueable receiver.) The post-'64 Model 94s handle, function and shoot as well as the pre-'64s.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that depends on what your definition of a connoisseur is. I certainly can tell. They were solidly built and fit together before 64. After 64 they had a junky feel to them. You can also tell real fast by looking at the butt plate, which will be steel before 64 and plastic after 64. Although, you are right in that the difference was more obvious with the Model 70.
 
Well, I guess that depends on what your definition of a connoisseur is. I certainly can tell. They were solidly built and fit together before 64. After 64 they had a junky feel to them. You can also tell real fast by looking at the butt plate, which will be steel before 64 and plastic after 64.
Click to expand...

I'm sitting here looking at mine, which I bought at the PX at Fort Sill, Oklahoma in early '64. It has a post-'64 serial number and the post-'64 receiver alloy. But it also has a steel buttplate, and is as solid as my Dad's which he bought in '56.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ol' scratch
  • Locked
What is the deal with pre-64 Winchesters?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Vern Humphrey
V
W.E.G.
  • Locked
"Pre-64" Winchester Model 94 30-30 -- so what?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
19K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
Winchester 70 Value
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Pivot Dr
P
B
  • Locked
Winchester pre 64 Model 70 scope bases
Replies
5
Views
420
243winxb
243winxb
D
  • Locked
pre-64 30-06 model 70
Replies
6
Views
574
desmark6
D
Back
Top