Chuck-
Your observations are obviously along the lines of the corporate thinking and are very difficult to dispute.
However, I think a faithful reproduction could be commercially viable proposition no matter who made it or where it was made (look at the 1911 for proof of this, lots of young shooters are still buying those in spite of the fact that they are nearing the century mark in terms of design, made by a variety of companies and made of antiquated materials...such as carbon steel and wood).
Anyone who wants a synthetic and stainless firearm has, as you point out, many options and likely if that is what they want will not settle for the Winchester unless the Winchester offers more value for the money. The bolt gun I saw featured on the program, however, was not true to the original nor was it one of these modern synthetic wonders.
The Winchester representative knew very well (and stated so) that the FN made firearm his company was marketing would not appeal to the purist. By ignoring the purists (and I would propose that such purists can be found at any age) out there, I am suggesting Winchester has made a mistake.
As for performance, based on my personal experience, I am firmly of the belief that the original design and old-fashioned materials are more than up to the task. Some years ago I took my "factory stock" pre-64 .243 Winchester Featherweight out for an unlimited rifle match (scope and sand bags allowed). With a 3x9 Leupold, this rifle cleaned the clocks of the so-called tactical rifles I was competing against. Jaws of the younger shooters dropped as I hit the x ring consistently at 600 yards. I took second place in that match. An older shooter won first place with a pre-64 Winchester in .30-06 (which wore an old Unertl target scope).
Newer is not always better---in spite of what the advertising might suggest.
Doug
