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

M70 question

You hear alot about CRF v. pushfeed and I understand that in the M70 debate.

My question is....Did the push feed rifles incorporate the same trigger design and execution, as the early CRF rifles? The early rifle triggers seem extremely simple and solid. Did the push feeds go to a springs and pins design like is so common now, and on the "new" FN M70????
 
Bama the trigger remained unchanged until FN/Winchester moved production to South Carolina. I prefer the old trigger, but have had no issues with the MOA trigger in my M70 EW.
 
My pushfeed model 70 has old style trigger, and I'm torn about replacing it with a Timney, it seems everytime I shoot it, it grows on me...

I won't be selling or trading this rifle because of the amount of work I put in it....
 
I'm a huge fan of Model 70s, all of them (except for some reason I don't have a USRA's Model 70).

Hard to beat the "classic per-64 carrying an old US Made Weaver 4X as "America's Rifle". Should be in '06 though.

Having said that, nothing wrong with the post '64 push feeds, ( I certainly have enough of them.

I have a lot of Model 70s, pre-post-and FN.

The FNs are without a doubt the pick of the litter out of the box accuracy wise.

I do have to agree, Winchester would probably have gone under if they hadn't made the change in '64. People just wont pay for craftsmanship now days.

Hard to beat the Model 70 action when building a target rifle (close if not better would be the Springfield '03 series). When people used bolt guns in High Power and long range matches, the Model 70 Ruled..........even the post '64s.

The most accurate rifle I have is a post '64 target rifle in 308, made by the AMU that I got from the CMP Auction site.

I just got another barreled action AMU rifle in 300 WM from the same source (AMU built sold by the CMP). I think its going to be a shooter, we'll see when I get it in a stock.

Anyway as long as I'm alive, I don't see Model 70s going away because I wont stop buying them.

My next M-70 project, when I can find an action, is going to be a 260.

I realize this is a bit off topic......but I like Winchesters.
 
There was a reason for the so-called "controlled feed". Actually, some of the first Mausers were "push feed" in a day of round nose bullets, even lead bullets. But when pointed FMJ bullets came into use, those rifles had a problem. If a round was pushed into the chamber and the bolt retracted before being locked down (which could happen in combat), the round remained in the chamber. If the next round was fed, its point could dig into the primer of the chambered round, with unfortunate consequences. Mauser went to "controlled feed" and everyone followed, some probably without knowing why.

Jim
 
Pathfinder, I have a pile of the old Winchester triggers. Maybe you got all the good ones and I was left with the duds.;) Comparing them to a Jewel would be like comparing a horse and buggy to Mercedes.
 
They did what they did, and things are now the way they are, however it is that you perceive them to be. We will never know how things would be if they had chosen to do differently. We could only speculate.

There is a book about manufacturing philosophy, "The Goal". Care to take a guess what the goal is? If you guessed that the goal is to be profitable (make money) and survive as a company doing business in the marketplace, then you guessed right.

They obviously did what they thought they had to do to survive in the marketplace. Apparently unsuccessfully since they have been sold and bought a couple times since then.

The Winchester brand name and trademark is now used under license, so since there really is no Winchester company that makes guns any longer, one could make the assumption that they are not better off for their decision.

But on the other hand, if your name is Winchester, and you are getting paid for just letting someone use your name without actually making anything and incurring all of the associated overhead expense and headache, then one could assume that you have really refined "The Goal" and perfected it.

In which case, you are much better off.
 
I think the Model 94 suffered the worse in the 1964 changes. Because of it, a lot of sales went to Marlin since they were very good back then...

Tony
 
My grandfather left me his 94 (circa 1939 or so) in his will, and my dad has a 94 from the late 60s, so I had a chance to compare the two side by side (from owners with similar usage habits). The old gun was alot more solid, both in looks and feel. The lever action was alot smoother in the old gun as well.

I'll put it this way - grandpa's model 94 had been stored in a gun cabinet for the better part of 30 years, after tearing it down, all it needed was a little bit of oil, and to get the dust bunnies outta the barrel.

Took it out the first time of the year and shot a nice muley first shot*, without even needing to adjust the sights. *after running some ammo through it to make sure everything was going to keep working.
 
the model 1200 was regarded as inferior to the model 12 shotgun.
Click to expand...

I have a couple model 12s, and I have worked on model 1200s. They are correct to regard it as inferior to the Model 12. Unless your only standard is "cheaper, and usually still works". ;)

Winchester's mistake with the .225 was the case they based it on. Had it been a rimless case, it might have stood a chance....

While the big argument between push feed and CRF raged in the gun writers minds and on their pages, I think that the change in the appearance and finish had a bigger impact on the average consumer.

People had come to expect a Model 70 to look like a certain thing. When that changed, AND it also looked "cheaper" people got turned off.

I had never heard about the barrel channel & the bean counters until now! heard all about how Win "free floated" the barrels, and how people didn't like the change in the looks,, but never the "one size for all" reason. Now, that I have heard it, it makes perfect sense.

Who can say if Winchester would be better off today if they hadn't done what they did in 64? Since they aren't around today other than a name, its a moot point. One set of decisions 40 years ago might not matter at all. On the other hand, it did put them on the road to where they are(n't) today.
 
Well I've had pre-64 Winchester and post 64 Winchesters (post68 actually) and the pre 64s are gone and I still have the post 64s. I even have a couple of the last push feeds, M70 Featherweights and they're fine rifles. Controlled feed, push feed. I don't care. I've never had one of my push feeders jam, even the Remingtons with the wishy washy extractor they use. One exception, a Remington 660 in .308. After over 5,000 rounds the extractor flat wore out.
Frankly my preference over the pre64 M70s is a good old fashioned Mauser 98 either based on a military action or one of the commercial FNs. Just my personal preferences.
Paul B.
 
gman3 makes a point we sometimes forget. The whole purpose of a company (whatever its "mission") is to make money for its owners. That is the dichotomy between the GDP and the stock market. A company can make money by outsourcing its manufacturing (as many do) so unemployment rises and GDP falls, yet the company stock rises since it makes more money than it did before.

Some folks insist that a company must "support the community" or "help the nation" or "increase its workforce". Those are nice goals but they are not the reason a company exists.

Jim
 
The most "damming" commnet regarding the post 64's

came from the PH that Winchester hired to promote the new firearms was:" this is a barrel channel, not a canoe channel".


Also, the machiningg equipment were WORN out and major upgrade was needed.
 
True the machines and tooling were worn out, but Winchester had a choice to retool for the old rifle or go to something new. The problem was not that they went to something new, it was that the "new" was such a departure from what had gone before. "The Rifleman's Rifle" had been hyped for years; now it was not even recognizable. Remington actually had made some of the same choices, and its change in manufacturing methods was far more radical, going from re-worked Model 1917's* to rifles made in a totally new way. But Remington, after something of a hesitant start with the 721/722 got it right with the Model 700. Winchester denounced the 700 as made of "cheap stampings", but Winchester is gone and the 700 keeps on truckin'.

*Every Remington high power bolt action from the end of WWI to the start of WWII was made from parts left over from Model 1917 production. Only the non-.30 barrels and stocks (and some small parts) were newly made.

Jim
 
Would Winchester have been better of not cheapenign itself in 1964

Yes. They should have adapted or modernized machinery and techniques.
I have nothing to run a cost analysis on but that's my opinion.
I remember in 64 in one of the outdoors magazines, of them offering every model 70 in every caliber for 3900.00 and some odd dollars MSRP.
The ad had all the rifles in a half moon with barrels at the center.
That was enough to buy a Cadillac then but probably 3/4 or half of waht the pre 64's cost.
S&W's owners are about to destroy the company along with others by cheapened firearms.
I hope I can find the three or four earlier S&W Revolvers I want. You can't give one of the rougher finished guns with the key lock now and they are not that cheap.
Col and others are having same problems by cheapening and raising prices to increase profitability demanded by Wall Street Corporate Raiders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top