I was thinking about Winchester '73 too. .Again, I really like the original, but it would be interesting to see it updated with modern costumes, props and acting styles. Maybe in a remake, when an actor holds up a gun and says it's a Henry, it would be a Henry rather than another Winchester.
It would be a joke. 1) No modern actor can top Jimmy Stewart, not even a top notch actor of today (seeing Stewart break out slamming Dan Durya into the bar with a....very convincing ticked off tone and expression can't be done today), 2) it would be all politically correct. One black (that's an expert on any given subject and acts more like a modern hip Shaft character that speaks the Kings English), one Mexican, one Chinese and a woman that can beat up/shoot up all the men and all the white men are swaggering buffoons that go out of their way to say and do "racist" and "sexist" things), 3) the Winchester '73 would be used like a machine gun.
3:10 to Yuma was horrible to me. Van Heflin was a lot tougher than Christian Fail. Ending was terrible.
True Grit....was okay. Fat Jeff Bridges grunting and groaning his way through the script doesn't even approach The Duke. Brad Arm Pit in place of Glen Campbell is sort of a plus...but that's only because Glen Campbell is a better singer than an actor. Kim Darby was a lot more likeable as Mattie Ross than Wednesday Adams. BUT, it did made South Arkansas look like South Arkansas rather than West Colorado (with Aspen trees and white top mountains everywhere).
Most Westerns stand alone, are timeless and cannot (and should not) be redone. If they are, even if they are good, they fall short. An excellent example of this is Rio Bravo. Was remade twice, El Dorado and Rio Lobo. (or four times if you count the two Assault on Precinct 13). Those aren't bad remakes per se, but they just can't even come near the original classic.