Would Winchester be better off not to have cheapened itself in 1964?

No. Winchester wouldn't be better off, they'd have bankrupted themselves sooner and we may not have Winchester in production today. Pre-64 rifles were labor intensive and they couldn't produce a rifle the average hunter could afford, so they had to change. Did the fit and finish of the rifles go down sure, but I for one don't think the Pre-64 is vastly superior to the post 64 rifles when it comes down to reliability or accuracy.
 
I guess the American consumer cheapened itself then...how sad. I would have liked the opportunity to buy a new Win of the quality they used to make as well as some of the models they discontinued.
 
Last edited:
Like others have noted, Winchester would have gone broke. Then you could just pay through the nose for any Winchester, instead of "Pre-64" Winchesters ....
 
Personally I think if they hadn't changed the model 70 it's likely the m40/m24 would be using a winchester action not the Remington.
 
"...to have cheapened itself..." How do you think upgrading manufacturing techniques cheapened them? You think using stamped parts in M1 Rifles etc 'cheapened' the War effort too?
"...Pre-64 rifles were labor intensive..." Yep and used a lot of machined parts that didn't need to be machined. Trigger guards and followers for example.
"...if they hadn't changed the Model 70..." The M70 was used as a sniper's rifle long after 1964.
 
"...to have cheapened itself..." How do you think upgrading manufacturing techniques cheapened them?
Click to expand...

They also discontinued some fine models. The 70 was only one model affected and they did make efforts to improve the post models after people cussed them out some.
 
Last edited:
I realize that it was used after 64 but never on a official status per say. When it came time to type classify something they went with the remington. Just a personal belief that if the pre 64 was still available they would have chosen that since cost of manufacture is the only thing (IMO) the Remington had over the Winchester.
 
My first varmint rifle was a Winchester M70 bull barrel .225 Winchester.

I bought it the day I got out of the Navy in August 1965. It was just about that time that Remington started making their 700 BDL in the new factory loaded 22-250.

The .225 was a fine little varmint round that had the first nail in the coffin hammered in by Remington.

The Winchester certainly did not look as polished as the Remington. It performed well for me. I have not seen a rifle in .225 Winchester for quite a few years.
 
All "pre-64" Winchester rifles were labor intensive to manufacture; they were designed in a "gold dollar" era when labor was cheap, and the company was not innovative enough to put a product improvement program into effect gradually. Remington, with its Model 721/722 and later 700 was simply putting them out of business.

While the 1964 changes reduced the cost of their guns, the changed appearance caused a sales drop that made things even worse. Winchester then tried to blame military surplus rifles and poured millions of badly needed dollars into lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968. The law was passed, but it did not help Winchester in the long run.

Jim
 
While the 1964 changes reduced the cost of their guns, the changed appearance caused a sales drop that made things even worse.
Click to expand...

From what I read..they alienated a lot of their core customers with the cost cutting. It hurt Winchester's reputation of high quality.
 
I'd argue that the post 64 guns were probably better quality. The model 70 was redesigned and should have really had a different model name since it was so different. Winchester quality had been slipping long before 1964. It was in 64 that they decided it was better to make a gun that was cheaper to produce, and do a good job with it, than continue to do a poor job on a classic gun that cost a lot of money to make. And one they couldn't sell at a profit.

The post 64 pushfeed model 70 is at least as good as the Remington 721,722,700 series. But some consumers never forgave them for dropping the CRF rifles in 1964. Even though the rifles themselves were better quality at lower prices.
 
Everyone who touts the post 64 win only cites the 70....I think what superseded the 22 line up was inferior...the model 1200 was regarded as inferior to the model 12 shotgun. The post 94 was mechanically good but visually poor in comparison to the pre 94.
 
The whole line was re-designed. Actually, the new Model 70 may well have been better. It was a common rumor that the new Model 70 had a cast receiver instead of the "good old forged receiver." That was rather ironic, since the new Model 70 was the first with a forged receiver; the pre-64 Model 70 receiver was machined from bar stock (which was why forging was actually cheaper). But the stocks, while made of walnut, were not well stained and had really awful looking impressed checkering. (Remington had impressed checkering also, but it was a much better design and a better looking stock.)

Even worse, the bean counters decided on a "one stock fits all" approach, so the barrel channel had to be wide enough for the big calibers; that left thinner barrels with wide gaps at the sides in what was quickly dubbed "the horse trough." Winchester tried to pass it off as "free floating", which it undoubtedly was, but the result was only more laughter.

But those guns shot very well. They had a modern breeching setup that was almost as strong as Remington's and plenty solid, which probably helped a lot toward accuracy. Alas, once the American public gets "down" on a product, all the PR in the world won't help.

Jim
 
Pre 64 Wins
I bought my 1st. new M-70 in 1969 a 270. Bought in to spring bear hunt, gun would only do 2" at 100yds with fliers. Didn't take it on hunt, when I came back I traded it
for a Ruger 77 in 270 turned out to be a lot better gun than Win. It was finished a lot
better and had the feel and accuracy of the old M-70. Never bought another new Win.
since. The bean counters have ruined many classic guns. Remington, Savage, Browning
and most recently the Marlin lever action rifles and Ithaca shotguns. Look at a gun
catalog from the 60s and see how many went down the drain. Stampings, plastics and
pot metals make sense on military arms. They need to be made fast and cheap but do
the job they were intended for. That's what a lot of this new stuff is. If your happy with
this stuff more power to you. I can always kick a good old gun out of the wood work for
the cost of one of these new guns. I'm lucky I live in area where everyone used to hunt.
The younger generation doesn't , they sell grandpa's guns to buy computer games, I
don't pay Gun Broker prices!
 
I had a '66 Winchester 70 in .264 Mag. Tight-group tack driver. In general, the newer, less-costly 70s grouped as well as, if not better than, the pre-64s.

Recall that the 1960s were a time of rapid economic growth, and wages were rising. By 1966, with the Vietnam war, materials costs also had begun rising.
 
I guess I am just the odd ball, but I prefer the push feed Winchester 70 to the controlled feed. The machine work on the push feeds is better. In the mojority of the Winchester I have shot and seen shot, the push feed is more accurate than the controlled feed. It would definitely be safe to say the push feed is "as accurate" as the controlled feed.
 
Reynolds I think that could easily be true of the post 64 until you compare them to the fn made ones. The advent of cnc machining i think really revitalized the "real" model 70. But the Pre 64's were accurate for the time period they were made in, we really get spoiled these days though
 
My first model 70 was a push-feed, circa 1973. It was a good rifle but was only a 3MOA rifle, until I let my younger brother glass bed and free float it. What an improvement! Regrettably, I let that one go in '87. Currently, I have the Classic Sporter from the mid 90's, I believe. It's an even better rifle. It has never been bedded and floated since it shoots pretty well as is. For this rifle, I haven't found a load that shoots exceptionally well at 100 yards. Most recipes group around 1-1/2" for 5 shots at that distance. At 300 yards, I have one recipe that does remarkably well. I'm sure it could be improved with a bedding/float job; but I'm pretty content with it.
As far as model 94's go, there have been a lot of changes to them long before 1964. With some 7-plus million of them made over more than a century, it's no wonder. Want a model 94 carbine? There are several different versions of that over the years. New or used is irrelevant; buy the one that has the features you find most appealing. While I like pre-64's; that's not far enough back for my tastes. I find the carbines made from 1937-1948 most appealing. Shortly after that, they stopped checkering the hammers and substituted simple serrations. And then they shortened the forearm wood. If you go back to some really old ones the checkering on the hammers was in a, "tombstone", pattern; those were very cool.
Yeah, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, as my mother used to say. Even Winchester is now making plastic rifles, on the wide road with everybody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top