Talk:Winchester Repeating Arms Company

Winchester history is a bookful of US firearms development
The history of the Winchester RA Co. is enough to fill a large book in firearms development and needs much more than this short article. Besides the 1866, and 1873 rifles there is the 1876 series, the Browning series of 1886 and 1892. The lever action shotguns, the pump shotguns of 1893 and 1897. The semi autos of the early 1900's. The P14 military production for the Brits, the M1917 rifle production for the US, etc., etc. I probably have a lot of it my brain, but lack the reference books and time to detail all this.

It's really sad that Winchester has fallen on hard times, but it just mirrors the fate of much of the industrial US during the late 20th and early 21st century. --TGC55 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To the above;

According to a history book I have here on Browning and Winchester, Browning had no part in designing the Model 12 as the story here emplies at the start. Thomas C Johnson was the sole designer who was a Winchester engineer. Johnson borrowed the front end design of the 1897 which was the barrel and magazine assembly. It had the best takedown features. The receiver though was totally different inside and this was what Johnson designed. The model 25 is the same gun except it has a fixed barrel and magazine. At the time Winchester wanted to design guns without having to pay Browning royalties. Also at this time, Winchester bought the designs and manufacturing rights for several guns from Browning and never produced them. This was done over the royalty payouts and to keep Browning form making the designs and competing. Browning and Winchester parted ways about this time, and John Browning went to Belgium where he became partners with FN. This was manily due to Winchester not wanting to buy the design and make the Auto-5 shotgun. FN was the first factory to produce it, and later Remington and Savage made a similar copy. I can change this but don't want to if the original author would like to him/her self.

"From 1883, John Browning worked in partnership with the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and designed a series of repeating rifles and shotguns, most notably the Winchester Model 1887, Model 1897, and Model 1912 shotguns"

The reference that Browning designed the model 12 above (model 1912) should be taken out. I would also mention the model 25 which was a Johnson design.

Craxd.

Business Question
Does this company still exist? (i'm wondering, because i'm doing the infobox) the Winchester brand is owned by Olin, which makes Winchester ammo, but is not part of Winchester RAC or the herstal group. Winchester was bought out by USRAC, which is turn was taken over by the Herstal group etc, which has shut down the NH plant, and continued production in browning and miroku plants. So what is the status of this company, and if it is now defunct, when was the official 'shut down' date ? --Boris Barowski 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that they have ceased production in the US. Not that they have ceased to exist. They do still have websites at Winchester Guns and Winchester International, which are of course distinct from Winchester Ammo and have been since long before the plant shutdown. Arthurrh 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BROWNING INTERNATIONAL S.A. © 2003 - Parc industriel des Hauts-Sarts, 3ème Avenue, 25, B-4040, HERSTAL, BELGIUM this is what is shown on the winchester international site, so ok, the winchester brand still exists, but maybe not the winchester repeating arms company. They are just browning built arms with the winchester brand put on them, which is licenced by olin. I'm very interested on how businesses are organised, so I want this to be right :p --Boris Barowski 12:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Browing website has some info on their company page, a press-release or something describing the status. Arthurrh 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Business Answer
Your question is very much relevant sir. I have been hunting for information for over a day to answer one very simple question; Where are Winchester rifles made today?

I believe many come to this site looking for this answer. The Winchester brand name has been through much turmoil over the past few years. There is much confusion about the recent history, current status and future of Winchester firearms. I can attest that when asking most people in USA gun shops this question, they often respond; I don't know I heard they are being made overseas. There is also lore and internet speculation about patent infrignements and lawsuits surrounding the winchester short magnum cartridges, union strikes and/or the short magnums themselves contributing to the demise of the New Haven plant. Whether these are urban legend or not I do not know.

However, the official answers are available and should be readily available here in these wikis. The answers are found on winchesterguns.com webpages. Here are some excerpts for source material:

-- On January 17 of 2006 a press release announced that U.S. Repeating Arms Company (the company that makes Winchester brand Model 94s, Model 70s and the Model 1300 Speed Pump Shotgun) would be shutting down one of the factories which makes Winchester guns. Effective March 31, 2006 the New Haven manufacturing facility will stop manufacturing the Winchester Model 70, Model 94 and Model 1300. The factory is located in New Haven, Connecticut. Over the years, many efforts were made to improve profitability at the manufacturing facility in New Haven, and the decision to shut this factory was made after exhausting all available options. Service is not affected at all by the plant closure. It continues from our network of Winchester Authorized Repair Centers (ARCs) and/or from our service facility in Arnold, Missouri. We have a continuing commitment to service that is an unchanged part of the Winchester legacy.

Our other factories will continue production uninterrupted. Products made at these factories include the Super X line of shotguns including the new Super X3 autoloader and the new Super X Rifle (SXR) centerfire autoloader. Both are made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal. In addition, we will continue with our line of quality Select over and unders: the only production Belgium-made over and unders in the world. Our special historic guns -- 1885s, 95s, as well as other limited series rifles -- continue to be made at our factory in Japan. These factories are unaffected by the New Haven closure and we continue forward with our production and future plans. -- On August 15, 2006, Olin Corporation, owner of the Winchester trademarks, announced that it had entered into a new license agreement with Browning to make Winchester brand rifles and shotguns, though not at the closed Winchester plant in New Haven. Browning, based in Morgan, Utah, and the former licensee, U.S. Repeating Arms Company, are both subsidiaries of FN Herstal. -- MORGAN, UTAH — The Winchester Model 70 is one of the most respected bolt-action rifle designs in the world. Winchester Repeating Arms is excited to announce the return of the Model 70 for 2008. The All-American Model 70s will be built by American craftsmen in Columbia, South Carolina, at the same state-of-the-art factory (FN Manufacturing) as the rifles and machine guns used by America’s Armed Forces. They are made to the exact ISO 9001 standard of the quality that the U.S. Government insists upon for military firearms. -- In short, as of March 2008, Olin still owns the Winchester name, has licensed it to Browning {Herstal Group owns US Repeating Arms Company (USRAC), Browning and Fabrique Nationale (FN)} in August 2006 and the new Winchester Model 70 rifles for 2008 are now made in Columbia, SC USA.

The SXR and BAR is made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal, all other rifles are made in Japan (Miroku).


 * This line in the present article is simply incorrect and needs correction:


 * In 1963 the Winchester firm was purchased by the Olin-Matheson Chemical Corporation and continued its production of civilian rifles and shotguns.


 * This is all wrong. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. went bust and was purchased out of receivership by Olin Chemical on 22 Dec 1931.  Olin also owned Western Cartridge, and thus was able to manufacture Winchester-branded ammo as well as firearms.  The merger that created Olin-Matheson occurred in 1954.  In other words, there was no change of ownership at all in 1964: just a change ogf management philosophy.


 * The article currently lumps both World Wars together- I think they would have to be split to reflect the very important fact of the bankruptcy and Olin buyout in its proper place.--Solicitr (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

second world war (M1 carbine)
The article (31 Dec 2009) stated:

"The U.S. M1 carbine (although not a carbine in the truest sense) was designed by Winchester engineers Clifford Warner and Ralph Clarkson (contrary to a widely published myth, not by convict D.M. 'Carbine' Williams )"

without citation of a source.

According to Winchester manager Edwin Pugsley, at the insistence of Col Rene Studler the M1 carbine was based on the Winchester M2 Browning rifle prototype perfected by David Marshall Williams using his short-stroke tappet gas piston design. While Warner and Clarkson contributed to the design, there were more particpants than Warner, Clarkson, Pugsley and Williams. Pugsley produced three sets of papers on the development of the M1 carbine, one wartime account, one account in response to a possible lawsuit by Williams in the early 1950s, and one account just before he died.

U.S. Caliber .30 Carbine NRA America Rifleman Reprint series includes four articles on the origin of the M1 carbine:
 * (staff) The New M-1 Light Carbine (WWII era)
 * Harry F. Lynch, The M-1 Light Carbine (WWII era)
 * M.D. Waite, technical editor, All the Way With the M1 Carbine (Sep, Nov 1974)
 * E.H. Harrison, senior technical editor, Who Designed the M1 Carbine?

plus more recently Bruce N. Canfield, "Carbine" Williams: Myth and Reality, American Rifleman, Feb. 2009.

The Harrison article is mostly direct quotes from letters from Pugsley just before his death in 1975 in response to inquiries by Harrison. It was Edwin Pugsley who assembled a team including Bill Roemer, Marsh Williams, Fred Humiston, Cliff Warner, and at least three other Winchester engineers. Pugsley put Williams in charge at first but replaced him with Bill Roemer. Williams started working on his own design seperate from the team, although he did work with the team finishing the second prototype in time for Humiston to take the carbine to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for the second test.

According to Pugsley, "The carbine was invented by no single man, but was a combination of parts of guns already produced by Winchester...." The Williams gas system from the M2 rifle, Roemer's adaptation of the M1905 trigger system, Pugsley's design of the hook-and-band assembly/disassembly design from a shotgun, and so on. Clifford Warner and Ralph Clarkson contributed to the design, but at least eight Winchester designers and engineers, including Williams, deserve credit for the design of the M1 Carbine.

Debunking myths often distorts history as bad as the original myth. The M1 Carbine (technically not a carbine in the sense of short version of a parent rifle) was designed at Winchester by an eight man team including Edwin Pugsley, Bill Roemer, Marsh Williams, Fred Humiston, Cliff Warner and Ralph Clarkson, although the popular press played up the role of ex-convict Williams.

merger proposal
It seems that U.S. Repeating Arms Company is essentially the most recent chapter in a long history of Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and the articles should be merged. ENeville (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. WRAC hasn't been an independent company since 1931, after all. "Winchester Repeating Arms Company" should be the article head, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs)


 * Disagree. U.S. Repeating Arms is a different company though, and there exists enough reliable sources to write a pretty extended wikipedia article about it. --doncram (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. The merger proposal tags are not set up right. The proposal at the U.S. Repeating Arms article points to discussion to happen at its talk page, while the proposal at Winchester points to here.  There's a way to point discussion to the same place.  So, some editors who might watch the U.S. Repeating Arms article would believe there is a proposal from the tag, but see no discussion. --doncram (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for fixing the tag. It's hard to keep up with the intracacies of Wikipedia templates avocationally. ENeville (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, during its brief independent existence 1981-9, USRAC was no more than the employees of the former Winchester plant in New Haven; i.e. just a continuation of WRAC. Solicitr (talk)


 * That's a point of view, i suppose. There's a lot more, such as the City of New Haven's financial involvement, the contracting issues with Olin and the city, an unfortunate failure by the city to require several key managers to sign non-compete clauses (allowing them to take expertise to a competitor company).  How it worked out financially for employees, managers, investors, and ultimately failed i guess.  Sorry i don't have sources to add myself, but some parts of this can be told from New Haven Register news articles, other sources to be found.  Also relationship to designation of Winchester Repeating Arms Company Historic District designation during that timeframe.  I think it's a valid separate article. --doncram (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, all of that would make a good free-standing article- are you willing to write it? Solicitr (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Predecessors are valid articles in their own right: they aren't the same entity. Markvs88 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the articles are to remain separate, something that must be made clear very early in each article is the mutual existence and distinction of the two topics. The uninitiated researching Winchester firearms, for example, will not expect that a given model made in 1980 would have been made under a different aegis than a new one, nor know by title only which of the two topics they've landed on. Along those lines, note that the article for U.S. Repeating Arms Company says it's the current manufacturer but the infobox says the company went defunct in 1981, while the infobox for Winchester Repeating Arms Company says it went defunct in 2006.  This is exactly the sort of confusion that people use Wikipedia to try to clear up. ENeville (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. They are different companies and a brief check of other companies that have changed in the same manner shows that the older companies still maintain their own article, unless it is unable to meet notability on it's own. Re the statement above that "former employess = same company" this is a thin argument. Tesla is opening an old GM plant and hiring many of the previous plant workers, but this does not suggest that Tesla is really just GM. (Actually this plant at Nummi has a history of this - the workers belong to the plant rather than the company it seems.) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think NUMMI/Tesla is a good comparison, since USRAC continued to make exactly the same guns using the Winchester brand; Tesla is *not* making GM/Toyota cars. USRAC was the firearms division of Olin/Winchester-Western operating under new management, little different from modern Gibson or Fender Guitars after being spun off by the conglomerates that owned them. In fact I think Gibson is a very comparable case: originally an independent company, it was bought out by Chicago Musical Instruments which was taken over in turn by ECL/Norlin, and then in the '80s sold off as its own company again- but there's only one Gibson article.


 * Having said that, the brief, unhappy existence of USRAC and the political efforts to keep it alive probably do merit a separate article.--Solicitr (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No merger. Clearly there's no consensus for a merger here. As with other companies, successor companies retain their own articles, if they are notable. I'm going to proceed to remove the merger tags from the articles. 5-HT8 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)