IF you were VP Marketing at Winchester

13 August 2001, 09:36

<buffalo_buster>

Which cartridge would you bring out next based on WSM case? 7mm or .270??

Let's say you have just enough time to manufacture and market rifles in only one new chambering. Would you pick any one of the above to counter Remington's new 7mm short ultra or would you go bigger? (.338??).

If I were to make the decision, I'd go with the American sweetheart .270. The .270 calibre is synonymous with Winchester and would make a good competitor to 7mm short ultra. With six cartridges in 7mm with Rem suffix, I think going with the 7mm cartridge for Winchester would not be as good as going with the .270.

Which bullets would you use for initial offerings in your choice of calibre?

Any suggestions??
BB

12 August 2001, 22:13

boltman

I'd concentrate on manufacturing some left hand rifles and making the rest of the lineup that they advertise available before I brought out a new caliber. They would sell as many left handed rifles as they could make if they would make them available.

12 August 2001, 22:17

Saeed

BB,

270 would be my choice too!

Bullet would have to be one of the premiums, and I would offer two weights, 130 and 150.

I just wish Winchester would improve their quality control. Some of their rifles that I get here lately seem to be rather rough.

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

13 August 2001, 09:47

<BigBores>

I think I would try to one up Rem, by bringing out a 6mm. Instead of playing catch up with a 7mm or 270, they could wait 'til next time.

13 August 2001, 09:57

Deerdogs

Boltman. Here here!

13 August 2001, 14:43

KuduKing

Definitely the 7mm.

Plenty of .270s and .338s are sold by Winchester, so why would they want to compete with their own product? They have no 7mm round so by bringing out a 7nn WSM they cut into Remington's sales.

I agree that they outta deliver what they advertise. As for you poor lefties, the profit just isnt there. Fall in love with Sako and be happy.

13 August 2001, 16:01

<Rockhammer>

I was at the NRA Convention in Kansas City this past May and stopped at the Winchester Booth. While talking I asked when or if they would consider a short Win Mag in .270 cal. I said it is a natural for Winchester for Remington has had a lock on developing the 7MM for 40+ years. They said that a .270 WSM is in the works "as we speak". I don't know if this was truth or just patronizing an old NRA Endowment Member. Hope it is true!

14 August 2001, 04:28

Brad

It is my understanding that snipers from one of the service branches have been using the 270 WSM for several years now and are absolutely sold on its accuracy and reach.

Brad

14 August 2001, 07:52

Dutch

If I were the marketing department, I'd want a 7mm. Just so I could have a "complete line". But, if I were the shareholder, I'd want the 270. Strategically, I see it as a choice between capitalizing on your strength, or trying to shore up your weakness. I'd put my strategic effort where I am strong, or where my competitor is weak. Not where I am weak and my competitor is strong. That's a sure way to disaster.

Kinda like Remington trying to compete with Savage in the entry level gun game. Compete against the other guy's strength. Sheesh! Dutch.

15 August 2001, 04:02

GeorgeS

I'm with boltman and deerdogs; more lefthand rifles!!!

I think Winchester would go with the .270WSM since they could tie it in with their long history with the .270Win.

Swift, Nosler, Barnes, etc. would be required if you were going to hunt anything bigger than antelope or white-tails and mule deer.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

15 August 2001, 04:04

GeorgeS

BTW,

The short magnum field is pretty well saturated at this point.

Winchester will sell more .270WSMs than .338WSMs because there are MILLIONS more deer hunters than elk hunters.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

15 August 2001, 06:19

<David J. Moses>

You guys have really bought into the intense bullshit surrounding this non-issue. As if the production of a fat, short case would somehow square the circle. This is all hogwash. If manufacturers would quit dreaming up new calibers to burden dealers with stockage problems and instead try to start putting VALUE back into the gun dollar, we would all be better off. Does the world really need a cartridge that is as long as a .308 yet requires magnum feed lips? Does anyone except the marketeer benefit from the so-called advantages of the short-action rifle?

How can you supposedly gun-savvy folks here get sucked into this sort of conversation? That's just what this industry needs - a cola war between who will make the most successful beltless magnum. Until the first lawsuit from the doofus who will blow off a piece of himself by somehow hammering the wrong cartridge into the chamber. I guess the boffins at USRA and Rem must be really desperate to move another million guns by 2004. And any sap who really thinks that his WSM or Rem Ultra Mag Short Long Action blah blah will kill game better or farther out than his .300 Win Mag or .30-06 deserves getting fleeced for every dime in his pockets.

15 August 2001, 08:21

<buffalo_buster>

And any sap who really thinks that his WSM or Rem Ultra Mag Short Long Action blah blah will kill game better or farther out than his .300 Win Mag or .30-06 deserves getting fleeced for every dime in his pockets.[/B][/QUOTE]

David,
We are not comparing the performance of .300 WSM or whatever and .30-06 here. It was simply a question about marketing strategy.
The gun manufacturers have to come up with new products to get more sales. Its a survival issue. Rifles are dependable products and can serve you for decades. Although Joe Smith from Wyoming is very well equiped with his 40 year old .30-06, the only way Remington or Winchester can get him to buy a new rifle is that they offer some hot cartridge. Its a simple matter of competition, who will sell a new gun to Joe Smith.

The development in firearms is a natural process. You strive for better product. I can bet you that a 56 Chevy will take you from one point to another just fine, then why did we have to come up with new cars that do the same thing, but do it by burning less fuel and oil? Strive for efficiency ???

The fact is that short fat magnum cases are efficient. Take a 7mm STW, run a 140 grain bullet out of it with 78 to 80 grain of charge. Now take a 7mm WSM, and run the same bullet though it with 60 to 62 grains of charge. In both cases the velocity will be about the same. Efficiency??? Doesn't the same Chevy rule apply here??

I am a big fan of the old .30-06 and have expressed my love on this forum lots of times, but I don't need another factory rifle in .30-06, although I will think about buying one in a new hot number. Do I need one for it's better performance on game?? Absolutely NOT!! I want it because it gives me another excuse to buy another rifle.

Don't blame the firearms manufacturers for trying to sell a new product. If the customer is not ready to buy it, it will die. And don't call those customers stupid, they keep the manufacturers in business.
BB

15 August 2001, 10:39

Dutch

David, just because changes are incremental, doesn't mean they should not be taken. That thinking would have us all shooting our Sharps replica 45/70's with black powder. Each change since then was incremental. Single shot to repeater, black powder to smokeless, corrosive primers to non-corrosive, rimmed to rimless catridges, lead to jacketed projectiles, conventional jackets to controlled expansion, fast burning powder to slow burning powder.

We now have cartridges that burn less powder, and fit in smaller, lighter rifles. We have recently been able to change to bullets which require less weight to do the same job. So now we have smaller faster chamberings, burning less powder than before, in lighter rifles, with less recoil, and higher accuracy potential.

And this bothers you?

Dutch.

15 August 2001, 10:44

JohnTheGreek

Slightly off topic, but if I were a VP at winchester, I would direct money and effort into raising the quality of the product so none of the post-purchase Bull*%@t we all deal with was necessary and then I would expand the existing calibers into other rifle configurations. For example, wouldn't a factory stainless .416 Rem be nice?

JohnTheGreek

16 August 2001, 05:43

<Fat Bastard>

I have to echo Deerdogs and GeorgeS on building more left-hand rifles, and David J. Moses on marketing vs. building guns. Here's a radical idea: dispense with gimmicky, redundant crap and put the money into building quality. Yeah, I know - gun executives will pat me on the head and tell me I don't understand. My arse.

On the other hand, people do seem to be getting dumber, so maybe the quality approach doesn't work.

16 August 2001, 10:38

<phurley>

OKAY -- You guys have sucked me into this discussion, that I didn't want to get into but you did it, here goes. We all agree QUALITY is what we want, but maybe we are not what the manufacturers are marketing too. They are marketing to the average JOE BLOW who shoots 6-10 rounds before he goes hunting and calls it good if he hit's a bucket. They are creating their market by offering a wide variety and hoping to capture their share of the market with something, and they can't say what because their experts can't agree amongst themselves. They throw all the new stuff out there and hope one is the next .270 or .300. And that brings me to getting sucked in by you guys. Someone had to mention a .270 WSM and now my mouth is sloppering all over the place because I had not thought of that possibility. YOU HAD ME AT .270, now that is all I can think about. Someone please call Winchester and let me know when I can buy one, to hell with quality, I'll fix it when I get it. Good Shooting.

------------------

[This message has been edited by phurley (edited 08-17-2001).]

16 August 2001, 17:00

KuduKing

quote:
But, if I were the shareholder, I'd want the 270. Strategically, I see it as a choice between capitalizing on your strength, or trying to shore up your weakness. I'd put my strategic effort where I am strong, or where my competitor is weak. Not where I am weak and my competitor is strong. That's a sure way to disaster.
[/B]

You don't get NEW business by selling to customers you already have. You get NEW business by siphoning off a percentage of the other guy's customers. Forget about attracting people not already in the shooting market, this ain't rollerblades or scooters.

About 10 years ago, S&W decided to market four different kinds of semi-auto pistols. They ended up competing against their own sales, and lost market share. Today they are a footnote in the police pistol market.

Similarly, bringing out a .270 WSM, with all its attendant costs, does nothing to stimulate new customers. Those that want a .270 are very happy with the present cartridge. The .270 Weatherby has been around for decades and hasn't set any sales records on fire and although any manufacturer can chamber it nowadays, none do. A .270 WSM is a magnum .270 that no one wants. A loser and a snoozer.

A 7mm WSM puts Winchester into a whole new field of customers. Don't believe it? Check out the recent rash of articles on Remington's line of short magnums which have "secretly" been in development for years, specifically mentioning the 7mm version.

What a bunch of sheep dip! They are scared witless that Winchester would come out with a short 7mm magnum first and capture their "locked" market on 7mm, so their media people are spinning and getting the shooters pre-primed for a Remington product. Obviously their Ultramag line is dying, except for the few mega-blaster hardcore recoil lovers.

Fortunately for Remington, Winchester has their heads so far up their asses that they it would take the jaws of life to get them out. Here was a great new WSM cartridge which is inherently accurate and more efficient, and they have dickered around for close to a year while the shooting public clamors for new bore sizes that they refuse to get to market quickly.

Winchester could be a great company again but right now they must have under-capitalized dodo birds running it.

17 August 2001, 03:40

Dutch

Kudu, that's logical reasoning, but it doesn't apply to us. We aren't buying cereal every week, with people wanting our business.

The key to this business is that almost nobody NEEDS a new gun. Win-gur-inton can put out rifles for years, if we aren't interested, we aren't buying. But, let Winchester put out something interesting (you know, quality, innovative, useful), we run out in droves to buy it. Getting us to buy is more than chambering a 270 Weatherby in a Winchester rifle. It has to catch our imagination. The Ultra mags did that, for a few, but the WSM is doing it for a lot of people. Chambering it in 7 mm would be boring, ho-hum, how many 7mm's does that make? Oh, and it performs LESS than my 7 mag? I see.......... What else you got? Chambering in 270 would be the first new 270 cartridge in 50 years. Increased performance over the old standby. Which headline would you rather write? Dutch.

17 August 2001, 08:01

<buffalo_buster>

KuduKing,
7mm buyers have a whole army of 7mm cartridges to choose from. 6 of them developed by remington alone. .270 cal. is only represented by two cartridges, the ultra popular .270 Win, and somewhat popular .270 Weatherby. It makes more sense to come up with .270 WSM because the market is open.

Let's put it this way. You want to market a cereal. There are already 10 cinamon flavor cereal in the market and only two chocolate flavored, and the research show that these are the two most popular flavors among cereal buyers, which one would you manufacture?

By the way, .270 Weatherby ammo is the second biggest seller for Weatherby, go figure.

If Winchester comes up with 7mm instead of .270WSM, the cartridge will die just like the .284 Win. 7mm is not their market period.
BB

17 August 2001, 16:12

<robbnsc>

What the hell, I will take a stab at this topic. My choice: .270, 2nd choice: .338.

17 August 2001, 17:15

Matt in Virginia

This has been said both better and before, however, I will say it again. If I held sway over the Winchester 70 Rifle Program I would address a few major issues.

Firstly, take the time to tinker with the metalurgy and the CNC machines until they produce an accurate, true, and NEAT action. In both carbon and stainless steel.

Secondly, I would pay Hart or Pac-Nor to help set-up a production facility for factory made Match Button Rifled Barrels. Made right the first time. Far less mechanical stress than a rotary hammer forged unit.

Thirdly, deal directly with McMillan to build first quality synthetic stocks. Also take the extra time to properly bed the barreled action.

Lastly, I would make sure that each and every rifle was inspected by a qualified Riflesmith who properly adjusted the trigger and made sure the gun was ready to go out of the box.
An MOA or better test target would also be a nice touch.

I understand this would increase the cost of the rifles, however, I would gladly pay twice the current price for a rifle that was made right from the beginning. Make the Browning A-Bolt rifles the mid range line.

New chamberings would be my last concern. I would attempt to do for the Wichester 70 centerfire what Kimber did with the 82s. A rifle thats right out the box.

Regards, Matt.

19 August 2001, 09:12

<Zeke>

Winchester needs to focus on building a quality product at a reasonable price. A fancy new RamChester .300 UltraShortFat SuperDuperPowerMagnum won't sell unless it is in a quality package that won't break the bank. The Winchester rifles I have looked at lately are behind in quality and price compared to Remington, Savage and Ruger.

As far as picking a caliber for Winchester to come out with next. The current "Magnum Wars" are silly and BORING! I would like to see them jump off the short-fat-ultra bandwagon and introduce something reasonable like a .338-06 and improve their product line buy pushing a good quality rifle chambered in established popular calibers.