I never seem to hear anything said about the Win 1400, lots about the Rem 1100. This seems to tell me the win 1400 isn’t considered as good a gun??
Your comment(s) appreciated.
Well, I wouldn’t say that the 1400 wasn’t a good gun, but it isn’t going to put Purdey out of business. It never could compete successfully against the Remington 1100. The 1400 came out right after the 1100 in the early ’60s. The alloy receiver and cheap looking trigger insides didn’t compare well to the 1100. It was also a good bit more nose-heavy. Winchester did beat Remington to the screw chokes though. Winchester even tried the Hydro-coil stock on the 1400 series. It was one of those wretched looking plastic things that didn’t hold up very well. The wood Hydro-coil stocks as made by Dockwiller were another thing entirely.
The last date of manufacture that I have for any of the many 1400 models is 1994. I don’t remember exactly when Winchester got bought out by FN, but it was around then. Currently Winchesters markets a gas operated Super X-2, a decontented Browning Gold.
Was the 1400 a good gun? Well, it sure was good enough for Wayne Mays. He won just about every American-style 12 gauge skeet championship possible with his 12 gauge Cutts compensated Winchester 1400. Then again, no one else copied his choice of guns, so that might tell you something. In the used market comparative models of the 1100s and 1400 go for about the same price according to Fjestad’s “Blue Book”. Perhaps history is redeeming the 1400. Personally I would (and did six times) pick the 1100 over the 1400. The 1100 always just plain felt better. De gustibus…
The Technoid writing for Shotgun Report, LLC
(Often in error, never in doubt.)