The Remington R51, Explained


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

barnbwt
April 21, 2014, 11:43 PM
The Remington R51, Explained:

I took the time this evening to do a near-total detail strip for the purpose of better understanding this radically different new design, and in hopes of diagnosing and finding solutions for the host of problems plaguing its early life so far. Suprisingly, I found a fairly simple and familiar trigger layout, a very simple but fairly effective safety design, and parts that are all pretty basic in construction, meaning higher quality replacements may be possible for not much effort.

The way this will work is I will go through each layer of the internal's functions, starting with the trigger, and ending with the safety. I put a numbered diagram of all the small internal parts on this first post so readers can hopefully not be as confused by the language. I'll just assume everyone knows the big, external parts already ;)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197567&d=1398134827
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197571&d=1398138229
1-Disconnector
2-Sear Tooth
3-Hammer $ Strut Assembly
4-Trigger & Stirrup Assembly
5-Safety & Spring
6-Mag Catch
7-Mag Catch Release Button
8-Slide Stop

Chime in at any time if you have questions, and I'll try to see if I can figure out answers or at least get clearer pictures up :)

TCB

If you enjoyed reading about "The Remington R51, Explained" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
barnbwt
April 21, 2014, 11:45 PM
Trigger:
The trigger group is similar to the other auto pistol I have torn apart, the CZ52, with the exception that a separate piece deactivates the trigger instead of the slide acting directly on the transfer bar (which is what casues the CZ's trigger slap). I suspect it is similar to other pistols as well, since it is both simple and effective. What is very odd and different is the disconnector's design, which I will get into later.

The trigger is a simple lever below a pivot, which is pinned through a wishbone shaped transfer bar ("stirrup" #4). The stirrup is what actually impinges upon the sear tooth (#2). Pulling the trigger pushes the stirrup backward, which pushes the tail of the sear tooth. As the sear tooth rotates counterclockwise, the sear surface moves away from the hammer (#3) sear bent/hook until it is released. Aside from the stirrup which is there to get the trigger lever in front of the magwell, these are the same three parts as any other fire control group (sear, trigger, hammer).

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197572&d=1398138344

Potential issues:
-The transfer stirrup is simple sheet metal, which, while not surprising in a cheaper gun, is incredibly narrow; almost like wire. It is no wonder it bows outward under trigger pressue and then contacts/drags on the frame walls. There appears to be lots of room for it in the gun, so one wonders if it could be made larger and stiffer
-The sheet metal is incredibly rough. The punching is incredibly messy, with chunks of metal ripped out of the edges where the tabs were broken, rounded/burred boundaries all around, and deformed holes. The parts are not sharp, but extremely unpolished (probably just tumbled briefly instead of deburred/sanded properly)
-The rear of the stirrup impinges on the sear tooth tail, which is concave. Were the tooth convex, it would roll/slide over a single line of contact on the stirrup, rather than slide on two. It would also potentially disconnect easier
-The pivot pin hole on the trigger is incredibly loose, at least a good .01" oversize (visual guess). It is also smothered with thick "paint" which may explain why the hole is so big (so the pin fits if paint gets in there)
-The pivot pin hole on the transfer stirrup is also loose, though much less so (it also matters less)
-The infamous "lack of tactile trigger reset" is due to the loose bits in the transfer bar not transfering the vibration of the transfer stirrup sliding off the end of the sear tooth tail back up in front of it upon release. As I will explain later, it is also (primarly) due to enormous drag of the disconnector turning a trigger reset "click" impulse into a "mush". The reset is plenty positive, it just happens slow enough that it won't shake your finger tip nerves
-Hammer and sear are straight MIM, but appear very well finished and higher quality than...anything else. Maybe Remington should do the transfer bar and disconnector the same way?
-The hammer mainspring is pleansantly easy to install. Probably a good 15lbs of force; and infinitely far cry from anything leaf spring based, or the CZ52, or the revolvers I've torn apart, or the AR70 spring, or anything else I've messed with. Miraculous it ignites even standard primers as well as it does, let along Wolf's (only 4 FTF out of 50, all but one firing subsequently)
-Hammer fits very tightly on the pivot pin, as is the sear (once again, why not do everything MIM if your machinists suck?)
-Trigger is of shockingly poor quality. Looks like it was dipped in paint, very messy mold lines, and again, horrendously out of spec pivot hole. Even the slot for the transfer bar is rough and much wider than needed, allowing it to flop and twist around when pushed
-Interaction with disconnector (discussed later) is extremely rough and prone to binding

Possible Remedies:
-Newly made, machined hammer, using low friction metals, proper hole and slot sizes, with spacer bushings to keep it centered in the frame cutout
-Newly made, larger size transfer stirrup (or machined) using stiffer materials if possible. Polish the end that pushes the sear tooth, and the edges which engage the disconnector
-Polishing/shaping of sear surfaces, if MIM system allows for this

TCB

Nom de Forum
April 21, 2014, 11:53 PM
barnbwt,

If nobody else has done it yet I am nominating you for inclusion in the unofficial THR Brain Trust. You are an invaluable asset to this forum. This thread is just one of many examples, that when they create an official THR Think Tank, of why you should be a member.

Jim Watson
April 22, 2014, 12:02 AM
You are confirming my opinion based on shooter reports.
Remington has resurrected an old design and hamstrung it by cheap manufacture to sell it beside off brand pistols of the same size and caliber.
I think people would have paid more and complained less if it were of the same quality as their own R1.

Tommygunn
April 22, 2014, 12:03 AM
Wow, Barnbwt, thank you for the work, the photos and the numbers, and the description of how it works.

I wanna like this gun. It does fit my hand well. I guess we'll all be waiting and seeing what Remington does with this.
I like atleast one other person here am noticing that cycling the weapon does tend to smooth out the roughness of the action .... so I have a smidgen of optomism left. ;)

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 12:26 AM
Disconnector:
Here we get to probably the most complicated and trouble prone aspect of the mechanism. Disconnectors are always a difficult part of FCG design, since they operate based on the violent energy released by the cartridge, but act upon delicate trigger group elements tied directly back into the user's finger. Done wrong (CZ52) and they will beat the hell out of your finger tendons --trigger slap. Done right, and internal parts will shift to deactivate the trigger/sear interface in such a way that it is undetectable. Done really wrong, and the sear won't disconnect (hammer follow or out of battery events)

The disconnector (#1, "disco" if you're into the whole brevity thing) is a punched and folded sheet metal piece. Incredibly cheap construction for something that is 1) critical to proper/safe function, 2) is wrapped around and dragging over every other part in the fire control group (FCG) in this particular design, and 3) has a very inefficient design in terms of friction and fit-sensitivity. It is roughly U-shaped, two flat faces joined by a bridge at the front, with two very short "hooks" at the bottom, and two "ears" at the top. The ears are rounded cams which are acted on by the slide, the hooks link up with the transfer stirrup to disconnect the trigger from the sear after firing. The whole schma-goigle actually slides vertically on two slotted holes through which the sear and hammer pivot pins pass (much more on this later)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197573&d=1398140793

When the slide is fully in battery (or at specific points during the cycle where the action is too far out of battery for the hammer to hit the firing pin) the ears of the disco are not in contact with the slide, and a fairly stiff return spring drives it upward. When is free to move upward, the hooks at the bottom of the disco pull on mating hooks on the transfer stirrup, working to pull that piece upward. The stirrup can only move upward and in front of the sear tail if the trigger is released, however. When the hammer is fully cocked, and the trigger fully reset, the disconncector is fully raised, thus checking the slide is properly in battery and making the gun safe to fire. Once fired, the slide flies back out of battery, and strikes the ears of the disco, forcing it downward along the slotted holes. As the disco shifts down, the hooks on its lower end drive the rear end of the transfer bar down, pushing it off the sear tail. At this point, the action cycles, and the sear re-engages the hammer, without trigger input. Only when the trigger is released can the transfer bar slip back over the sear tail and start the process over.

This concept of knocking the transfer bar off its sear engagemnent to deactivate the trigger is how my CZ52 works, though it is accomplished by a lump on the bar being struck by the slide (hence the slap) rather than by a separate piece. The linear motion of the disco in this gun is why no slap is transmitted; the disconnecting force is perpindicular to your finger's force direction. It's a clever design, probably used in pistols before, and for sure used in some rifles. But, as I'll get into later, it is very dependent on high quality parts, of which the R51 has few, which means the action is less than stellar.

Potential Issues:
-The hooks on the disco are little more than burs. Rough burs. SHARP burs. Not sure what Remington was expecting to happen when you slide raw shorn edges across each other. If these hooks were better defined when formed and were more like little tabs (or whatever the opposite of a rabbet is ) the transfer bar would slide back & forth on them infinitely more smoothly.
-The slotted holes in the disco are stamped rather than machined. I know punches are cheap, but you really need machined surfaces in a fire control group. This is basic stuff. The holes are inconsistently oversize (multiple punch passes formed the slots, the material shifting and deforming a little each time) and the material around them is significantly cratered (dull punches). At least the holes were debured, well, probably because Remington knew the guns would go Kaboom or full auto if they didn't.
-For a part that depends on precisely tracking in a linear path, it is very poorly constrained to this motion. The loose holes allow it to shift/rotate forward & backward to the extent that it looks to a casual observer like myself to be a pivot on an axis further down in the gun, and they also allow it to pivot left to right if the ears are not loaded up by the slide symmetrically (and why would they be on such a loose gun?)
-The disconnector is also very loosely constrained side to side; a good .02" to .05" of play to its sides allows it to both slide to the left and right, and also more importantly allows one side to drop before the other if the ears are struck assymetrically, rotating the part along the barrel axis.
-When, not if, the disconnector does stray from its proper linear path, it readily contacts both other trigger group parts (hammer, sear, transfer bar) and the frame walls with rough, broad surfaces, and sharp bur-covered edges. The barrel-axis pivot is what causes the whole works to bind up almost completely, and is my theory for the stuck guns out there; one ear was a little too tall and got pushed down more than the other side
-The exact angle at which the slide contacts the ears is critical to determining how efficient the slide motion is transferred to the vertical disco motion. If the disco's slots are oversize and it rises too high, the rounded front contour moves up higher, and the slide hits something close to a vertical wall and damages the ears' surfaces or the disconnector itself. Likewise, if the slope is too shallow, it will not drop enough and the hammer will follow. I think that if too much force is applied, regardless of how efficiently it is delivered to move the disco, the action will bind, so it is critical that slop be eliminated as much as possible so the ears don't need to move as much to take it up (and the cam angle can then be as low as possible)
-In its fully raised position, I think the disco hooks actually bind up on the transfer bar between its hooks and the tail portion that pushes the sear tail. If not be design, it is due to the geometric discrepancies from all the burs here.

TCB

HammsBeer
April 22, 2014, 12:29 AM
Sounds like the R51 would benefit from a fluff and buff like alot of keltecs.

Or they could quit being so price-point cut-throat and spend a few dollars on critical internal parts, and quit trying to compete with budget polymer pistols.

joshk1025
April 22, 2014, 12:36 AM
Very nice and thorough write up. Based on your description of the cheapness of the parts, it sounds like the benefits of hand polishing the internals could be substantial but insufficient in turning it into a decent gun.

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 01:03 AM
Safety:
The only firing safety besides the disconnector's out-of-battery-event secondary function and the hammer block is the "manual" grip safety. I say manual because it's pretty automatic if you are gripping the gun so as to shoot it. The original Model 51 had a similar grip safety, and I believe the internal function is also very similar. There are many ways to do a safety, but the end goal is to prevent the hammer from falling when it is active, and in this gun that means you interfere with the trigger, transfer bar, sear, or hammer. I don't say 'disconnector' because the one on this gun is so flaky that such a design would be flagrantly unreliable. While the safety does have certain aspects I would prefer were different/better, it seems to be one of the more solid aspects to the gun, which is obviously a very important thing to note (the hammer/sear interface is also very well executed compared to other areas, which is similarly important)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197574&d=1398143019

The way the R51 appears to work the safety, is by blocking the transfer stirrup. In a sense, it is very similar to a cross-bolt safety in that it blocks just the trigger, but not the sear or hammer. By blocking the transfer stirrup rather than dropping it out of action, it is locked between the safety and the sear, so the safety effectively locks both (and locking the sear further locks the hammer from any rotation). So while the safety is dependent on a single small notched surface preventing movement of the trigger, it actually does lock up the whole gun.

The safety slides along the direction of the back strap, and downward against a return spring to disengage. This is a good thing, because if you recall, the disconnector moves down when the slide is racked (though the safety spring contributes to disconnector spring weight). If the safety was just a tab on the backstrap lever that moved forward/backward, the gun could not be racked without it being depressed (since the disconnector could not drop) and would actually be very likely damaged in the process (just imagine if you managed to shoot a round and a flinch caused you to lose your grip of the safety at the moment the sear broke; half the trigger group elements would be destroyed just like a gas-engine eating its guts when the timing chain breaks). So given the alternative, the additional sliding piece is a small price to pay. It is an MIM piece as well and has a slot in its back that tracks the hammer strut. An inclined lump on the safety lever pushes a tab on the safety to drive it downward. The safety rides smoothly and correctly along its pins on slotted holes, once again suggesting that Remington should have made the disconnector MIM as well, if quality sheet metal parts are an impossibility.

EDIT: After messing with the bare frame some this morning, a part fell out :confused:. It appears to be the hammer block, so not inconsequential. Still not sure how it stuck in there for so long on its own, though. Anyway, this part is identical in function to the sear tooth; it is spring tensioned to rotate a tooth on its upper end into a catch (the hooked one) on the hammer. Pulling the transfer bar back pushes it and the sear off the hammer simultaneously. When the safety is on, the transfer stirrup is blocked which locks the sear and hammer block against the hammer, and if the sear bent magically disappeared due to a hammer blow, the beefy and extremely positive engagement of the hammer block would prevent it from hitting the firing pin. This part is also an MIM piece, but is finished black for some reason (which is why I didn't see it) unlike the white metal of the others. It's function is a bit harder to position to show in pictures, but I'll figure out way to display it after work today). Sorry for the mis information, ya'll :o

Potential Issues:
-Hammer strut is a MIM part, and but unlike all the others has burs and broken tabs sticking off it. Wouldn't be an issue if the safety didn't ride along it on a groove. Doesn't seem to affect function on mine, but I can't imagine it helping
-While the safety is very hard MIM, which is definitely good, the backstrap lever is aluminum. If the safety-camming lugs (two, though mine only has wear on one) on it wears down first (and while it doesn't seem to be wearing much so far, it eventually will wear first) the safety will fail to deactivate. The combination of certain elements failing to "on" and others to "off" can contribute to a worn gun being very unpredictable and hard to diagnose. With the current terrible manufacture, I'm sure it contributes to some safeties failing on, and others off, and others to who only knows what.
-Sliding safeties (and disconnectors) are great and all, but require twice as many pins, more complex shapes, are more prone to misalignment and binding, and have broad surfaces that will generate friction compared to pivoting elements. Just sayin'

Possible Remedies:
-Nicer hammer strut without burs (I swear the MIM parts are the only smooth parts on the whole damn gun, and by far the most accurate)
-Steel bushing in the backstrap lever where it contacts the safety, for wear purposes

TCB

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 01:14 AM
Good work. While you have it apart, blueprint it and let's find a machinist to make some real parts. Seems like we need 3, (trigger, transfer stirrup, disconnect)

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 01:22 AM
If the stirrup is strong enough to deform the safety, the gun will fire.

Could be why the stirrup is so flimsy.

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 01:29 AM
I greatly appreciate the kind words, ya'll :). Hopefully I get some wheels turning amongst the crowd, and we can get some solutions rolling without waiting for Remington. Does anyone really want to wait for them to get their act together if we don't actually have to? I think of this as a natural disaster; you can either dig yourself out, or wait for the far off promised aid to fix things the way they promise when (they promise) they'll finally get around to helping you. It ain't fair that Remington screwed up probably the one gun design/layout that I'm genuinely excited about, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for me to end up satisfied, even absent their action on the matter. And luckily, since my gun is most of the way to 'satisfactory,' it's an easier job than it unfortunately is for too many others.

"Remington has resurrected an old design..."
It's actually a pretty original design. The Pedersen concept is the same, but the bolt design is completely different. The Model 51 had a BREN-like bolt, the R51 a FAL-like bolt. There's a reason the FAL replaced the BREN ;). The presence of totally new machining methods to make everything is also quite the departure, even if the mechanics may or may not be the same (my Model 51 knowledge is very limited). It is actually very clear there was a concerted effort to keep the layout/manual of arms identical to the original, while changing every single geometric feature that makes the gun.

"...and hamstrung it by cheap manufacture to sell it beside off brand pistols of the same size and caliber.
I think people would have paid more and complained less if it were of the same quality as their own R1."
Perhaps. I would have. But how well would a new and unproven, not to mention totally unfamiliar, design stack up in the "I want something easy and predictable that I understand already" market of 'name brand' 9mm's? The Steyr GB was an extremely good pistol by all accounts (the ostensibly un-licensed Rogak debacle notwithstanding) that was doomed essentially because the new cool kid Glock was basically a low-rent Hi Power/SIG action with some fancy new materials*, that did the same thing; big double stack 9 with lots of bullets :D. The Boberg is an exceedingly well made gun using not only an innovative design, but cutting edge (pun) 5-axis machining in its manufacture. Not surprisingly, the cost is commensurate, and there are few takers, though more every day. I'm sure not ready to tie up a grand on one yet, though (maybe when I start conceal carrying, and learn to hate big guns, I'll rethink that stance ;) )

"...quit trying to compete with budget polymer pistols."
Though I hate them, too, if Remington has a brain in their head they will make a poly-frame version with steel reinforcements (use the same molds to make steel-reinforced aluminum frames for version 2.0 :cool:). Too many people expect plastic for them to pretend there is no demand for it. The most common non-QC complaint besides "IT NOT SQUARE. IT UGLY" seems to be that the gun is heavy for its size/capacity, which is true when you logically stack it against Shields and what all.

"I wanna like this gun. It does fit my hand well. I guess we'll all be waiting and seeing what Remington does with this."
Well, it did take them 8 years to enact the latest recall...so I'm not very hopeful on a rapid response that isn't just to shred the first batch of guns (and I refuse to shred a gun that can be redeemed). Any near-term action will surely be direction from corporate offices to cut all losses; kill the program, recall the guns, and pretend the whole affair never happened. Nothing likely to follow, I wouldn't think.

*New materials are trusted more quickly than new designs, since users don't really have to understand how they work ;)

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 01:36 AM
"While you have it apart, blueprint it and let's find a machinist to make some real parts. Seems like we need 3"
I'd be worried about stepping on Remington's (litigious) toes, and incurring the wrath of their lawyers. So I'll instead just measure the critical dimensions and design a new part from scratch that fits, and is better in every way while I'm at it :D.

So now we're reduced to installing American-made compliance parts into already American-made guns :p. At least we'll be set when Taurus buys out Remington and moves operations to Brazil :evil:. I kid :D. To be honest, I see this as not too dissimilar from the kind of development the 1911 got over the course of decades; they were loose, rattley, rough guns frequently with feeding, timing, and full-auto issues from various makers/abusers throughout the decades, and only recently ('70s or so, I've been told) were developed into the diamond-mythril-plated target-tuned excellence we expect now.

TCB

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 01:50 AM
One of the things I really want to know is why the trigger changed for the pre-production solid trigger that in all photos looks clean and well made (and produced no complaints of wobble), to the skeletonized lumpy, bumpy wobbly dipped in paint thing that shipped. I think if we know that, we may know why the other parts are so pooly made.

I'm guessing the pre-prod models were made in Remington machine shops and not on the Para production line. And I'm also guessing there is some real internal conflicts at play between Remingtion and Para.

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 01:59 AM
I see this as not too dissimilar from the kind of development the 1911 got over the course of decades; they were loose, rattley, rough guns frequently with feeding, timing, and full-auto issues from various makers/abusers throughout the decades, and only recently ('70s or so, I've been told) were developed into the diamond-mythril-plated target-tuned excellence we expect now.

Production guns yes, but the Gold Cup/National Match models were punching holes in paper well before the '70s. Jim Clark was winning championships with the 1911 in the '50s and he was just the first civilian to do it. Military shooters were doint it earlier.

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 09:08 AM
So, I missed a part. The hammer block safety fell out of the gun this morning! :D :D Not sure how, but it stuck around in there for a good 12 hours after its pivot pin was punched out. Anyway, it appears very similar in function to the primary sear, but obviously engages the hammer later in its swing and has a much bigger engagement surface, so if the primary fails or jars off, the hammer is halted right before the firing pin (this is the 'half cock' we feel if the trigger is released and the hammer pulled back). If feels super positive, like a half cock, because the return spring is really heavy (unnecessarily so, it seems).

TCB

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 09:21 AM
Need new pics of the parts now. :D

I can get the pins holding the grip safety out, but the trigger, hammer and sear pins are another matter.

I'm still trying to get a pin to drift. I've heavily peened my brass starter punches without budging a pin. I'm not sire I want to go to steel starters. Probably going to have to rig up a jig and use a press.

Jim Watson
April 22, 2014, 10:00 AM
I see this as not too dissimilar from the kind of development the 1911 got over the course of decades; they were loose, rattley, rough guns frequently with feeding, timing, and full-auto issues from various makers/abusers throughout the decades, and only recently ('70s or so, I've been told) were developed into the diamond-mythril-plated target-tuned excellence we expect now.

Uh, no.
The 1911 when manufactured as designed was neither loose, rattley, nor rough.
The only feeding "issue" was when somebody substituted nonstandard ammunition.
The only full auto "issue" I ever saw was with cheap knockoffs or basement gunsmithing.
Any such complaint as you see about the R51 was resolved by Mr Browning or Colt before the public or the Army got the finished product.
Nowadays the paying customer and the warranty clerk are the testers.

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 10:40 AM
Nowadays the paying customer and the warranty clerk are the testers.

It's a model taken from the consumer software industry. Just substitute tech support for warranty clerk.

The way I see it, the design is solid and I suspect the prototypes were as well. I suspec the internal parts were MIM or machined. Then the production engineers were told to cut the production costs which they did by using stamped parts wherever possible. Add a poorly cast and skeletonized trigger at the last minute, and what you see is what we have.

I've heard reports (or maybe just rumors) that the long turnarounds being seen on warranty returns is due to REm waiting on a new batch of internals. Maybe they are cleaning up the stampings, maybe they are changing processes. Or maybe they don't know which way to go and are just sitting on the returns until they can figure out what to do without losing too much money.

I called Remington CS to inquire about a replacement for a pin I lost (the top pin holding the safety). They have no spare parts as yet so I either make a pin myself or send in the gun. The CS guy was having trouble getting my data entered into the syetem. Part of the conversation went like this:

RemCS: Sorry it's taking so long, this new system is acting up.

ME: Been there.

RCS: We paid a lot of money for this, you'd think it would work.

ME: Yeah, that's what I thought about my gun.

RCS: pause.... Oh, right.

I'm still looking for the pin.

Nom de Forum
April 22, 2014, 11:53 AM
barnbwt,

How do the materials and manufacturing technique of the R51 FCG parts compare to a Glock? At first glance the Glock parts do not appear robust enough but yet have proven to be. Even if the stock R51 parts are not sufficiently robust, it appears they can be made so. Please give us the benefit of your opinion.

hardluk1
April 22, 2014, 07:16 PM
barnbwt Great photos and explanations of parts and there functions. Even with the extra hide away part. Makes me wonder how this pistol could ever have made it to production but can see how its cost was so low . Thanks for the great info. Now lets hope some one at para can upgrade a few parts and works out the bugs on the top side and run a couple 5000 round test on production pistols.

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 08:04 PM
"It's a model taken from the consumer software industry."
Our beloved Google and it's marketing of alpha/beta 'secret-squirrel sneak peak for only the special customers' garbage code, if I recall correctly. I'm sure others did it, too, but Google made the unfinished version of stuff 'cool.' Tom Sawyer would be proud ("paintin' this here fence is just sooo fun, you have got to try it" ;) )

That said, I am enjoying myself immensely painting this fence for Remington, but I am under no illusions regarding the situation, and I obviously understand others' reluctance to play the game.

"How do the materials and manufacturing technique of the R51 FCG parts compare to a Glock?"
The first, and only, time I took apart a Glock, I broke it --I kid you not-- within about five seconds. Put the 'ol guide rod in backwards because I was chatting with the owner at the time. The slide went back on pretty much as easily as it came off initially, but there was no way in hell it was ever coming off again :D. Much gnashing, bashing, and swearing later, the gun came back apart, but so had the guide rod. In the end, my pal got a shiny new stainless steel guide rod, and I learned a valuable lesson about how idiot-proof perfection can be :p.

Relating to the R51...
To be honest, the frames were probably about equal, giving the edge to the Remington since it is truly machined as a unit, whereas I do not know if Glock finish machines it's reinforcements to size once they are molded in, or if they are just jigged into place before molding. If the latter, I can imagine greater variance, gun to gun. The slide was surprisingly gritty and rough, more than any pistol I'd messed with up to that point. Due almost entirely to the sharp edges of the weirdo flat coil spring skating over the soft/rough plastic guide rod. The metal guide rod helped tons, but you could still feel a lot of friction. I am told this is normal. There's probably not much use comparing the FCG internals, since the Glock is striker fired, and is therefore both inherently simpler in design and wildly different. I suspect it could get away with looser tolerances without issue, too. I do recall the trigger safety was cheaper in construction than the trigger, and I have noticed this is the case with all trigger-lever drop safety guns I've bothered to mess with.

"Or maybe they don't know which way to go and are just sitting on the returns until they can figure out what to do without losing too much money."
My money's on this one (literally) which is why I won't bother sending it back unless I find reason to believe the design irredeemable or impossible.

I believe a number of changes have already taken place, though;
-Preproduction guns had a solid trigger. There was also early confusion as to whether the trigger pivoted or slid. Since the trigger does nothing but push the transfer stirrup straight back, there is no reason it could not be a sliding trigger. Ergo, I believe the original triggers slid, but that this made the gun less drop safe (drop on the grip safety; it depresses, trigger/linkage continues back on its own momentum --muzzle up discharge :eek:)
-Pins were incredibly tough to move, and heavly stippled on one end (LHS in my case; don't even try drifting them out the wrong way since you'll break the internal MIM pivot holes). Early reports had loose hammer/trigger pins. Now, the only non-stippled (and laughably loose) pins are those trapped by the grip panels.

TCB

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 08:25 PM
You guys will like this photo. All FCG elements sans the disconnector for clarity, including the amazing Houdini hammer block:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197611&d=1398211521
I'm pretty sure that spring doesn't go there; It drives the sear into the hammer, and the tail bears on a little hook on the disconnector to drive it upward, otherwise there's nothing pulling the stirrup upward in front of the sear/safety levers when it resets. The alleged 'hammer block' is also attached for your pleasure. I have no idea why it is the only part finished black (something tough, too, there is nearly no wear on it despite all the dry firing). Most of the unanswered questions remaining stem from the gun basically exploding when the stippled pins are removed. Particularly the pin right next to the hammer pivot, which has (1, 2, 3, 4...) four different parts moving around on it.

My initial assumption about the safety blocking the transfer stirrup was only half-true. When the safety block is raised, it's fingers slip behind the sear and hammer block tails, preventing them from moving back. There is very little trigger take up before these parts move, so the transfer stirrup & trigger are effectively blocked (it's hard to tell by mocking the loose parts up on the outside of the gun, but there might be a third surface that stops the transfer stirrup tail, as well). It's a pretty thorough design, hinging on the truth that if you deactivate the hammer, the gun cannot fire. Obviously this omits muzzle-down discharges, but that's what the long travel and heavy return spring of the firing pin are for. This gun would require hundreds of G's of acceleration to bring that pin in contact with a primer. A muzzle up discharge I think is the more likely scenario, owing to the safety being on the back strap, and the trigger parts' momentum in that direction moving them towards 'fire'. A hook on the safety block that snags the transfer bar and prevents it from moving down if the trigger is pulled before the safety is depressed would fix this (since the trigger has a much lighter spring return than the safety) but would lock the gun momentarily if the user pulled the trigger without the safety depressed.

Currently, if you load the trigger, the gun will fire if you then press the safety. Personally, I think this situation, while better for getting a shot off in less than ideal circumstances (because if you squeeze the trigger hard enough, you will eventually squeeze the grip hard enough to press the safety properly), is counterproductive to good shooting. With the reports of people somehow pinching themselves on the safety with each shot, it is obvious that some people manage to release the safety under recoil (a mystery to me, but it explains that complaint, and also can explain locked up slides and triggers ;) ). If you do release the safety under recoil, when you go to squeeze the trigger again there's a good chance it's still blocked from firing the gun, and the shooter will tend to squeeze harder. As they do so, they both jerk the gun off target, and set the gun off later than they intended, which could easily be interpreted as a hang-fire malfunction of the fire control group (as easily as some people claim they can release the safety while shooting, I strongly suspect some of the 'delayed fire' claims stem from the person pulling the trigger, flinching, and finally releasing the safety block with the flinch).

If the safety actually hooked onto the trigger if it were pressed and not the safety, the shooter would be frustrated (probably flinching and shaking the gun like crazy as their hand progressively clamps onto it) until they relaxed the trigger and squeezed the safety properly. The only time I got the trigger to pull before the safety was when I was not shooting --and not expecting the gun to recoil-- and specifically when I tried to pick up the gun into shooting position with my finger on the trigger. If you draw the gun with your finger off the trigger like you're supposed to, the safety will always deactivate before you can poke it into the guard.

TCB

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 08:31 PM
There was also early confusion as to whether the trigger pivoted or slid. Since the trigger does nothing but push the transfer stirrup straight back, there is no reason it could not be a sliding trigger. Ergo, I believe the original triggers slid,

The confusion was just that, confusion. Confusing the Model 51 and the R51. About the only thing they share is the Pedersen action and a similar model #.

The Model 51 trigger slid like the 1911. Pedersen's original patent called for a pivoting trigger like the R51, and all of the pix I have seen of the pre production solid trigger models have the trigger pivot pin.

barnbwt
April 22, 2014, 08:44 PM
Ah, but pivot pins on this gun are just as likely (more likely, in fact) to serve as guides for slotted holes ;). I think you're probably right, though it still makes me wonder.

What's funny, is the sear/hammer/stirrup arrangement is almost identical to a 1911's except that the safety sear notch is caught by a hammer block, rather than beating the crap out of the primary sear. BTW, the initial stage of the trigger pull comes from pushing the hammer block out of the way (and it remains in contact with the stirrup throughout disconnection, so you almost don't need a trigger return spring) and the short second stage is pushing off the actual sear. I wonder as well if you could simply 'pin' the transfer bar to the tail of the hammer stop, so it is pushed and pulled by the trigger, and at that point have only the sear spring and positive sear engagement contributing to the trigger pull (the trigger would still be fully returned and block the hammer when the safety is released and the safety block slides upward into the FCG parts, but the first trigger stage would have zero weight). I think it would still function the same; only disengaging when the trigger is pulled, and otherwise blocking the hammer if the trigger and safety are released; just dependent on safety position, more than trigger pressure.

TCB

JRH6856
April 22, 2014, 08:46 PM
it is obvious that some people manage to release the safety under recoil (a mystery to me,

Actually easy to do if you use an isosceles stance with a thumbs forward grip using side to side tension rather than front to back tension to control recoil. Gripping the gun this way, you have to make a conscious effort to keep pressure on the grip safety and under recoil, you will usually release it.

bikemutt
April 22, 2014, 11:08 PM
I must disagree in general. I've used the grip you describe and had zero issue with the grip safety disengaging. No matter how hard you try, you can't push your hand into a handgun, the grip is eponymous for a reason.

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 12:10 AM
"Actually easy to do if you use an isosceles stance with a thumbs forward grip using side to side tension rather than front to back tension to control recoil. Gripping the gun this way, you have to make a conscious effort to keep pressure on the grip safety and under recoil, you will usually release it."

Ah, good thing I'm a Weaver man. :D Weaver for the win! I'm actually working towards a hybrid, these days; I find myself more and more square to the target as I shoot more frequently, but still grip with a push/pull which works really well to keep the safety nailed down. I can see how a person's variable finger lengths can cause their hand to wrap around the back differently (for instance, I don't even make a pretense of getting my strong thumb far enough around the hit the slide catch easily, so the meaty part of my thumb is right over the safety) and this would likely make safety engagement better/worse. Different strokes for different folks.

I also wouldn't doubt that certain guns require a lot less safety reset to tie up the weapon than others ;)

TCB

Nom de Forum
April 23, 2014, 12:12 AM
barnbwt,

Thanks for the reply comparing the Glock FCG with the R51. To clarify: How does the material and design durability of the trigger and trigger bar assembly, trigger mechanism housing, connector, and trigger spring of the Glock compare to the R51 parts that perform similar functions. While the parts of the R51 may appear to flimsy, much like the Glock parts appear, could they in fact be durable enough?

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 12:42 AM
Sorry, Nom, I really don't know jack about Glocks (just broke one that one time, and I wasn't really looking at the trigger). Sorry as well for the big picture which appears to show a much beefier transfer bar:
http://www.reviewsofthings.com/images/glock-trigger-install-2.jpg

"While the parts of the R51 may appear to flimsy, much like the Glock parts appear, could they in fact be durable enough?"
My critique was more in regards to their rigidity than their durability. I don't fear them breaking or wearing out anytime soon, but the transfer stirrup bows outward 1/16" until it hits one or both walls every time I pull the trigger.

TCB

Nom de Forum
April 23, 2014, 01:35 AM
Thanks again barnbwt.

JRH6856
April 23, 2014, 08:06 AM
Ah, but pivot pins on this gun are just as likely (more likely, in fact) to serve as guides for slotted holes

But if you have only one slot and one guide, what you have is a really wobbly hole...oh wait! :eek:

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 08:47 AM
Let's think about this...you'd have the trigger and stirrup a single fixed piece (or rigidly connectect). It would slide/pivot at the front pin, while the tail could still rise/fall with the disconnector. It would be really weird (maybe) to have the trigger rotate infinitesimally as the gun fires, and it might be enough to be felt as "slap," so that could also be the reason they canned it.

TCB

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 08:57 AM
"What's funny, is the sear/hammer/stirrup arrangement is almost identical to a 1911's except that the safety sear notch is caught by a hammer block, rather than beating the crap out of the primary sear. BTW, the initial stage of the trigger pull comes from pushing the hammer block out of the way (and it remains in contact with the stirrup throughout disconnection, so you almost don't need a trigger return spring) and the short second stage is pushing off the actual sear. I wonder as well if you could simply 'pin' the transfer bar to the tail of the hammer stop, so it is pushed and pulled by the trigger, and at that point have only the sear spring and positive sear engagement contributing to the trigger pull (the trigger would still be fully returned and block the hammer when the safety is released and the safety block slides upward into the FCG parts, but the first trigger stage would have zero weight). I think it would still function the same; only disengaging when the trigger is pulled, and otherwise blocking the hammer if the trigger and safety are released; just dependent on safety position, more than trigger pressure."

HA! I was right! I had the gold-colored spring figured all wrong; my initial estimation that it reset the sear was correct and its tail also resets the disconnector upward (little tabs catch the tail. The notch in the hammer safety actually straddles the end of the transfer stirrup, so the hammer safety is mechanically engaged/withdrawn by the trigger bar without a separate spring adding pull weight/complexity. The initial trigger pull is thus set only by the pathetically anemic return spring at the trigger pivot (doesn't even return the trigger fully) and combined with the fairly weak disconnector reset spring force, I now see why the reset is imperceptible and the second stage so much stronger than the first (overcoming a positive hammer engagement). There is for sure the potential for this gun to be stoned down to a much lower trigger weight, just like a 1911. It can do it safely, too, since there's no way for the hammer to release without the safety pulled, and no way for the hammer to hit the pin without the trigger being pulled :cool:

I like the way these Remington designers think; they think like me :p

TCB

gym
April 23, 2014, 11:41 AM
I sold my LC9 after taking it apart to install a new hammer, I just couldn't keep it knowing what it was built like. But this is worse. I originally said , give it a year, but unless they fix those problems I am staying away from this gun, thanks for all your hard work.

JRH6856
April 23, 2014, 12:07 PM
I sold my LC9 after taking it apart to install a new hammer, I just couldn't keep it knowing what it was built like. But this is worse. I originally said , give it a year, but unless they fix those problems I am staying away from this gun, thanks for all your hard work.
Perhaps there is more than one reason Remington doesn't want end users detail stripping the gun. It's kind of like watching sausage being made. Or congress at work. :eek:

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 08:36 PM
Holy crap, you guys; everyone who hasn't sent their R51 back in needs to take it apart now and put it back together. I don't know what metal shavings fell out, what burs broke off, or what misalignments were corrected, but the gun is tons easier to rack now, and the safety is no longer scratchy. As best I can tell, the disconnector pops up and down much more easily, pretty much on par with every other disconnector I've played with. It especially drops down much more easily. My thinking is the spring was possibly double-wound against the disconnector to more assertively drive it upward. But there's two reasons that's stupid and unnecessary; the gun won't fire until that piece returns, so if it arrives upward a millisecond later due to only 1lb of force on it rather than 5 the shooter's reaction time will never know (I'll verify this with testing, of course), and secondly, the more force that is required to drop the disconnector, the more it tilts, pivots, binds, and scrapes on everything in there. It's even possible an extra wind would cause the spring coils to bind, which would definitely explain the spongy yet stiff disconnector I originally had that felt like it was slipping over wet rocks when it was pressed with the slide off.

Anywho, it takes like 10lbs to rack the decocked gun now. And a function check appears to show all systems nominal :cool:. I dunno, maybe I just forgot how much easier this gun was to rack than my other pieces (I don't remember it being like half the Hi Power or 1/3 the CZ52, though :confused:)

Fun facts: the disconnector can pivot about 5 degrees side to side, and 5 front to back on its loose slotted pin holes (side pivot is limited by the FCG components it binds against :barf:). The safety block can pivot about 30degrees side to side, and almost none front to back (it can actually tilt enough to disengage both safeties but it appears its straddling the hammer strut blocks this motion (and what's a little binding gonna harm? :rolleyes:)

Reassembly notes:
Slave pins are not required, but you'll hate yourself for not having them (I know I do). The stippled sections of the pins are long enough to prevent lining up both sides of the hole before a hammer is needed to seat them; way to go Remington. Go slow on the pins or they'll miss their marks under spring tension and break stuff. The hammer spring cross pin is pretty easy for a pistol, but it will launch the end cap at lethal velocity if you aren't careful; wear eye protection. The magazine catch is a pain to position, since its spring keeps trying to fall off (slave pin would make this loads easier). I had to use steel punches for everything; these pins are bound up tighter than Dick Tracy's hat-band (those "stars" you see are from metal swaging out of the hole around the stippling grooves :eek: --totally awesome from a fatigue-cracking standpoint, I'm sure ;) )

TCB

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 09:04 PM
More pictures of the gun, during reassembly. The trigger/mag release are fairly easy to figure out since there's only so many ways to install them wrong (I found all three), but the FCG/safety stuff takes some careful thought.

The first picture is another mockup on the outside of the gun that better shows all the parts and how they work together. You can even barely see the captive spring in the safety block that pushes it upward against the lower pivot pin, and the sear-safety notch that secures the sear from being pressed by the stirrup. More clear is how the stirrup rides on a lip on the disconnector; this is what pushes it up/down off the sear during firing to disable the trigger.

The second picture is mostly a demonstration of why you want slave pins. You can install the pin incrementally adding each part from one side, but it's a lot more difficult (mag release installation was slower, though)

And the last piece is what I should have shown ya'll up front, but I took the gun apart in a different order (the backstrap was last). Honestly, since the backstrap/mainspring can be removed with a bullet and a table top (press the butt of the gun onto the bullet to relieve the tension on the cross-pin and push it out with the other hand), this is a very convenient way to access pretty much everything for inspection and service. Easier than a revolver sideplate, I'd say. I think they are all reachable for oiling through the hammer port and the hole in the magwell you can see the safety through, but you can't see what's moving around very clearly.

TCB

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 09:13 PM
"I just couldn't keep it knowing what it was built like"

Okay, that's actually really funny :D. I think that's the worst insult that's ever been leveled at any machine, ever. Doubly funny since the LC9 seems to be the common refrain for 'the R51 sux' threads; that and the admittedly well-executed Shield (which almost makes up for the Sigmoid-- I mean, Sigma fiasco :D)

I notice this thread is getting a bit notice on other boards, and it seems like a lot of readers have the wrong impression; this was a critique, not a review. I did my review earlier, which also contained a lot of criticism and a lot of praise that I felt justified, like I prefer from reviewers. This thread was intended to be a deconstruction of the gun so people can firstly understand how it works, and secondly see where some of the common issues may be coming from. It'd be a whole lot longer if I had praised every design element that I actually liked or agreed with (which is nearly all of them except the bad apple parts, and would have a whole section on clever/efficient machining) which is why I spent time on the negatives, since that's what is most important besides a basic understanding of function. Also, since spotting bad stuff in a design is a lot easier than noting every last little thing they did right (thousands), do not take this thread as a condemnation; it is a critique, an identification of possible deficiencies in an otherwise pretty sound and thorough design.

TCB

JRH6856
April 23, 2014, 10:56 PM
Any thoughts on using a bushing on the trigger pivot to reduce the side wobble?

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 11:02 PM
It'd probably be easy? I'd just find a brass tube that fits the pin better, cut it to be the full width of the frame there, polish the ends/interior well, and then drill out the trigger and press the bushing into place.

I'm not quite prepared to straight-up burn the bridge with Remington before they even have a chance to issue a recall + fix, though ;). Call me a coward, if you like. I still don't get it; the MIM parts are among the best quality pieces in the gun, so why is the trigger so terrible?

TCB

JRH6856
April 23, 2014, 11:39 PM
The warranty is 2 years which is pretty good, but I doubt I'll wait 2 years before trying to improve a few things. I will wait a few months to give Remington a chance to do something.

barnbwt
April 23, 2014, 11:57 PM
I just figured out the "piece 'a junk gun locks 3/4" out of battery" malfunction; if you rack the gun then release the safety then the slide (or just rack the slide without the safety being pressed) there's a 30% or so chance the slide hangs on something. I'm not entirely sure what it could be, but the only moving parts the slide sees are the disconnecotor and the hammer, so it's one of those. I'll guess the disco for now since it seems to be the root of every other weak point on the gun :D

"I will wait a few months to give Remington a chance to do something."
Exactly. I'll get some other projects done as I continue to shoot this thing as it is for the time being, but I darn sure am not going to let stuff that continually irritates me set un-meddled. I think a replacement trigger (so no modding) with overtravel screw and a better return spring scheme will be the first order of the day. Possibly a sliding trigger if I can convince myself it'd be drop safe.

TCB

JRH6856
April 24, 2014, 12:33 AM
I'll concur on the disconnector. The slide racks with the least resistance when you rack it with both the safety and the trigger depressed.

I'm OK with a pivoting trigger if the wobble is out. I'm used to my BHP and the R51 is real close. I'm thinking a fluff and buff just to take the rough edges off of the stampings, etc. might do wonders. Maybe turn down the teeth on the pins so the pins will engage the far side of the frame before the teeth set in the near side.

Edarnold
April 24, 2014, 01:33 AM
Sad part about the stamped parts quality is that they don't have be rubbish. I'm thinking of the HK P7, a complicated design with hardly a machined part to be found, and everything is finely finished and works slick as snot. I suspect the Remington engineers responsible for the project were probably ready to quit when they saw the mess Manufacturing had made of their gun. Hope they get a chance to fix it.

lincen
April 24, 2014, 04:37 AM
Don't know where all the fingers should or could be pointed but manufacturing works off of prints, from engineers, that specify material, tolerances, and sometimes the process. Many times the "drawing" is converted to a DXF file that is directley used to laser cut sheetmetal parts. My problem with the manufacturing part of this gun is the machining from dull tools, very sharp inside edges, and no consistant finishing of parts. The bottom on my R51 breech block looks to have been polished by a pre-school kid. May post a picture later. After 300 or so rounds mine shoots rather good though.

barnbwt
April 24, 2014, 08:28 AM
These are punch parts, which always suck if you don't use good (sharp/new) tooling. As with the chambers, milling, drilling, and every other operation...the simplest explanation seems to be manufacturers that didn't give a damn, or weren't allowed to give a damn. Laser cut parts would be tons better, but such a machine is a huge investment if they are convinced their clapped out old banger is still good for something.

Oh, I found some small tooling marks that they forgot to buff out on the underside of the beavertail (only flaw I can seem to find on the frame)

Gonna try cleaning up the chamber this weekend, and actually bother to cut a leade. So that should at least help (or not hurt) the few stoppages I've run across with ball ammo, and give the gun much better safety margin for fat/long nose bullets going forward. Picked out another bunch of ammo types to throw through it afterward.

TCB

JRH6856
April 24, 2014, 08:58 AM
These are punch parts, which always suck if you don't use good (sharp/new) tooling. As with the chambers, milling, drilling, and every other operation...the simplest explanation seems to be manufacturers that didn't give a damn, or weren't allowed to give a damn. Laser cut parts would be tons better, but such a machine is a huge investment if they are convinced their clapped out old banger is still good for something.

Oh, I found some small tooling marks that they forgot to buff out on the underside of the beavertail (only flaw I can seem to find on the frame)

Gonna try cleaning up the chamber this weekend, and actually bother to cut a leade. So that should at least help (or not hurt) the few stoppages I've run across with ball ammo, and give the gun much better safety margin for fat/long nose bullets going forward. Picked out another bunch of ammo types to throw through it afterward.

TCB
It is a new gun. I can see the possibility fo dull tooling in some of the milling operations, like the slide, but why would the dies for the punched parts not be new? Maybe high clearances or no die cushions? It seems like they were focused more on cutting costs than on cutting metal.

lincen
April 24, 2014, 09:15 AM
I work in manufacturing, and believe me, cutting cost is everything now. We can hire marketing and finance folks by the scores but seldom invest in manufacturing equipment.

moxie
April 24, 2014, 09:32 AM
Very nice work.

I do hope you send your critique to Remington, at the top.

I was hoping for something a lot better from them, but what you've shown looks like it came off the Kilgore or Hubley production lines.

JRH6856
April 24, 2014, 09:44 AM
Perhaps we are all spoiled by firearms made with more precision than is necessary for basic functionality? Most of the firearms of the early 20th century were made with more precision and attention to detail than was really necessary (I think Peter Paul Mauser had a lot to do with that ;) ). With people using 3D printers to print almost complete firearms from plastic, I'm sure there is a lot of reevaluating going on regarding just how much precision engineering and metallurgy a firearm really needs.

Nom de Forum
April 24, 2014, 10:51 AM
Remington is probably conforming to the maxim "Perfect is the enemy of good enough". Only they misjudged what is good enough. Let us hope they have the commitment to find a way to ensure the consumer and Remington's accountants agree on what is good enough.

Orion8472
April 24, 2014, 11:35 AM
From the way it sounds, it may be an issue of Remington just polishing some of the parts before putting them into the frame. I truly hope that someone from Remington views threads like this and institutes those changes before more are released . . . . . and probably given a bad report on. It really IS in their best interest, else more and more will pass on it.

barnbwt
April 24, 2014, 12:44 PM
For sure they need better drill bits than even polishing ;)

moxie
April 24, 2014, 05:21 PM
It's a lot more than polishing. That trigger was nasty!

JRH6856
April 24, 2014, 07:29 PM
It's a lot more than polishing. That trigger was nasty!
Seems to be a bit of variance in the trigger. Mine, out of the box, is as good as my BHP after some trigger work (except for the side wobble, which, though annoying that it is there, doesnt't really affect anything).

barnbwt
April 24, 2014, 09:01 PM
The most likely cause for a bum trigger would be the side of the trigger pivoting into the sharp edges of the frame opening. Second would possibly be burs on the disco rails and stirrup scraping, third the safety not being dropped sufficiently to fully clear the hammer stop and sear. I'd check the sides of your trigger for gnarly wear.

TCB

draidt
April 24, 2014, 09:10 PM
Reportedly the latest word from Remington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fNAusFyow

A recall may be in the future ?

Cooldill
April 24, 2014, 09:32 PM
Great work!

It is pretty sad when we as end users have to do stuff like detail strip a new gun in order to try and figure out what problems Remington couldn't or wouldn't work out at the factory in design/production/finishing of the R51.

This gun was on my "must buy" list at the start of 2014 but now, with all the negative reports, I am staying far and away from it at least till they start to fix them. There are far too many awesome guns out there that are trustworthy, reliable and proven that deserve my money more. JMHO.

YMMV.

Badger Arms
April 24, 2014, 10:16 PM
Holy MIM in a sack! I knew the trigger was bad, but can't they at least design a fixture to EDM or drill the darned trigger pivot hole?

Disconnector is pressed/stamped, correct? I wonder if they do any machining on it after it is stamped?

barnbwt
April 25, 2014, 12:33 AM
"It is pretty sad when we as end users have to do stuff like detail strip a new gun in order to try and figure out what problems..."

I didn't have to do anything; my gun works (mostly) just fine already. I'd have taken it apart so long as its insides were interesting and unknown to me. It's not slick enough to be a great piece in my mind, sure, but it runs well enough for range work, if not CCW, just yet. I think addressing the chamber issue and some more wear-in will resolve the remaining problems (though it will obviously not perfect them). I just like the gun too much to tolerate the "send it back to the kitchen" crowd that can't be bothered to salt their dinner to taste (and a salty meal this is, but still...).

Remington's making it tough enough to save the R51 as it is, so why do people pile on?

TCB

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 08:37 AM
Reportedly the latest word from Remington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fNAusFyow

A recall may be in the future ?
Well, it's the latest word from RyeonHam anyway. No official word from Remington. (What CS phone staff says may or may not mean anything.)

That said, I've seen at least one other report saying that the bolt was being redesigned to deal with the primer pimples. When I called the CS rep would talk about anything but the chamber. He wanted to avoid that subject. Read into that what you will.

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 08:40 AM
It is pretty sad when we as end users have to do stuff like detail strip a new gun in order to try and figure out what problems Remington couldn't or wouldn't work out at the factory in design/production/finishing of the R51.

Not so sad. It's the first thing some of us do with any gun we buy. Sometimes, with any thing. :what:

JohnnyBravo
April 25, 2014, 12:01 PM
I am going to get one of these as soon as I think there is a reasonably good chance of getting one that is reliable enough for CCW and won't require a trip back to Remington.

By the way, thanks to you guys for a couple of great threads on this gun. They are the best on the net.

JB

draidt
April 25, 2014, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooldill
It is pretty sad when we as end users have to do stuff like detail strip a new gun in order to try and figure out what problems Remington couldn't or wouldn't work out at the factory in design/production/finishing of the R51.

Not so sad. It's the first thing some of us do with any gun we buy. Sometimes, with any thing.

I beg to differ, when a company releases a gun or any product that is not ready for use and dangerous to the end user that is sad. I replaced my sent for repairs R51 with a $ 239.00 Zastva M88A 9mm I just got back from the range right out of the box went through 4 mags with not of hiccup and is accurate. I have not given up hope that the R51 will someday be what we all hoped it would be and should have been from the get go.

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 02:05 PM
Experiences differ., and maybe the earlier releases (0001000~0003000) had problems I don't have at 0006xxx. I know some people who have problems feel their only solution is to send the gun back. And that may well be the only solution available for some. I haven't had any issues serious enough to cause me to do that...yet. I still might, but not yet. Things have break first and my gun is not broken. I and I have yet to experience anything that would make feel it is unsafe. I think finish reaming the chamber would resolve d 90% of my issues. But I can't send the gun to Remington and expect them to do that. They will do what they want to do, not what I want done and they won't say in advance what they might do. So the gun stays with me until REmington announces a fix and if they don't, eventually I'll fix it myself.

445gsd
April 25, 2014, 02:12 PM
First, thank you so much! Awesome thread, awesome pics, awesome (and just comedic enough) commentary!

Would it be possible to get a picture of the top of your frame looking down at the dicconnector?

I'm interested as the shoulder that the block cams over on mine is chewed up pretty good due to burrs on the underside of the block - where the channels for the disconnector are. You can't see the burrs on mine, but you sure can see the galling and frame damage after 100 rounds. After shooting mine I tore it down and discovered the issue. The burrs aren't visible (to me) but I can find them with a fingernail. It's almost as if those slots were broached somehow... The block appears to be cast to me - then cleaned up a bit?

Here is a pic of mine:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/cledford/photo1_zps6ff874ad.jpg (http://s124.photobucket.com/user/cledford/media/photo1_zps6ff874ad.jpg.html)

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/cledford/photo2_zpsb7b79ff3.jpg (http://s124.photobucket.com/user/cledford/media/photo2_zpsb7b79ff3.jpg.html)

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 03:01 PM
Here' mine. Looks a lot like yours. Yes, there were some burrs that needed to be cleaned up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OBfN1tOkk0E/U1DrmgqDClI/AAAAAAAAAFs/Sb63wNt8ETQ/s1600/Lock+Block+Range+Wear.jpg

Front block as well

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197527&d=1398022352

barnbwt
April 25, 2014, 08:08 PM
My front blocks does that, too, but I think it's self limiting. The recoil spring bushing tries to tilt back over the stop under load, and rolls the edge. My rear block didn't show wear until I neglected to grease gun well and it shed some nitriding/anodizing grit. At this point I am questioning the need for such a hard slide (at least the interior) considering how soft the frame and bolt seem by comparison

moxie
April 25, 2014, 09:11 PM
So, at this point does anyone have sufficient confidence in this gun to trust their life to it?

Sounds like a real loser.

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 09:31 PM
So, at this point does anyone have sufficient confidence in this gun to trust their life to it?

Sounds like a real loser.
The only gun I have that has fewer failures is a Security Six with a 6" barrel that is a little big to carry, so I would say "Yes". I know other people have had problems, but their problems are not mine.

Flashcube
April 25, 2014, 09:40 PM
Mine is a 00019xx S.N. range gun and it's running fine. Hit the 700 round point a little while ago. I'd trust it for carry if my usual revolver broke down on me. (it's a Taurus, it might happen :rolleyes:)

barnbwt
April 25, 2014, 10:07 PM
"So, at this point does anyone have sufficient confidence in this gun to trust their life to it?"

Yeah...so? Obviously you don't. I doubt many folks are carrying them, simply because there aren't really holsters out there, yet, and the lack of manual redundant safety kinda requires you take care of that little detail before going around town with it. Do I trust the gun to unload a three shot burst of 5" at 10 yards if I'm doing my part faster than any of my other guns including a five-seven? Yeah...

On that note, I think the R51 in 22TCM (or better still, 5.7x28, or even better, 7.62x25) would be a game changer both defensively and competitively, since the action seems to specifically dampen the sharp initial recoil impulse found in high pressure chamberings that makes shooters prone to flinching.

TCB

kefefs
April 25, 2014, 10:26 PM
I beg to differ, when a company releases a gun or any product that is not ready for use and dangerous to the end user that is sad. I replaced my sent for repairs R51 with a $ 239.00 Zastva M88A 9mm I just got back from the range right out of the box went through 4 mags with not of hiccup and is accurate. I have not given up hope that the R51 will someday be what we all hoped it would be and should have been from the get go.

Take a lesson from original Masada/ACR fans like myself, just give up now. :(

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 10:30 PM
there aren't really holsters out there, yet,

There are a few:

Galco makes the Stinger (http://www.galcogunleather.com/stinger-belt-holster_8_4_1301.html), nd OWB leather holster, so far, right hand only. (the gun shown in the link is NOT and R51 but I assume the holster is similar. This is disappointing because Galco committed to making this holster months before the gun was released. They had plenty of time to get the right pix up.)

Multi Holsters (http://www.multiholsters.com/index.htm) Makes a modular Kydex holster, IWB/OWB RH/LH adjustible cant holster. He shows it in a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5SEvyoZtmQ)

Jackson Leatherworks (http://jacksonleatherwork.com/2014/01/remington-r51-owb-iwb-holster/) makes both and IWB and OWB in leather (of course).

The DeSantis Pocket-Tuk (http://www.desantisholster.com/POCKET-TUK) sized for the SR9 works for me. Maybe the LC9 model would fit as well, but it might be too short. This is a sueded leather holster that is not form fitted so one size fits several different guns of similar size.

Orion8472
April 25, 2014, 11:05 PM
barnbwt, I think it would be pretty awesome if one was chambered in 5.7x28. Probably could get ten rounds in the magazine. But I would be for that setup.

barnbwt
April 25, 2014, 11:14 PM
Ooh! When did those come out? I admittedly haven't been looking much at holsters, yet, the gun itself being much more interesting. I notice the Galco has a June 5th ship date.

As far as Kydex? The gun's got it bad enough as it is, I won't add insult to injury :D. J/k, I made a kukri sheath a while back from Kydex, and it's really cool stuff, but it wears the rust/patina off the steel hand-axe very quickly, so I shudder to think what it'd do to an aluminum frame :uhoh:. I personally think it excels in holding stuff that will get wet (like a kukri on the side of a hiking backpack) but I imagine I'd hate it as an IWB holster :cuss:

And while I will probably end up relenting and going with a good 'ol generic pancake holster, I'd like at least one actually fitted to the R51 (even if it doesn't work as well ;)). Maybe a shiny black shoulder rig for under the tuxedo :D

TCB

JRH6856
April 25, 2014, 11:38 PM
I think watching the kydex fight it out with the nitride slide, would be interesting. :evil:

The Pocket Tuk is working well for me. IWB cant is adjustible and it fits really well in deep pockets.

JohnnyBravo
April 25, 2014, 11:50 PM
There is a post in an R51 thread over on Glock Talk and the poster states a Remington rep told him that many of the slides are out of tolerance and it is causing multiple problems. He said he was told the plant has been shut down and they expect to get everything sorted out and start shipping guns again at the end of May.

I didn't see anything in the rules about posting links to other forums so here goes.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1514579&page=19

I don't know the poster personally but he's been around awhile and has a good reputation.

JB

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 12:24 AM
Well, that's interesting, (and thanks for the link) but fixing the slide (and I can't imagine what might be out of spec on mine) will do nothing for the out of spec chamber. :mad:

JohnnyBravo
April 26, 2014, 07:27 AM
Well, that's interesting, (and thanks for the link) but fixing the slide (and I can't imagine what might be out of spec on mine) will do nothing for the out of spec chamber.

If what he said is true it sounds like the entire manufacturing and QC departments were doing little more than collecting their paychecks. If they had to do a complete shutdown of the plant I would expect a top to bottom review of the entire operation as well.

I hope they get it sorted out, I still think this gun has a lot of potential. I have my doubts about Remington though.

JB

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 09:08 AM
If what he said is true it sounds like the entire manufacturing and QC departments were doing little more than collecting their paychecks. If they had to do a complete shutdown of the plant I would expect a top to bottom review of the entire operation as well.

That would be the Para operation and internal apathy at Para was my first suspicion so this would pretty much confirm that.

I hope they get it sorted out, I still think this gun has a lot of potential. I have my doubts about Remington though.

JB

How they end up handling this will say a lot about Remington. Unlike some banks, they are not too big to fail, but as barnbwt says, they may be too big to succeed. It depends on what they really care about.

Ranger3
April 26, 2014, 09:35 AM
Thank you for the update JohnnyBravo and all of the posters on the R51 issues! I just recently joined this forum and I am amazed at the knowledge and openness of the members here. I'm hoping to learn something!

I liked the R51 when I first saw it and I read everything I could find about the gun. All the initial reviews were good so I ordered two with the CT lasers in early February. At this point, I'm glad they haven't shipped and I hope the issues are resolved when I get mine!

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 10:31 AM
Welcome to The High Road, Ranger3!

Ranger3
April 26, 2014, 10:34 AM
Thank you!!!

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 11:27 AM
More info from the NRA meetings posted by Electriclyde on the Remington Owners Forum (http://www.remingtonowners.com/post9061.html#p9061):

I stopped by the Remington booth today at the NRA convention in Indy. Had an interesting conversation with a young man who is a product manager for Remington.
They are awaiting manufacture of new, slightly different breechblocks, which will also have some sort of coating on them for aiding in reduced wear and better retention of lubrication. He also said that those guns with a loose rear sight issue will have the slides replaced. He claims that the dovetails on the slides were improperly cut. He could not/would not commit to a timeline for the completion of the new parts. He also said that the warranty on the gun would start over when they were repaired.
They did have about 10 R51's on display, some with Crimson Trace Lasers on them. I racked the slide on several of the guns, and found some to be difficult, and some to be VERY easy!?!?!?

moxie
April 26, 2014, 11:47 AM
It'll be interesting to find out more about the coating that aids in retaining lubrication.

Orion8472
April 26, 2014, 11:53 AM
At least it would appear that the Remington guys are aware of the issues and will actually release it back into the wild soon and have it running as it should. If so, I'll be interested again.

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 12:01 PM
It'll be interesting to find out more about the coating that aids in retaining lubrication.
If Remington were still owned by DuPont, I'd call that "Teflon". ;) It may still be.

moxie
April 26, 2014, 02:39 PM
Teflon has some natural lubricity and is used in some lubricants, but doesn't retain lubrication.

Dupont sold Remington in '93. Remington is now part of the Cerberus Group. And that's another story.

JRH6856
April 26, 2014, 03:51 PM
Teflon has some natural lubricity and is used in some lubricants, but doesn't retain lubrication.

Dupont sold Remington in '93. Remington is now part of the Cerberus Group. And that's another story.
Yes, that is correct.

I suppose if Teflon retains its natural lubricity, it could be said to "retain lubrication." ;)

barnbwt
April 26, 2014, 04:14 PM
"They are awaiting manufacture of new, slightly different breechblocks, which will also have some sort of coating on them for aiding in reduced wear and better retention of lubrication."

Am I to expect a coating is supposed to fix heinous tooling marks, sharp/burred slide cams, the burrs raised by the too-stiff disconnector tabs hitting the locking shoulder (that's what causes the 'gouge' on the right hand side upper face of the breech block, fellas), a pitifully reamed barrel, and a laughably loose extractor? They should spend their Teflon money on some new freaking chamber reamers and tooling. I think they also need to strongly consider making the bolt material harder; if it's getting peened by the disconnector and scarred by the slide cams, I worry for its longevity. More than I do for the aluminum locking shoulder.

My lathe-havin' buddy cleaned up the chamber this morning. Or should I say, finished reaming the chamber. As much metal came out, I'm astonished this thing was able to chamber rounds as well as it did in the first place. Not only was the chamber like .01" tight all the way down (the finish reamer only 'plunked' halfway down into the chamber :what:) but it was heavily ringed with scarring resulting from the machinists not flushing their chips, using worn reamers, or running too fast. I expect Para was doing all three to cut costs. Not only not only that, the chamber appears to have been cut with an endmill or something without a pilot since it was actually quite a bit egg shaped (we did manage to clean that part out) on the left hand toward the rear (it showed up on my brass, but I'd thought it was from weaker support at the feed ramp; nope, it's 180deg offset from the claw marks). There was also no leade of any sort, and the rifling was only somewhat beveled (probably from having FMJ bullet noses rammed into it and blown through)

Now there are two distinct 'steps' where before there was only one; the first, a well defined shoulder that contains the case (maybe a thou or two deeper than before as far as headspace), the second a leade relieved for a bullet ogive, with a very short freebore to the rifling lands thereafter. The difference plunking a dummy into an unissued Suomi chamber and then the R51 was astonishing. The case was nearly swaged in the R51, and could rattle about .01" side to side at the base in the Suomi. For those unaware, Suomis had extremely high quality barrels that would put full auto on a pie-plate at 25 yards. Oh, and the feel of cutting the chamber was painful; think heavy metal filing cabinet on concrete --complete with squealing fingernails on a chalkboard :eek:. Cleaned up the chamber with some 600grit while it was still in the lathe, and it looks tons better now, and chambers dummy rounds much easier. Extracts under slide rack much more positively, too. I sure hope the reduced chamber friction doesn't make the gun a harsher recoiler :uhoh:.

At the end of the day, the chamber looks tons better, but there is still one reamer scar that was so deep it remains. The volume of metal removed was probably about a small grain of rice (from an ostensibly finished chamber). See the attached photo to see the wallowed section of the chamber (dark wedge shape at the breech end is the uncut area)

The experience with my gun combined with those of many others experiencing short/rough/tight chambers leads me to recommend that all R51 owners proceed as though their guns are short chambered, and perform some due diligence to ensure it's going fully into battery. It's not the end of the world, since short chambers can be fixed, but something to be mindful of.

TCB

barnbwt
April 26, 2014, 09:01 PM
"...it can't get, much worse!" :D

Took care of potentially the biggest reliability-killer today by cleaning up the chamber. Although, 'cleaning up' might be too soft a word. The reamer initially dropped only halfway into the chamber, and it appears a good .01" of diameter was removed in the course of cutting it. Basically, the factory chamber was exactly big enough for some rounds to fit, and no more. To fat/long a bullet? Hits the lands because there was no leade cut. Slightly fat case? Will wedge in the chamber and not go fully into battery (I'm not convinced this is so much a safety issue as it is a reliability issue)

After reaming, the case was as loose as a Suomi barrel, and as loose as my Hi Power barrel I checked against when I got back home. Fired cases now swell about .005" just like my other 9mms, whereas before there was zero expansion. Most importantly, the chamber is infinitely smoother than before. The chamber was dull and badly ringed due to dull/fast reaming, and left terrible sandpaper scratches on fired cases. After cutting it to the proper profile and a more consistent texture, I ran a Q-tip covered in honing compound with a power drill over it briefly to polish off any burs or flakes that might still be sticking around. After test firing today, I found the fired brass is shinier than it was before being put in the gun. Also importantly, there were zero failures to feed attributable to the chamber/ramp out of 250 or so rounds fired (granted, there were only 1 maybe two for that many rounds before hand).

Whether it was truly needed or not, the brass looks tons better and the chamber has a real leade to accommodate longer bullets that it was sorely lacking prior. The gun doctor did no harm :cool:

I also shined up uglier faces of the bolt, the feed ramp, the barrel exterior, and the recoil spring bushing some more with homing paste (just used rouge before which of course didn't accomplish much). Cleaned off some burs on the bolt that had formed from riding over the (previously) ultra stiff disconnector. Without a bolt or spring in the slide, nearly no force is needed to rack it (was about 5lbs originally). With everything in the slide, it's gotta be at or under 10lbs now :)

I did notice I seemed to be short stroking the trigger occasionally today, which I will attribute to my disassembly probably changing something. My theory is the disconnector return spring had an extra wind in it before installation originally, which is why it was so hard to drop and why the trigger return spring was strong enough to prevent short stroking. I reassembled the gun without the disco spring tensioned as significantly, so now it does its function with far less force/binding, but the trigger return isn't as positive (the return spring is only a pound or so, not enough to push your finger back quick when you relax after shooting). I'll have to try bending the spring a little to generate more deflection against it when the barrel is installed (the barrel tensions the spring leg)

Oh, and the trigger is developing the elusive "tactile reset" in that an audible click now occurs when the stirrup bar falls back down in front of the sears. I personally think that with pre/over travel minimized with a better trigger lever, no one would have trouble short stroking the gun (trigger take up would be ~3/32 and the break another 1/32 with no over travel. Clean up the sears and it'd be even less than that)

As far as the range report:
My biggest fear was realized; the gun does recoil a bit more now that the cases come out easily. Still low for a gun its size, and still no fatigue/soreness in my hands after shooting (just the thumbs from loading mags and my index knuckle from whanging my hand on something at the range :rolleyes:), but recoil has a 'magnum' smack to it now that I don't seem to recall from before. Ejection is no harsher, so it may actually be completely my imagination :D

This time I brought four different brands:
-Remington Golden Sabres: very first round FTF from the mag (hollow point on the magazine forward ramp again) but I think I didn't have the round seated in the mag properly. No subsequent issues of any kind. 28 rounds, total.
-Blazer Aluminum case crap-o-rama: no issues of any sort. 100 rounds, total
-Winchester white box crap-o-rama: one failure to eject, where the case was stuck between the base and neck alongside the properly-feeding round by the slide. This stuff didn't seem loaded as hot and ejected fairly close by. 100 rounds, total
-Corbon +P (135gr, I think?): Either this gun damps initial recoil better than I can imagine, or the whole 9mm +P thing is totally overblown. Increased recoil/blast was barely detectable, if I wasn't simply imagining a difference. No issues of any sort. 14 rounds, total

Accuracy was pretty close for all of them, though I was admittedly a getting a bit tired by the time I went shooting and wasn't trying particularly hard. 6-10inch groups at about 20 yards, all consistently 12" to the right of aim while it was dead on previously (could easily be due to the new chamber, or the fact the pistol bay is like a breezeway directing ~30mph gusts laden with dusty sand in that direction, or me just not trying very hard.) Sights haven't moved any and the original chamber and new one are both bore-centric (though the new one isn't egg-shaped) so I'm inclined to place the blame on me. I'm probably heeling the grip to the left and flinching.

So now we're down to 1-maybe-2 failures in 250 rounds :cool:

TCB

JRH6856
April 27, 2014, 09:36 AM
So it looks like rechambering to 9mm Luger from "9mm Remington" helps a lot as we suspected. That leaves the disconnector and whatever problem Remington has bound in the interface between the slide and breechblock and maybe something with the firing pin.

Speaking of the disconnector, In your pics of the FCG, I see only one spring, a bronze colored one that is on different sides of the hammer in different pics. Looking at my FCG with the grip safety off, I see two springs, a bronze one on the right side of the hammer and gray one on the left. Did you lose a spring?

You don't even need to take the grip safety off, you can see the springs looking down from the top of the frame with the slide off. It's on the right in the attached pic.

JohnnyBravo
April 27, 2014, 10:35 AM
So it looks like rechambering to 9mm Luger from "9mm Remington" helps a lot as we suspected.

You owe me a new keyboard! :D

barnbwt
April 27, 2014, 10:57 AM
Hmm...perhaps :o. I did say the gun exploded when that pin was punched out, and the trigger return and takeup are lighter than they were. In that case, why the heck is there a return spring on the trigger itself in the first place, Remington?:rolleyes: Everything's spring returned, so I thought I had my bases covered.

Good eye, JRH, I'll get looking (it can't have gone far...)

TCB

JRH6856
April 27, 2014, 11:55 AM
Well, don't feel bad. It took me a couple of days the find the safety pin that fell out while I was trying to get the knurled pins out.

But this means that instead of a single spring being double wound, the disconnector return is double sprung. I had a feeling that lightening the disconnector resistance by not winding the spring was just a bit too easy. :uhoh: Maybe after Remington gets the revisions done, Wolfe will do a spring kit...

barnbwt
April 28, 2014, 07:11 PM
Isn't it stupid how undersized those pins are? The worst part is you can't bump them up since they are the proper size for the slots in the safety block. Upsetting the holes would be the solution, but probably too obvious for Remington's warranty guys :D. I did find the other spring; I'm even more dumbfounded how the spring between the hammer block and the frame fell out, but the hammer block didn't :confused:. I'll tear down the gun again (those poor pin holes :() and get it installed, as well as polish and smooth every rough edge I can see. I might even see if I can whip up a new trigger in the meantime if I can find some 1/4" or so stock. I don't plan another range trip for a while; ammo's just too dang pricey and I've already put close to 200$ downrange in a couple weeks. Can't save up for that Boberg/Rhino/Mateba/KPV kit/etc. if I burn all my moolah on powder :(

"But this means that instead of a single spring being double wound, the disconnector return is double sprung. I had a feeling that lightening the disconnector resistance by not winding the spring was just a bit too easy."

That's the weird part; my earlier claim that the hammer block needs no spring return is still valid. The stirrup sits in a notch on the lever, and positively pushes and pulls it regardless of what the spring does. The disconnector still appears to function just fine, if not better, with less spring tension. The problem now is that the single remaining spring just doesn't have enough oomph to push the trigger back in front of the sear unless you removed your finger entirely (it breaks at like 5lbs, but resets at mere ounces; hard to ride the trigger back that way, tactile reset or no). If the actual trigger return spring at the trigger pivot had more tensioned travel, you wouldn't need to tension the hammer safety to return it fully forward. I would normally be in favor of spring force having dual functions (hammer block and disconnector) since it makes most efficient use of the trigger weight, but in this case I think the disconnector's loose construction makes it bind worse the more force is required to drop it. Especially if those two springs don't quite press as hard on each side of the disconnector identically.

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

Leghorn is once again bashing the R51 based on unreasonable criteria; apparently he's miffed they haven't got a fix for the issues (as if it is only one fix) a scant four weeks into the rollout. Hell, it took us dedicated forum boys about two weeks to figure out whether the praise/troubles were even legitimate (there's a hilarious post in another forum by some tool saying the gun had a slicker slide than any other gun he owned; pure BS by the very nature of the action, it bumps the disconnector three times each way as well as a breechblock). It took a good three weeks to figure out that some issues were re-occurring, and only a week or so to ponder what exactly could be causing the issues, let alone think of fixes. My chamber ream was done more out of me knowing it was wrong than knowing it was causing issues, and because it was a quick fix.

Does anyone really think a bloated corporate bureaucracy, doubtless full of idiots denying problems or access in a bid to cover their rears and turf, could react and adapt to news from the market faster than dedicated hobbyists? I am starting to see why the small-time one man shop vendors of the gun building world I sometimes speak with have such disdain for large chunks of the gun community. Complete lack of understanding and consideration of how these products get made, unrealistic expectations of organizations, and complete intolerance of anything but perfection smack of royal privilege. Being royal means not knowing where food comes from ;). "Make it again, servant!"

The sad part is that the blog "finding" is already being parroted eagerly on a half-dozen or so sites complete with knee-jerk agreement by most posters. It's not even news, the lack of a fix being ready just yet :rolleyes:. At least one poster had the hilarious pearl of wisdumb that "Remington sucks and we hate them" :rolleyes:. They do seem to be quite the butt-monkey for gun forums, lately (since before Marlin, really)

TCB

JRH6856
April 28, 2014, 07:55 PM
I think Remington bashing started with their 22LR a few years ago. Some of that stuff was just bad. (If they fired that QC guy, I think he went to work for Para.)

The one certain advantage the company engineers have over hobbyists is they have the blue prints and hopefully an idea of what each part is supposed to do and why. We have to look at something that is not working, and figure out how it is supposed to work by figuring out what isn't happening. They should get the answers first. Especialy since it took a month ( for you and I each at least) to get a gun in our hands.

An now I'm wondering why those two disconnector springs are different colors...:scrutiny:

barnbwt
April 28, 2014, 10:04 PM
I'm certain it's for identification; I think they are just left and right hand versions of each other. The sear/hammer block are differently colored for similar reasons, I suspect.

TCB

Tirod
April 30, 2014, 12:19 PM
IIRC Remington has a huge debt load, correct? It's likely why they don't have new machinery and continue to make things a bit less well than they could. I worked in a CNC shop, part of a larger operation. It was true for us, marketing could sell a job easier than we could make it. One example was an all aluminum fire truck - simple to bend and weld, right? Nope, it takes special tooling to bend step tread aluminum, we never got good results from using generic, worn out universal dies that allowed the material to crawl around under stress. Even less helpful was the lack of any gripping backstops to control the sheets in a press brake. We had a high reject rate, and then, in welding, things got worse. You can't easily reconfigure welders set up for galvanized sheet steel and operate them with that crew, it takes a learning curve that was apparently too steep. We lost the contract in months.

I see those decisions reflected in this tear down. Remington has likely converted machines set up for the ACR - which isn't moving along well at all. Those parts made from punches could well be universal turret press tooling that was already used on a lot of other stuff - a side cut down the length of the disco can be done with repeatedly hitting it with a long rectangular punch, and it will leave overlapping burrs, same for curves and inlets. Holes for pins can be the same punch some other part uses on another gun. No guarantee much of any new tooling was used, that's the entire point of all the changes. Minimize the costs.

I think it shows. Which goes to the Corporate decision makers simply going for the least costs because they can't make any other decisions. Cerberus took it out of their hands. In fact, although we tend to bash Remington, I have to ask, how much of this is in their purvey? Cerberus calls the shots and allows them to spend or not spend money.

If anything, the contract for 24,000 M4's is getting all the juice it needs to be a money maker. Any reject in that endeavor has huge consequences.

JRH6856
April 30, 2014, 12:50 PM
Which goes to the Corporate decision makers simply going for the least costs because they can't make any other decisions. Cerberus took it out of their hands. In fact, although we tend to bash Remington, I have to ask, how much of this is in their purvey? Cerberus calls the shots and allows them to spend or not spend money.

I think your analysis is probably pretty accurate. The R51 is a Remington design carrying the Remington brand, but is is made in the (former?) Para USA plant. And Para was in pretty bad financial shape when Freedom Group acquired it a little over 2 years ago.

shinerjohn
May 1, 2014, 12:05 AM
I purchased my R51 on April 6. As far as I can tell, I am the only one to own one in my county. As of 4/28/2014, I have fired 500 rounds in 4 combined range trips. In 150 rounds on Monday, I could fire 4 consecutive mags without failure on only two occasions. My issues are: FTF on the 6th round of the mag. It lies nose UP holding the slide open. Occasionally the same happens with the 5th and 7th rounds. I have not found any difference in the mags. Occasionally, I will have a Failure to Extract. The empty case will still be chambered and the next round will be nose up. A few times I have found an unfired round on the ground! I'm not sure how that happens.
Due to an injury in my left arm from a motorcycle mishap, I cannot slingshot the slide. I lock it back, insert the mag, and release the slide lock. Mine works perfectly in that manner - just like my Kahr pistols do.
My LGS contacted his distributor who is rather large. The distributor said at least 10 of 12 that have been sold, have been returned to Remington. He confirmed that they were not releasing any more at this time. The distributor said Remington told him the break-in was 500 rounds! That is ridiculous!
At this time, I intend to take it to the range with me each time I go. I will take a box of 50 factory ammo. (I'm not going to add the possibility of another factor by using my hand loaded ammo.) I will fire said ammo until there is a failure. At that time, I will put the little butthead up for that trip. I will clean it and try again next trip.
I will be watching to see when some of the returned R51s have been returned to their owners. When I see that they have been repaired properly, I will send mine in. I am simply not going to send her back to sit on a shelf for goodness knows how long.
Just thought I'd give you an update.....

JRH6856
May 1, 2014, 12:27 AM
I will be watching to see when some of the returned R51s have been returned to their owners. When I see that they have been repaired properly, I will send mine in. I am simply not going to send her back to sit on a shelf for goodness knows how long.

That is pretty much where I am. I realy want to see if they do anything with the chamber.

Unfired rounds on the ground? Been there. Sometimes it double feeds but I don't know how as I can't repeat it under close observation. But the slide will come back ejecting an empty followed by a live round as the slide returns feeding around into the chamber.

I've always considered 250-500 rounds to be an appropriate count for a break in of any semi-auto, rifle or pistol. Revolvers 200-300, and Bolt rifles 50-100. The only gun I expect to work 100% out of the box is a single shot. ;)

shinerjohn
May 1, 2014, 12:35 AM
The bottom line is that I'm gonna keep this pistol even if it is declared unsafe and they issue a recall. I don't think that will happen, but I'm sure they won't send it back to me if they do. So I'll hold on to her. If the model is discontinued then I will truly have a collector's item!!! And who knows? Maybe 537 rounds is the magic number???

Orion8472
May 2, 2014, 11:20 AM
I wonder how long this update will take? More than that, I wonder if the update will actually fix the issues people have been having?

I'm going to hold out for it because I think it will be the pistol that will be what I would like to have for carry if they can get it running reliably. I like the size and feel of it quite a bit.

hardluk1
May 2, 2014, 08:01 PM
I'm not looking for my wifes to come back anytime soon after talking to some no-nothing guy at remmy's CS. All that guy knew was it made it to para 4 weeks ago and nooo idea whats happen in general. If it works well maybe I can find it a new home .

barnbwt
May 2, 2014, 08:34 PM
I just learned a new R51 'party trick'*! :D The gun be cocked with one hand! Now, this is a party trick, so don't do it loaded, but your four fingers can be placed atop the slide, your pinky at/near the muzzle (my pinky sits on the front sight rather than the actual muzzle), your thumb tip in the small of the backstrap. Grip the slide with your first two finger digits, and sweep your thumb down to lock the slide back on an empty magazine.

Stupid trick (as most tricks are), but certainly something I can't do with any of my other autos, at least, not with my non-Karate-badass fingers :P. Would probably look totally cool with enough rehearsal, though :D

*Disclaimer: party tricks are stupid. never mix guns and parties, or guns & stupidity, or whatever :rolleyes:. Don't be an idiot.

Oh, and the gun continues to get smoother...(still fly-cutter tool marks on the slide rails to polish out, though :rolleyes:)

TCB

JRH6856
May 2, 2014, 08:43 PM
^^^ It works! :what:

barnbwt
May 2, 2014, 09:01 PM
lol :p

"That was like, totally Ninja!"

JRH6856
May 2, 2014, 09:45 PM
If that disconnector was just a little smoother... Really. I don't have large hands, and my right thumb is only partially functional, but I can do this with either hand. It's better left handed though. Right handed, my palm gets pinched in the ejection port.

gixxerpilot750
May 3, 2014, 04:57 AM
I won't be able to try the party trick until I get off of work, but it sounds exactly like how I take down a Glock....grabbing the top of the slide with thumb behind the rear of the grip where the web of the hand would normally be.

JRH6856
May 3, 2014, 11:38 AM
^^^ That's it. Almost the same grip for taking down the R51. Just have to grasp the slide closer to the muzzle in order to get a full cycle of the slide.

barnbwt
May 9, 2014, 08:13 PM
Disassembly, Part II:

I took the gun apart once more so I can re-install the hammer safety spring I neglected to put in last reassembly. It's worth noting that its omission had a barely discernible impact on trigger return spring force (nothing a better return spring couldn't do) and greatly improved the disconnector feel. I ran over two hundred rounds without trigger-related issue. So at this point I'm calling the part unnecessary; whatever it does purport to do could be better accomplished by a stronger trigger spring, tighter disconnector holes, and a slightly redesigned hammer safety (to guarantee it is always engaging the transfer stirrup)

I also took the opportunity to polish the dickens out of everything and note apparent wear patterns. Just used a small needed file for coarse stuff, a fine diamond honing steel for smoothing, and strop paste for polishing. Easy peasy.

Wear notes:
-Mag catch button has worn through the anodizing where it slides through the frame; perhaps these parts should have been smooth in finish rather than bead blasted all over
-At this point I'm saying the bolt is too soft a temper. The disconnector is still wearing a trench through the locking lug corner, this is the second time I've had to grind down burs that are raised and threaten to eat into the locking recess in the frame. A sharp punch's corner will snag the flat surfaces of the bolt; far too soft for all the camming/sliding it undergoes.
-The disconnector had a slight bur raised on one side of an ear; hard to tell if it was always there or recently developed.
-Peening of the slide/spring bushing stop on the frame appears to have ceased after I scraped away the first small burs on the sharp corners
-The bolt camming surfaces look the same as ever, and at least don't seem to be getting more gouged by the slide cams. I did notice a bur had rolled into the slot where the ejector blade passes, which I ground out. I suspect it has been there since the first gouging by the sharp slide cam corners
-The various safety bits haven't worn appreciably as I can tell

Polishing notes:
-The MIM sear tip and hammer bent are incredibly dull; like a .01" radius or thereabouts. Likely an artifact of the sintering which rounds off sharp corners. I stropped the tip a teeny bit so it was shiny all over instead of just at the contact point, but did not attempt to re-shape it
-The hammer strut had a ton of burs and sharp/rough corners on the back where the safety block straddles it; these ground/polished pretty easily
-The trigger stirrup was one bit mash of burs on all edges, including those when contact the sear levers and slide over the disconnector. Took quite a lot of filing, grinding, and polishing to get them normal looking. Polishing the sharp corners off the disconnector hooks was really annoying
-Polishing the disconnector was most significant on the flared-out 'rails' which ride on the stirrup. There were .01" burs all along these edges which were buffed out. There is less side-side engagement with the stirrup, but still enough to keep the part from slipping off, and it is much smoother now. I polished the inside flat faces of the disconnector and found the slotted holes were cratered inward significantly and bur-covered, so polishing inside there should help noticeably with binding.

And I think that's about it; about 1/2 hour of buffing. We'll see if it makes a real difference once I get everything back together (all the parts this time). If I find the slide is noticeably harder to rack due to the additional spring, it's goin' bye-bye and I'll make a better trigger return spring.

TCB

JRH6856
May 9, 2014, 11:58 PM
at this point I'm calling the part unnecessary; whatever it does purport to do could be better accomplished by a stronger trigger spring, tighter disconnector holes, and a slightly redesigned hammer safety

Probably the reason for two springs is to balance the load on both sides of the disconnector. I would think two springs of less power would be ticket rather than just one spring on one side.

Every time I field strip this gun, it has a different feel when it goes back together. Sometimes the slide has less resistance, some times more. Sometimes it is easy to rack immediately after assembly, but the nect day, it may take two to three times as much effort to get it to move.

One thing I noted is that the disconnector ears are angled on top to match the angle of the cut in the slide. But if the disconnector rises too high, instead of bearing on the angled top of the ears, the slide encounters the vertical front of the ear and drives the disconnector backward where it binds on the guide pins before being cammed downward. This is the first resistance taht is felt when racking the slide. The bolt really offers none as it is not being driven into lock, but being pulled by the slide which actually pulls it out of lock. This can be confirmed by pulling and holding the trigger while racking the slide. With the trigger pulled and held, the disconnector is pulled down and out of contact with the slide. The first resistance when racking the slide will be from the hammer, but once that is cocked, there is no initial resistance to the slide.

If the disconnector guide slots are too long at the bottom, the disconnector will ride too high and if the edges of the slots are rough, it will increase the binding. and is probably the main source of the gritty feel. Of all the parts, the disconnector would probably benefit most from greater precision in fabrication.

I'm still not ready to tear mine down completely until I see what Remington is doing with the returns. If they are addressing the problems we (mostly you) have identified, then I'll let them have a go at it. If not, I'll do it myself.

barnbwt
May 10, 2014, 08:26 PM
Yeah, I noticed what you noticed about the disco ears as well; not nearly enough extra margin on the ramped surface as you'd want to account for variance (especially on a piece as variable as Para made them). The other problem is that the two guide pins it rides on are far down inside the frame away from the ears; makes the torque applied to them (and binding) even worse. I think my concept of growing the ears out to the sides where the solid slide rails are would also have the benefit of better supporting the disconnector since the pins attached to the ears would ride inside slots milled into the frame and hit those before torqueing the guide pins.

I really need to CAD up a concept proposal and throw it up here.

TCB

barnbwt
May 11, 2014, 12:31 PM
I just reassembled the gun without the disconnector hammer for fun; slide rack is 5-7lbs as you pull it back, and smooth ('smooth' being a relative terms since the slide/rails aren't polished or anything). 5-7lbs consistent as you load up the spring; can't even notice the block being raised in there, it's all the disconnector's fault. I really think we need to develop a fix to keep the disconnector held down for the whole cycle (unless of course, Remington banked on its resistance slowing the slide down to safe levels :p)

TCB

JRH6856
May 11, 2014, 02:20 PM
I really think we need to develop a fix to keep the disconnector held down for the whole cycle

From what I can see, once the slide has depressed the disconnector, the bolt takes over and keeps it depressed until the disconnector rises again when the cutout on either side of the bolt passes over it. This cutout is there to provide clearance for the magazine when the slide is in battery.

Now, the question is, is there some critical function performed by the disconnector rising again once initially depressed? Or is this merely due to the presence of the mag cutouts in the bolt and nothing is compromised by letting it rise? If there is a reason that it needs to rise, any modification that keeps it depressed will compromise this. If not, then your idea may work, but would require extra steps during production.

My gut feeling is that maintaining closer tolerances when stamping the disconnector, followed by deburring and polishing the bearing surfaces inside the guide slots will do a lot. And perhaps further mods such as you propose would be best left for aftermarket tune-ups. OTOH, if you think it would not complicate production and raise production costs unacceptably, rather than post it here, you should send your CAD workup to Remington.

barnbwt
May 11, 2014, 08:47 PM
Finally, finally got the pistol put back together. I don't know why, but it was an almost impossible pain in the ass to get together this time. Once again, the magazine catch and sear pivot pins are the worst assembly design I've ever seen. I'm not even sure slave pins would help that much (removing the ejector to install the FCG parts would help greatly, but is not practical). Remington must have spent all their manufacturing/tooling budget on assembly jigs and labor.

"Mods" (nothing noticeable so far):
-Bought some 3/32" brass tubing and filed the exterior in a drill until I could easily press it into the oversized trigger hole. 3/32" is still .094" vs. the .093" pin diameter, so it wobbles about 2X as much as my Hi Power, but it's now below 1/16" so at least half was it was originally. Unfortunately, the bushing or the hole are not quite perpendicular so the trigger is tilted to one side, nearly contacting the frame (still contacts if you push it to the left). See attached
-Bent out the trigger return saddle spring so it actually does something; now the trigger returns fully, at the expense of possibly adding a few ounces to pull (not noticeably)
-Sharpened the sear and hammer notches; did not change the angles, just moved the engagement planes back a hair so there was less of a round tip than previously. A few thou at most. Trigger break is now more 'normal' than the brick-like wall of unnecessary positive sear engagement I had previously. Probably 5lb as opposed to 5.5 or 6 before.
-Polished the hell out of everything; stirrup, disconnector, the works
-Re-greased everything (I swear I've used more grease on this thing than my roller-delay STGW57 at this point)

Post-op notes:
-Adding the missing spring definitely increased resistance to dropping the disconnector; the slide now tries (unsuccessfully) to hang near the very end of its travel on the release stroke where it did not before. At least when racking it, the polishing seems to have helped greatly in that it is not much more noticeable than with the spring missing. I attribute the hang on the return to the much-steeper incline on the back side of the disconnector ears (wouldn't be an issue at all if it kept its head down for the whole cycle)
-Polishing the burrs off the hammer strut made the safety much smoother, even though I did not polish the actual camming points on the safety or backstrap

"Now, the question is, is there some critical function performed by the disconnector rising again once initially depressed?"
No. Allowing the disconnector to rise during the cycle accomplishes nothing but allowing the hammer to fall out of battery; no purpose, adds tons of friction/notchiness, and compromises reliability. Believe it or not, the disconnector doesn't even need to be pushed down in the first place since a full trigger pull will disconnect the sear on its own; the ears primarily function as an out of battery safety, albeit a crappy one.

The cuts on either side of the bolt are for the slide cams to ride in, and the underside is angled so the bolt doesn't crash into the feed lips when it tilts down.

"rather than post it here, you should send your CAD workup to Remington."
A corporation as bone-headed as Remington obviously is would never take a suggestion some random dude seriously; my hope is some posters here work in their design division and could pitch it to management as their own idea ;). Not like I have any dreams of working there, or anything (they don't pay engineers nearly enough)

Returning to the trigger 'mod' it is important to note I did not drill or modify the trigger in any way. That is actually how oversize the factory hole was (a good .02" in diameter). Also, can we get a round of applause for "Super Macro"? Huge fan of it, here :D. Were there no chance of me returning this for any warranty work, I'd have drilled the hole out to match the tubing diameter so the bushing would remain more concentric/coaxial (it's not) and to ensure the pivot hole was also perpendicular (it's not). If I were doing this mod for keeps I would also make the bushing wider so the trigger can't slide on its axis side to side (about 1/16" of play currently) and hit the frame cutout. This would require a new trigger return spring with larger loops, though. I'd probably also just make a new trigger out of steel ;)

TCB

JRH6856
May 11, 2014, 10:06 PM
Allowing the disconnector to rise during the cycle accomplishes nothing but allowing the hammer to fall out of battery; no purpose, adds tons of friction/notchiness, and compromises reliability. Believe it or not, the disconnector doesn't even need to be pushed down in the first place since a full trigger pull will disconnect the sear on its own; the ears primarily function as an out of battery safety, albeit a crappy one.

That's good. Then it won't hurt to reshape the ears abit to reduce the vertical face contact.

I would also make the bushing wider so the trigger can't slide on its axis side to side (about 1/16" of play currently) and hit the frame cutout. This would require a new trigger return spring with larger loops, though. I'd probably also just make a new trigger out of steel

So much for my idea of using the bushing as a slave pin. Making a new trigger seems like the best way. Doesn't llook like it would be too hard to do. Especially if you used aluminum instead of steel. Why steel, BTW?

barnbwt
May 11, 2014, 11:11 PM
"Why steel?"
Bluing :D.

"So much for my idea of using the bushing as a slave pin."
The spring appears to be about the same 'quality' as hobby store piano wire. I'll bet making an improved replacement isn't very difficult. You could probably squeeze a filed-down bushing inside the springs without them binding on it when flexed, but the bushing is only .01" thick so it's be really fragile until you got it installed inside the gun.

"Then it won't hurt to reshape the ears a bit to reduce the vertical face contact."
Just be sure you aren't messing with the timing of the system. It's easy to remove enough material that the hammer will drop with the slide further back than we want. Again, the system is so terrible as it is, that I question its actual functionality, but the idea behind what it's doing makes sense.

TCB

JRH6856
May 12, 2014, 12:06 AM
Just be sure you aren't messing with the timing of the system. It's easy to remove enough material that the hammer will drop with the slide further back than we want. Again, the system is so terrible as it is, that I question its actual functionality, but the idea behind what it's doing makes sense.

No, just take a bit off the front face of the ears so that the vertical face starts below the top of the frame. Otherwise, leave the height of the top and the angles the same.

As for bluing steel, a little Duracoat and an aluminum trigger would look good as new...literally. :p

Badger Arms
May 12, 2014, 01:39 AM
As for bluing steel, a little Duracoat and an aluminum trigger would look good as new...literally.

So, chipped up like a cockroach applied it? Or, would you rather have it look good?!

JRH6856
May 12, 2014, 10:50 AM
So, chipped up like a cockroach applied it? Or, would you rather have it look good?!
I think the appearance of the original is as much a problem of the unfinished item as the finish itself.

For me, function is primary, appearance is secondary. Steel is heavier than aluminum and the additional weight might affect the function of the springs. The existing aluminum trigger is skeletonized, perhaps out of a need to reduce the weight, so steel may not be functional without new springs. I can fabricate an aluminum trigger easier that a steel one because I have the necessary aluminum bar stock on hand and it is easier to work. As for coloring, there are a number of options, up to and including anodizing.

barnbwt
May 12, 2014, 07:29 PM
That's a good point about trigger mass; I wonder if drop safety may have been a factor? Because if you drop the gun onto something that pushes the safety in, and the trigger hasn't already dumped all its momentum into the safety block (which is won't if it's too heavy to move quickly), it could still discharge once the safety lever bottoms out and the whole gun comes to a sudden final stop. I'd actually wondered about this the first time I heard of the gun layout, since the safety and trigger movements are opposed and the safety is so big.

The tail of the gun would prevent this in the vast majority of muzzle-up drops, but dropping the butt of the gun onto a rail or ledge could possibly cause the scenario. A lighter trigger would undoubtedly help, at least. Hopefully it's not so critical that a better trigger and beefed up transfer bar would be danger-prone, though :uhoh:. It'd also be possible to bake in a kinetic safety of some sort as well that would interfere with the safety block and prevent its movement when struck from the back.

TCB

JRH6856
May 12, 2014, 07:39 PM
Well, the trigger design definitely changed between the prototypes at Gunsite and what showed up at SHOT. And something was going on that made the gun late for SHOT media day. Maybe they discovered a drop safety issue and the skeleton trigger was a quick fix? That could also be part of why it is so poorly made.

1SOW
May 13, 2014, 01:01 AM
I did finally get a reply from Remington about my returned R51 a little over a week ago.
"Sorry, etc. etc, etc. We expect to return your pistol within 3 weeks"
No word on "what's" being done to it.

When or if it is returned, I'll pass on what they did do. I'll be back here looking for your suggestions on where and what to smooth/polish to improve the performance. The Sloppy trigger concerns me --a lot. There has to be a way to remove some side-to-side play, improve the pin fit and smooth out the pull. Also would like to make the grip safety disengage without having to be so tightly held against the frame---I mean really tight--zero slack.

JRH6856
May 13, 2014, 02:21 PM
My grip safety has a little slack. Maybe a 1/16", but at that point if almost jumps the rest of the way tot he frame.

barnbwt
May 14, 2014, 12:01 AM
"here has to be a way to remove some side-to-side play, improve the pin fit and smooth out the pull."
Pin fit is an easy fix; new trigger or drill it out and press in a bushing (or file down the bushing to fit like I did). I got mine to ~1/4 the original wiggle using standard 3/32" brass tubing (which is till .003" or so oversize; a 'proper' hole would be half that or less and polished, too).

Smoothing the pull is also pretty straightforward, but I think is limited by the quality/weakness of the internal parts. Polish that stirrup and disconnector all you want; they'll still flex and bind, respectively. The trigger can be lightened greatly, but someone who actually knows what they're doing will have to take care of that for me (at least until Remington starts selling spare parts). I found my sear had a very round nose and very positive engagement; recipe for a break that is heavier and longer than it needs to be (especially since the gun has a trigger safety the high engagement really makes no sense. I think Remington purposely made it thusly so their lax production would not result in guns that fire themselves, or repeatedly with one pull :eek:). Due to the trigger safety design, I would be very reticent to attempt removing the trigger take up*, but its over travel could be tuned down a good bit (I don't think it would be self-disconnecting, though, so you'd be relying on the slide/disconnector interface to work properly more than you are now)

*The safety sear has a longer lever than the sear, so the extra take up is needed to disable it. A redesigned safety sear and stirrup could be made with a short lever so it deactivates with less take up or is timed closer to the sear's release.

The safety backstrap levers have two aluminum ramps that cam the safety block down. The angle of engagement is initially steep and shallows as the lever rotates, which is why the safety force drops as it engages. When fully depressed, the cam actually slips over the block, so very little camming force is delivered to the lever. Unfortunately, the tolerance stackup of the block, frame, lever, and cam seems to be pretty bad, which is why we have guns with too little safety block engagement (1SOW) and extra slop (JRH). Mine has maybe .05" of slack, not even worth mentioning. Seems they run the gambit (which might mean there are guns where the safety is half-off with the lever released :what:). It'd be nice if this could be adjusted somehow, but I don't see a good way that isn't complicated, like putting steel ramp inserts in the lever that are retained with set screws.

TCB

Frank V
June 21, 2014, 12:28 PM
barnbwt

I'm coming in a little late. I've kind of been watching the Rem R51. I've read of the returns & wondered if Remington would get it right. They totally screwed up the Marlin & are just now getting that sorted out, well kind of, they goofed up one of the best triggers on a factory rifle the 700, now the R51.
Remington has lost a lot of credability with me. For Auto pistols I'm pretty much a Glock guy, but have been watching as it is a nice compact thin auto. I'm hoping they will get it sorted out.
Thanks for all the time exploring & writing up your findings with the R51.

hardluk1
June 21, 2014, 07:39 PM
With remmy doing buy backs and no known fix in the near future along with company moves , it does not look promising to see a basically trouble fee R51 in the future.

JRH6856
June 21, 2014, 08:16 PM
ROC is doing buy backs, but so far it seems, only upon request. They haven't announced anything...at all. And it isn't the old Remington. Remington Arms disappeared into Freedom Group which seems to have taken the name and hidden the body, since Freedom Group is now Remington Outdoors Corporation (ROC).

I'm just guessing, but with the restructuring, assimilation of acquisitions, and consolidation of facilities, they probably have several product groups competing for limited engineering and manufacturing resources with each product manager lobbying for his product to have priority. They have reorganized themselves into a real mess that is not going to be easy to sort out without casualties.

1SOW
June 21, 2014, 09:27 PM
Agree with most of the comments above, but to update a little, I posted this:

Well 3 days before, I emailed again asking for an update on the planned fixes for my R51.

Surprise, surprise, I got a response:


Good morning, Mr. '1SOW',
The latest update is that your gun is going to be replaced. We are told that it should be coming back to you in about four to six weeks.
We appreciate your patience!


We are told that it should be........

Say what? Who told you? I thought YOU were Remington and responsible for this pistol.

Anyway, another month or 6 weeks is now a drop in the bucket.

I am glad it's being replaced, but hope the replacement will run smoothly.
When/if it comes back and it's 'shootable', I will shoot the pee pee out of it ASAP and report the results.

I hope it's been fixed. I like the feel and the new/old action that could be great.

barnbwt
June 21, 2014, 11:32 PM
The deployment of the R51 being a laugh riot notwithstanding, it doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with the function of the firearm, or identifying specific issues pertaining to function so they might be addressed. Let's steer the thread back that way, and leave the other thread to the topic of "whatever happened to the R51?" ;)

"Remington Arms disappeared into Freedom Group which seems to have taken the name and hidden the body, since Freedom Group is now Remington Outdoors Corporation (ROC)."
LOL, Invasion of the Corporate Body Snatchers :evil:

TCB

hardluk1
June 22, 2014, 09:16 AM
JRH 3 days ago I was told they was no fix yet. Interesting, 2 CS turds, 2 versions of whats up. Maybe all bull shorts.

Freedom group name is being deee-solved thats for sure. Does not matter there still a turd of a company.

Frank V
June 22, 2014, 03:52 PM
Agree with most of the comments above, but to update a little, I posted this:

Well 3 days before, I emailed again asking for an update on the planned fixes for my R51.

Surprise, surprise, I got a response:






Say what? Who told you? I thought YOU were Remington and responsible for this pistol.

Anyway, another month or 6 weeks is now a drop in the bucket.

I am glad it's being replaced, but hope the replacement will run smoothly.
When/if it comes back and it's 'shootable', I will shoot the pee pee out of it ASAP and report the results.

I hope it's been fixed. I like the feel and the new/old action that could be great.


I'm hoping they get it right for you, the R51 is an interesting looking pistol & would be a good carry gun IF it is 100%
Let's hope.

barnbwt
July 17, 2014, 10:11 PM
Monthly update, I guess...:rolleyes:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/foghorn/breaking-remington-scrubs-traces-r51-website/
It would seem the internetz are aflame with the shocking news that...Remington still hasn't prominently put the R51 up on their webpage! :eek: !!! It's being played as Remington 'erasing all traces of the gun,' but of course, those of us who'd been paying attention have been well aware that there was never much effort on Rem's end to market the gun online, going so far that the first warranty returns could not be entered into their systems (the support folks were unaware the guns had shipped :D). There was never much of a 'product page,' and this was apparently the case for the 1911 for the first several months of its release. Par for the course for Remington, I guess. Other bloggers are claiming that Remington's silence on the 'new development' indicates something, as though Remington has been vocal on anything at any point in the past (I didn't even know they had a mouth until the recalls :D). As before, Remington continues to 'erase history' while their articles/ads praising the gun continue to print; huh.

I haven't heard much from anyone who wasn't waiting on a return/refund, which is funny because there are plenty of functional guns out there being shot. Mine's still rockin' out, and since I've made sure to keep it properly greased every few hundred rounds, no new signs of wear or anything. How're the other fortunate few doing? Still great, or have you fallen out of love with the gun, or have you succumbed to the fear and peer pressure of those around you to get rid of it? :D

TCB

C0untZer0
July 17, 2014, 10:43 PM
It's almost the exact same size as the Ruger LC9, and the engineer from Remington said more calibers are to follow.

So it is kind of funny that Glock comes out with a 380 ACP the size of the LC9, and Remington comes out with a 9mm pistol the size of the LC9.

Remington will probably chamber this in 380 ACP eventually, which would make it the same size as the Glock 42, but with a grip safety and crisp SA trigger. And maybe by then Glock will have a single stack 9mm the size of the LC9?

That's why I say

Remington 1
Glock 0

OK, I was wrong.

A moment of silence please for the R51...

barnbwt
July 17, 2014, 11:12 PM
a moment of silence please for the r51...

Never! :D

TCB

Potatohead
July 18, 2014, 04:36 PM
Wow, a nice, well thought out, informative thread. With no chest thumping, name calling, one-upping, or"im smarter than you" posts.
.
Thanks guys! Very refreshing.

Deltaboy
July 18, 2014, 06:02 PM
It is Shame to see a Legendary Firearms Maker go to pot.

george burns
July 18, 2014, 06:16 PM
That's what happens when you try to apply fix after fix instead of just re engineering the problem areas. It almost never works out. Each time you fix one thing, it causes a failure in another area, or compounds the problem, tearing it down and starting from the point where you know everything was working properly , is the only way to fix it.
it sounds like it has turned into a tinkerers dream, there will be any guys who will undoubtedly find all kinds of solutions to the problems for Remington.

Gun Master
July 18, 2014, 06:59 PM
What do you guys think the best current replacement (which specific gun), is for what gun tooters were expecting of the flawed R1 ?:confused:

Also, do you think the kinks will ever be worked out of the R1 ?:rolleyes:

And, finally, do any of you think the R1 is the best thing since sliced bread (or burned toast) ?:neener:

Frank V
July 18, 2014, 09:43 PM
Gun Master

Ok you asked the best gun to replace the R51, easy, the Glock G19.:D

Do I think the kinks will ever be worked out of the R51, I hope so, but don't think they will!:banghead:

Is the R51 the best thing since sliced bread? NOPE in the autoloading pistol world the Glock owns that area!:)




Let the roasting begin!:what:

Gun Master
July 18, 2014, 11:47 PM
Gun Master

Ok you asked the best gun to replace the R51, easy, the Glock G19.:D

Do I think the kinks will ever be worked out of the R51, I hope so, but don't think they will!:banghead:

Is the R51 the best thing since sliced bread? NOPE in the autoloading pistol world the Glock owns that area!:)




Let the roasting begin!:what:
Ho! Ho! Ho!

I mean beside the Glock 19.:D

4v50 Gary
July 19, 2014, 11:04 AM
Good thread. I saw the R51 at SHOT and thought it was better than a Glock with respects to an arthritic older person who lost the upper body strength to pull back a slide (or work a DA/SA revolver). I hope Remington cures the R51 and puts it back on the market.

Gun Master
July 19, 2014, 02:50 PM
Good thread. I saw the R51 at SHOT and thought it was better than a Glock with respects to an arthritic older person who lost the upper body strength to pull back a slide (or work a DA/SA revolver). I hope Remington cures the R51 and puts it back on the market.
I totally agree with everything you said in this posting.

I developed arthritis several years ago, and within the past year it has gotten to be very painful in my hands, especially thumbs. Lots of problems using my hands (besides most joints of my body and back). But, I still like to shoot, and want to be able to defend myself and family.

I positively do want the R51 to become useable and useful to me and others.

Remington, don't drop the ball.

C0untZer0
July 19, 2014, 03:04 PM
It shakes my confidence in Remington though...

People carp about how high priced HK guns are, but I've had my P7M8 since 1985, and never had a problem with it.

It shot flawlessly right out of the box, no break-in period or anything like that. I have never had a failure of any kind with that pistol period - no failure to feed, go into battery, fire, eject or anything like that.
I have a lot of admiration for the engineering that went into that machine and a lot of respect for the high quality of materials and manufacturing as well as the craftsmanship of that gun, and it makes me think highly of other HK products as well.

I don't take comfort in the rumor that Freedom Group / Remington Outdoor Company purchased Rohrbaugh Firearms. I think as long as the Rohrbaugh brothers are actually overseeing the manufacture of the new R9 pistols they should be good, but I'm sure their departure after the transition period won't be publicized and I wonder if Remington has anyone who has the skills to make high-quality firearms.

barnbwt
July 20, 2014, 01:19 AM
Remington could have charged the moon for the guns, and I don't think it'd have changed the end product. If you can't ream a chamber right, and are willing to push it out the door, past complicit inspectors --there's no saving you, at any price. Remington should have done the re-org before, not after the release, and probably shouldn't have undertaken the project at all. But since they did, why not try to make the best of a bad situation?

TCB

JRH6856
July 22, 2014, 12:53 AM
Well, my R51 is still ROCking along. I haven't reamed the chamber so I still have occasional problems with some rounds failing the plunk test, but as long as the round passes the plunk test it will chamber and if it chambers, there are no problems with the firing cycle.

Early feed problems with one mag were apparently cleared up with an application of dry lube.

F-111 John
July 25, 2014, 06:45 PM
From The Truth About Guns: (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-remington-replace-r51s/)

BREAKING: Remington to Replace All R51s

Were you as excited by the original announcement of the R51 as we were? Were you then equally as horrified that a company with the history and tradition of Remington would release a QC-free POS like that upon the gun-buying public? If you were an early adopter (or just missed Nick’s review) and laid down some cold hard cash for one, Remington’s finally acknowledging the debacle and they’re trying to make things right. Friday afternoons are when everyone releases bad news so Big Green’s just let it be known that they’re offering to replace your R51 (with one that, you know, works, we presume) and will throw in two new mags and a custom Pelican case for your trouble. Their announcement after the jump . . .



Earlier this year, we launched the innovative R51 subcompact pistol to critical acclaim. During testing, numerous experts found the pistol to function flawlessly. In fact, they found it to have lower felt recoil, lower muzzle rise and better accuracy and concealability than other products in its class.

However, after initial commercial sales, our loyal customers notified us that some R51 pistols had performance issues. We immediately ceased production to re-test the product. While we determined the pistols were safe, certain units did not meet Remington’s performance criteria. The performance problems resulted from complications during our transition from prototype to mass production. These problems have been identified and solutions are being implemented, with an expected production restart in October.

Anyone who purchased an R51 may return it and receive a new R51 pistol, along with two additional magazines and a custom Pelican case, by calling Remington at (800) 243-9700.

The new R51 will be of the same exceptional quality as our test pistols, which performed flawlessly.

We appreciate your patience and support.

Gun Master
July 25, 2014, 07:33 PM
When, pray tell, may I buy a NIB (or New Out of the Box)) improved R51 ?:D

Tommygunn
July 25, 2014, 07:36 PM
It would be nice if they eliminated that chintzy "skeletonized" trigger and use the one the publicity photos (and the instruction manual) uses -- the SOLID one.


And even better if they got the chamber right ..............

Flatbush Harry
July 25, 2014, 08:28 PM
Great write-up. Though you've convinced me not to buy one, I appreciate your teaching here. Well done, and thanks!

FH

barnbwt
July 25, 2014, 09:25 PM
"BREAKING: Remington to Replace All R51s"
Words, nothing but sweet words; that turn into bitter wax inside my ears.

J/K :D. I doubt I'll buy Rem again, but that's because I doubt they'll bring out something so interesting ever again;). Glad to hear it. That is, anything resembling a press release from Remington, that is. I must say this development still jibes with my conspiracy theory involving them burning through all their operating capital as quickly as legally possible :p. They're just gonna give everyone a new gun, whether they work or not? Sorry, but I'll not trust, but verify ;)

I'll be royally pissed if they change the grip panel profile for no reason, that's for sure :D. Also, talk about a feature that people don't cripe about enough on the poly guns; no grip panel customization or classy-ization; just some boring 'ol backstraps.

Flatbush Harry, thanks for the praise

Tommygunn, there's a theory the original trigger made the gun unsafe when dropped; that it was so heavy, that the gun when dropped onto the backstrap safety, would depress it, and the trigger/transfer stirrup assembly would still have enough momentum to release the sear. And that's why we have a crappy, made-at-the-last-minute trigger off a bad Air Soft gun instead of something that actually fits right, let alone looks good. That would also explain why the sear engagement is so aggressive (to further prevent the trigger from slipping back under inertia). If that is indeed the case, I'm not sure how they'd 'cure' it without adding stuff like a tensioned trigger block to the current safety, or worse, a Glock thingie :barf:

At least in my gun, the slide will slip back out of battery (blocking the hammer) long before anything else can happen due to G-forces. A slightly more clever safety than the one used, would be to also drag down the disconnector in addition to blocking the hammer sears. In that case, you could actually use the disconnector ears as a firing pin block actuator (raised up into it to free the pin when the slide is forward, and the safety pressed) and greatly reduce the need for the crazy amount of firing pin travel and return spring tension (to make it muzzle-down drop safe).

I'm glad Remington is doubling down on their claim the pistol is safe, because it is*, and I hope that TTAG/et. al. take note of that and bring some evidence of actual failures to the table. I'm sorry, but the brass bulging like every Glock 10mm there ever was somehow doesn't quite cut the mustard, even if it is unacceptable behavior from the product. Poor function does not equate to dangerous function in this case. The consistent primer bulges are closer to a true safety hazard, one the 'expert' critical reviewers all managed to miss, and yet I haven't seen many (any? I think there was one low-pressure pin hole rupture of an out of battery event, which was far different from what people think of when they read "out of battery event") reports of primer piercing.

TCB

*What the gun is not, is consistent. Somehow, that was conflated into general appraisals of the design quality and safety, though a mechanical device as simple as a gun is almost by definition going to be a repeatable result if manufacture is similarly repeatable. Gawdawful chambers, sharp bearing corners, oversize holes, and metal shavings likely do not appear in the engineering drawings ;)

tekarra
July 26, 2014, 06:01 PM
barnbwt,

Thank you for your informative and well illustrated post. This one that will be retained on file.

JRH6856
July 26, 2014, 07:23 PM
Hmmm...

One would think that if Remington issued a press release announcing such a replacement policy, that they might post it on their website, say under "Press Releases". A search of the Remington site produces no reference to the R51 other than the original announcement. :scrutiny:

And the TTAG contains no link to an official source other than the phone number which is the main corporate number. Offices are closed until Monday.

barnbwt
July 27, 2014, 09:45 AM
I'm sure it was an "anonymous source" or something ;)

Also, what the heck is up with TTAG's website? The ads have gotten so bad it's practically unusable, where you can barely scroll or type a response. Maybe they should focus more on providing a good product like the one that attracted readers in the first place, and less on rent-seeking from their existing reader base (content sites never learn :banghead:)

TCB

F-111 John
July 27, 2014, 12:43 PM
Also, what the heck is up with TTAG's website?

My McAfee blocks a lot of their advertisements as harmful. That just started a couple of weeks ago.

DT Guy
July 27, 2014, 12:48 PM
Ad blocker and ghostery installed; what ads? :)
Larry

barnbwt
July 27, 2014, 01:56 PM
I'm not against sites having ads or whatever since both TTAG and the ad companies need our eyeballs to make the world go round (or whatever ad-theory says) but just so long as they aren't dorks about it :rolleyes:. When a site is slower than I remember pre-broadband being, it becomes my business ;)

TCB

hemiram
July 28, 2014, 03:30 AM
I have to admit, the whole crash and burn of the R51 is like a train wreck, I have to watch it happen. I didn't understand the appeal of this gun at all, from the first pic I saw of it. It's looks alone turned me off, but I never expected to see it turn into a mess that makes a Lorcin look like a work of art. There are a lot of modern guns that appear to be ugly for no other reason than to be ugly, and the R51 definitely fit that category. I expected it to be a "What's that?" gun I would see in the consignment case at the LGS once in a while, nothing more. A total disaster like this, I never expected.

jakk280rem
July 28, 2014, 05:35 AM
Sorta off topic, but I didn't think it warranted a whole new thread. I just picked up the September issue of guns magazine. In the centerfold is a double page close up of the left side of an R51 with what appears to be a cracked frame between the rear two pivot pins. I read through the article twice and found no mention of it. With the news of Remington fixing it and resuming production in October, is this going on the fixit list?

JRH6856
July 28, 2014, 03:04 PM
Sorta off topic, but I didn't think it warranted a whole new thread. I just picked up the September issue of guns magazine. In the centerfold is a double page close up of the left side of an R51 with what appears to be a cracked frame between the rear two pivot pins. I read through the article twice and found no mention of it. With the news of Remington fixing it and resuming production in October, is this going on the fixit list?
This is the first I've heard of any such frame failure, and there really should not be enough stress there to produce such crack. The pic you reference looks more like a flaw in the casting of the frame than a stress failure. Perhaps just a surface blemish. If so it would be another example of poor QC which I would expect to be addressed.

445gsd
July 28, 2014, 03:05 PM
I've seen a couple of forum comments (not here but elsewhere) that are patting Remington on the back for "doing right" by their customers. These individuals evidently have no concept that owners who purchased their guns in March have not had a functional (for its intended purpose of SD carry) firearm for more than 4 months. These same individuals (assuming they aren't shills for the company) also ARE NOT applying any sort of critical thinking to the matter or in the interpretation Remington's update. Anyone who think that the "new" R51 will be out in October, and/or that they will have a replacement, I believe is foolish. Remington released an update (7/25) that they are "replacing" all R51s. Production of the new guns is "expected" to start sometime in October. [not very committal at all...] Note, this DOES NOT mean anyone will be getting their gun replaced in October (which will already be over 7 months from when Remington started getting the malfunctioning guns back on RMA) - rather it means that they might [or might not] be producing the parts required for the production of the new guns on or by 10/31. There is NO ETA on when owners might actually get a replace gun back or the R51 will be back on the market. Oh, and I should mention that the "new" R51s will be produced in a brand new plant, in a different state, presumably staffed with brand new employees who've not even worked in the firearms industry. I honestly could not have imagined a more sorted, ugly, steaming pile of feces than what this matter has turned into. From gun writers (who presented themselves to be the corporate whores many of us always thought), to magazines supposedly staffed with "experts" who aren't "expert" enough to know that a firearm is having dire issues, to the filthy underbelly of the commercial gun press environment (and the coziness between the "journalists" and the corporations on paid for corporate junkets), to a company that would release a gun that could literally get someone injured or killed (either through inherit DISfunction, if not through a propensity to fire out of battery), then keep peoples guns for the much greater part of an entire year, I just couldn't imagine anything worse - until the slap in the face of the "update" that was actually provided.

This is my take on Remington’s “update” on the colossal mess that is otherwise known as the R51. First and foremost, let me speak to Remington’s claim “we determined the pistols were safe. . .” – I find this statement to be an utter falsehood. The R51 was and has only been marketed as a self-defense oriented, designed for concealed carry, combat handgun. Any firearm intended for this role, which is anything less than scrupulously reliable, is for certain *dangerous* in that it cannot be trusted to function if absolutely required to do so in a life or death situation. The R51 has shown a grievous LACK of reliability related to not one, not two, but SEVERAL well documented issues. These issues include (but are not limited to): an almost ubiquitous trait of not going fully into battery when being loaded, a propensity for repetitively exhibiting failures to function (mainly related to failure to extract), magazines that regularly fall out of the gun while shooting, and (most seriously) a documented (in multiple guns) ability to fire out of battery (a dangerous condition taken alone) which leads to the massively deformed case locking up the gun.

The bracketed inserts below are my comments and opinion.

“Earlier this year, we launched the innovative R51 subcompact pistol to critical acclaim.

During testing, numerous experts found the pistol to function flawlessly. [So called “experts” who by in large shot the guns at Remington paid for corporate junkets where said “experts” were wined and dined, and treated to days of free shooting by Remington? Experts who later reported that the Guns HAD malfunctioned at the Gunsite launch – but attempted to explain away the malfunction as caused by wind and dust at the range?]

In fact, they found it to have lower felt recoil, lower muzzle rise and better accuracy and concealability than other products in its class. [What obnoxious marketing crap given that they have had some people guns back on RMA for over 120 days now and have yet to state anything of significance to these individuals in this so called “update”!]

However, after initial commercial sales, our loyal customers notified us that some R51 pistols had performance issues. [“Some R51 pistols?! SOME? Really?!! They are going to use “news speak” to paint an image that only “some” guns had issues?]

We immediately ceased production to re-test the product. [b]While we determined the pistols were safe [As an owner of 2 of these Guns I whole hearted disagree that these guns are “safe” at all], certain units did not meet Remington’s performance criteria. [And how, pray tell, did these “some” guns make it out the door?]

The performance problems resulted from complications during our transition from prototype to mass production. These problems have been identified and solutions are being implemented, with an expected production restart in October. [With an “expected” restart of production? Does anyone really believe this? What exactly does “expected restart of production” mean anyhow? That on October 31st they might start making the parts again that ultimately are required to be assembled into functional pistols to return to owners? How long does it take from the “expected restart” to when fully functional guns are shipping to owners? Does anyone serious think that they will be getting their gun back before mid-December at best?]

Anyone who purchased an R51 may return it and receive a new R51 pistol, along with two additional magazines and a custom Pelican case, by calling Remington at (800) 243-9700. [My opinion on what this means – “we’re recalling this turd, but don’t want to call it that – so instead we’re “replacing” any R51s that have already been purchased.”]

The new R51 will be of the same exceptional quality as our test pistols, which performed flawlessly. [We’re supposed to take this company’s word that they ever produced a quality product in the first place? Why, because the “experts” they are so cozy with reported only SOME issues with “pre-production guns?” Because of the “critical acclaim” that was based on NOT shooting the R51? What about durability by the way? Anyone going to mention the fact that the current guns have been showing a propensity to shred themselves severely in fewer than 100 rounds? That upon cleaning your gun after a burning a box of ammo at the range, metal chips fall out of it?]

We appreciate your patience and support.” [Patience? I purchased 2 R51s in mid-March - by the time I expect I will actually receive replacements in mid-December *9 MONTHS WITHOUT A FUNCTIONING GUN WILL HAVE PASSED.* And my compensation is to be a plastic case in lieu of the cardboard box originally provided with the gun?]

I’ve learned to be very careful about saying “never” about anything in life. However, I will NEVER be purchasing another Remington product again. I don’t care if they truly do get the bugs worked out of the R51 [Something I seriously doubt] and they somehow work as claimed.

I also want to get his on record now. In the end, even if these guns can be debugged enough to function on some level that could reasonably be called "reliable" I believe the guns will STILL face a durability issue that will ultimately destroy them the longer they are shot. My honest belief (based on my guns and the wear they show from just a few hundred shots) is that these guns will have a service life of 1500 hundred rounds.


Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2014/07/25/remington-r51-pistol-update/#ixzz38m5XFBcJ

JRH6856
July 28, 2014, 04:09 PM
445gsd, Everything you say is true to an extent, but if you are going to parse Remington's update so precisely, you should do the same with the owner's manual.

The manual clearly states that Remington is not resposible for malfunctions involving non-Remington or Barnes branded ammo. Perhaps 99% of the ammo-related failures I have seen reported involve either non-Remington or unidentified ammo. I myself have had exactly the same malfunctions as others when using non-Remington ammo. And the only problem I have had using Remington ammo is an occasional failure to feed of 147g Golden Saber HP and this is due to a magazine problem..

There have also been reports of various feed failures and failures of the mag to seat or latch properly. I have also experienced these, but the manual clearly describes the loading procedure that eliminates these problems. Essentially, lock the slide, insert fully loaded mag, ranck the slide to chamber a round. At this point, the manual states that the pistol is fully loaded. Parsing that as you have done with the update leads to the conclusion that topping off the mag to 7 rounds and reinserting is NOT recommended procedure and the true operating capacity of the R51 is 6+1, not 7+1. When operated in this manner, magazine related problems all but disappear. The only magazine problem remaining is a failure to reliabley feed 147g Golden Saber HP. This is due to the front lip of the mag haning in the HP cavity of the overly long 147g bullet. Shorter HP rounds have not exhibited this problem.

As I said, your criticism of Remington and the R51 is fully warranted, but IMO, Remington has not deliberatly lied about the safety and functionality of the R51. What they have deliberately done is produce a product that does not meet the expectations or the requirements of the market for which it was targeted.

The SD market expects to make its own selection of ammo based on personal and situational requirements from the wide choice of products available, and not have that choice limited by the dictates of corporate marketoons seeking chain users to the brand.

The market also expects a stated specification to apply in actual use. Especially so with magazine capacity in a SD situation when every available round may be needed. Stating a capacity of 7+1, then defining a full load as 6+1 is contradictory and perhaps the clearest example of intentional deception.

The production and release of the R51 have been total fiascos. And there may be more serious repercussions in the exposure of numerous writers and publications as being little more that marketing shills for their advertisers. What many have long know, many more will now find hard to continue to ignore.

My R51 works for me. When I use the right ammo, it runs with no problems. If Remington does finally replace it wth a better made gun, fine. If not, I will continue to carry it and shoot it. But when it comes to new firearms, Remington is no longer on my list of trustworthy brands.

JRH6856
July 28, 2014, 04:20 PM
After talking to Remington CS it appears they are still in the dark. Talking to them, it appears they know nothing more than is contained in the "update". No details, no specific procedures for exchange, when I asked for confirmation that all existing R51s would be replaced, all he could say was, "Uh, yeah, that is how it is looking right now." and "New products won't be available until the end of October." I asked if there was a time limit on when existing guns could be sent in. He then went off for about 10 min "to check" and came back with the info that "there is no time frame right now" for sending in existing guns and more updates would be forthcoming (but there was no time frame for that, either). He had no information as to exactly what might be changed to improve the new production models.

Mman
July 28, 2014, 06:02 PM
This sounds just like what happened when Remington took over Marlin. We have seen this all before.

barnbwt
July 28, 2014, 11:58 PM
LOL, no, Marlin wasn't this bad. The Marlin fiasco was because Remington tried to relocate a bunch of antiquated machinery and manufacturing processes from the Victorian area cross-country. Marlin had obviously conned Remington into believing they were less of a Mickey Mouse operation than they were at the time of acquisition (stories of machines leaking gallons of oil with dikes built up around them, completely clapped-out mills and lathes --manual ones-- which could only be operated by the machinists that had used them for decades). From what it sounds like, Marlin itself would have been producing similar garbage within a few years as employees retired, only worse since they had no capital for reinvestment like Remington did. I suspect Remington got revenge, though, when they convinced Cerberus to pay what they did for a company rife with mismanagement and massive denied liability (a pent up backlog of recalls)

The R51 is made on new CNC machines that would otherwise be producing Para 1911 parts (I assume, since they were from the same Pineville, NC plant)

The only similarity to what Para did to the R51 was that every person involved in the program at the plant was complicit in getting faulty merchandise out the door; an organizational/management problem due to lax oversight and idiotic production goals that they obviously didn't learn from after the Marlin fiasco.

TCB

lincen
July 29, 2014, 06:18 AM
My daughter knows an employee from the Pineville Para plant. He told her that they all knew the R51 would be a huge failure due to Remington rushing it through and not having the proper tools. I hope to talk with him this weekend when we visit Charlotte.

JRH6856
July 29, 2014, 01:52 PM
You might ask him about tooling as well as tools. The apparent use of multiple strikes with a round punch rather than a single strike with a properly shaped punch when stamping the disconnector strongly supports the idea that Para had to make do with what tooling (and tools) they had in place.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, and I'm not convinced that everyone at Para was involved in an effort to sabotage the R51. Rather, it almost sounds like mgmt may have wanted to get it done in time for SHOT and create sufficient demand for sales momentum to carry them through the plant relocation and consolidation.

lincen
July 29, 2014, 04:01 PM
Believe me I am not trying to justify what was done at the Pineville plant, just explain a little. Also, they new they were going to be shut down fairly soon. There again, not defending them but....wow what a mess Remington made.

445gsd
July 29, 2014, 11:27 PM
Changed my mind...

barnbwt
July 29, 2014, 11:43 PM
My daughter knows an employee from the Pineville Para plant. He told her that they all knew the R51 would be a huge failure due to Remington rushing it through and not having the proper tools. I hope to talk with him this weekend when we visit Charlotte.
Ooh, man, I'd love to hear his excuses. So, everyone knew, and yet no one did anything. No refusal to sign off on dangerous/defective merchandise, no whistle-blowing to internal auditors/ethics folks, no protests, no going to the press in the weeks ahead of delivery to get a warning out. Nothing. They just took their checks, made out of spec parts, lied on quality forms, and pushed it out the door. I work in aerospace, where that kind of negligence will flat-out get you put away, so I have very little sympathy for folks who go along with dangerous management demands to get along. It's easy to blame management for making unrealistic demands, but those demands are made because they do not get proper notification from below; why would a home-office bean counter know that the shops were reduced to making bad parts with improvised tooling, if no one is willing to tell him? Can you blame him for ordering the shop to make do with less when there are no protests from the shop leads? His job is to cut costs where he can, after all, and the Pineville plant seems to have given the managers extraordinary assurances on what they could make do with, and the managers on their part, obviously made little effort to verify the promises were kept.

The apparent use of multiple strikes with a round punch rather than a single strike with a properly shaped punch when stamping the disconnector strongly supports the idea that Para had to make do with what tooling (and tools) they had in place.

Pshaw; nibbling parts ain't nothing big (not deburring them kinda is). Using endmills to make chambers; that's a big problem. Knowing the bad tools are making bad parts, and signing off on them anyway; that's a whole other issue.

I'm sure the Pineville plant workers were fearful for their jobs, and promised the corporate office the moon, that they could deliver this high-profile project ahead of schedule and below budget, that nothing would go wrong with the rollout, and that all production quotas would be met even in spite of a (probably) advanced delivery date. Whatever lead or manager at the plant must've been a really convincing flim-flammer, because no one bothered to audit the quality of goods being produced (makes me wonder if they were actually auditing reported expenses, man hours, safety standards, and God knows what else) beyond the quality checkers on site, who were also scared for their jobs and unwilling to make waves. Sadly, these actions of self-preservation directly led to the plant closure, and unless Remington is truly idiotic or desperate, few of the employees involved along the chain will be sought out for re-employment at Alabama; why wouldn't they bring the same attitude of incompetence and corruption with them? The managers probably won't be severed from the process, but their jobs will likely be hellish for a while what with all the onerous oversight they will doubtless receive for the foreseeable future.

To think of the worst case scenario had anyone at Pineville refused to go along with the scam and done what it took to make the corporate folks understand that what they proposed was an incredibly bad idea (or gone to the press if that failed). The delivery date would have been pushed back (to October, apparently, which would hardly be unprecedented for a new product from any company) and Remington would have had to eat a shipment of badly made parts and pay for rework/redesign of decent quality. Compare that to the loss of face, loss of customers, loss of dealers who were stuck with bad guns, recalled pistols, countless hours of customer service, total production shutdown for six months, collateral damage to their main marketing vehicles (magazines) who will be reticent to review for them again...plus the exact same costs (and lost opportunity cost) associated with fixing the design in the first place.

Easy to see how things can get out of hand when you put people in a tight spot and they don't have integrity

TCB

JRH6856
July 30, 2014, 03:18 AM
Hmm...It's easy to say what things should be like inside company, and easy to speculate how conditions might be different. But it's a lot harder to actually know unless you are actually there or can talk to someone that was.

Nuclear
July 30, 2014, 04:08 AM
This R51 fiasco wasn't a single person making false statements, or even a small group, it is the result of a culture of deception. Remington has lost the confidence of its customers not just for this one firearm, but across the board. I'm not one for conspiracies, but the scope of this goes beyond mere incompetence.

lincen
July 30, 2014, 05:52 AM
I've worked in manufacturing for 40 years, believe me, it is not all like the aerospace industry. You do the best you can with what you have and you can never tell the Emperor that he has no clothes.

Mman
July 30, 2014, 06:23 AM
This is why people buy glocks and hondas. Quality management and proven reliable dependable products.

lincen
July 30, 2014, 07:57 AM
Remington may be doing the "right thing" now but the time they have wasted in acknowledging a problem has caused permanent or at least long term damage to their already sinking reputation.

I've stated several times my reasons for buying an R51 and being made by Remington/Para was never a reason.

445gsd
July 31, 2014, 04:47 PM
...

Gun Master
September 11, 2014, 09:52 PM
I think this thread should be re-named, "The Birth, Short Life, and Death of the R51".

Sad. Many had high hopes that Remington could (would) save the R51.:(

JRH6856
September 12, 2014, 12:08 AM
Let's wait a month or so and see how the resurrection goes...

Orion8472
September 12, 2014, 10:22 AM
......and hope what is released isn't a zombie.

JRH6856
September 12, 2014, 10:46 AM
Meanwhile, mine is running fine. I'm going to be hard pressed deciding whether of not to send it in for exchange unless they make major improvements.

lincen
September 12, 2014, 12:48 PM
My R51 had some problems early on but the last 200 rounds or so were trouble free. I did use mainly Remington 115gr. ammo. My main complaint was the difficulty in racking the slide. It did improve greatly but never to the ease that was advertised.

l sent mine back to Remington and can only hope the new R51 will be even better.

Gun Master
September 12, 2014, 01:14 PM
My R51 had some problems early on but the last 200 rounds or so were trouble free. I did use mainly Remington 115gr. ammo. My main complaint was the difficulty in racking the slide. It did improve greatly but never to the ease that was advertised.

l sent mine back to Remington and can only hope the new R51 will be even better.
We all join you in that hope.

cfullgraf
September 12, 2014, 01:35 PM
Meanwhile, mine is running fine. I'm going to be hard pressed deciding whether of not to send it in for exchange unless they make major improvements.

Same here.

445gsd
September 12, 2014, 04:44 PM
I am cashing out and presently waiting on a refund check.

Initially, I was so enamored with the R51 that I bought 2 – and both were basket cases of problems. Had either worked it would have been a huge game changer and without a doubt (for me) positioned the R51 as my go-to daily carry. Unfortunately, in my 30 years of enthusiastic firearms ownership and collecting, I have not come across a single other example of such a severely flawed piece of junk. The R51, in my mind, is unparalleled for the sheer number of major flaws that could be packed into a single mechanical thing. Any one of the serious problems I found with the R51 should have probably been enough for a major recall – and I find it incomprehensive that something so screwed up, in so many ways, could have ever made it out the door.

Regarding the refund, after long and careful consideration, I have determined that I have zero confidence that Remington can make this right. How can I believe that they will make an honest attempt at fixing the myriad of problems with the gun, when they cannot even produce what I consider to be an honest press release on the whole matter? From their claiming that the pre-production R51s were “flawless” (when more than one "expert" present at the R51 Gunsite launch acknowledged jams that day and again during their individual testing), to Remington’s constant repetition that the gun is "safe" (something I have a hard time believing with OOB discharges, severe primer flow, and guns locking up with live rounds that cannot be extracted due to bullet contact with rifling), to the fact that Freedom Group has doubled down that this is not a "recall" but rather an "exchange" – I just see nothing but a hollow, feckless, overdriven marketing and sales organization – NOT a competent firearm manufacture that has any business or aptitude for designing and producing well made, reliable guns.

My personal prognostication is that the R51 will be back in people’s hands sometime after (not during) October and that some but not all of the issues will be resolved. Once back on the market, I do not believe that Remington will address any further problems with the gun. I also believe that none of the other head scratchers – such as the abysmally designed magazine floor plate, which looks like it more appropriately belongs and child’s toy gun manufactured in China – will ever be addressed. I believe the guns will continue to exhibit some of the less severe issues, and I also think that they will start to show long term durability problems, primarily at the interface between the breach block and the frame.

In the end, despite millions invested, I see the product never taking off due to lingering concerns stemming from the initial launch. I see the R51 eventually getting killed off, or the design sold to another company. I give it about 1 more year (after the 2015 Shot Show) before the plug is pulled. At that point it will join the ranks with the Colt 2000.

For giggles, here is a short history (from Wikipedia) regarding the Colt 2000. I see obvious similarities between the Colt and the R51 already. When considering the 2000, how could a gun jointly designed between Reed Knight and Eugene Stoner ever have failed? But it did, once Colt got ahold of it. Apparently, the R51 had been designed by a great engineer at AAC and was then moved over to Remington for production. See any parallels?

The Colt All American 2000 was introduced at the 1990 Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show). It had been a joint venture between Reed Knight and Eugene Stoner of Knight's Armament over a period of several years. Once the design was handed off to Colt, the two designers had little input regarding the final design.
C. Reed Knight specified that the pistol should have a 6-pound trigger pull. Colt increased this to 12 pounds and extended the barrel and length of the grip frame. The Colt 2000 was made from parts produced by an outside vendor and assembled in the company's West Hartford facility.

Despite the innovations and bearing the Colt name, the pistol was plagued with reports of inaccuracy and unreliability, and suffered from the poor publicity of having to be recalled in 1993. The massive product launch failed and production of the All American 2000 ended in 1994. Colt's President Ron Whitaker stated that sales volume was not sufficient for production to remain economical.

Colt historian, Rick Sapp, has called the pistol "one of the most embarrassing failures in the company's history." Massad Ayoob was particularly critical of the design calling it "sad and ugly with pathetic accuracy".

Design

The Colt 2000's internal workings were based on older firearms designs from the early twentieth century. The rotating barrel, for example, was based on that of the Steyr 1912 and the roller-locking mechanism was based on a design used by the French Manufacture d'Armes et des Cycles de Saint-Etienne since 1914.

Cooldill
September 12, 2014, 04:48 PM
So when is Remington's version II of this gun coming out?

I think there is still hope. Remember, the AR-15/M-16 didn't havea very good start at all, but look where it's at now.

JRH6856
September 12, 2014, 08:42 PM
According to Remington, production is to resume in October.

And the initial reports from Gunsite were very good. There were a few problems, but the good:bad ratio really reversed itself when the production guns started coming out of Para. That is a pretty good indicator of where the problem was. With all ROC production being consolidated in a new facility, a soon-to-be-closed Para plant is out of the picture and they can get a fresh start and maybe do it right. Maybe it's because I have a gun that is functional enough for me to appreciate its good points, but I hope they do get it right. The design deserves a better fate than it has had so far.

Gun Master
September 12, 2014, 10:06 PM
I wish them all the best.

They have a tough row to hoe.

C0untZer0
September 13, 2014, 12:04 PM
Initially, I was so enamored with the R51 that I bought 2 – and both were basket cases of problems. Had either worked it would have been a huge game changer and without a doubt (for me) positioned the R51 as my go-to daily carry. Unfortunately, in my 30 years of enthusiastic firearms ownership and collecting, I have not come across a single other example of such a severely flawed piece of junk. The R51, in my mind, is unparalleled for the sheer number of major flaws that could be packed into a single mechanical thing. Any one of the serious problems I found with the R51 should have probably been enough for a major recall – and I find it incomprehensive that something so screwed up, in so many ways, could have ever made it out the door.

unparalleled for the sheer number of major flaws that could be packed into a single mechanical thing

Ahhh that's great.

445gsd
September 16, 2014, 01:25 PM
And the initial reports from Gunsite were very good. There were a few problems, but the good:bad ratio really reversed itself when the production guns started coming out of Para. That is a pretty good indicator of where the problem was. With all ROC production being consolidated in a new facility, a soon-to-be-closed Para plant is out of the picture and they can get a fresh start and maybe do it right.

To be clear at the outset, my issue in replying to the above is NOT to argue with the forum member, rather to take issue with Remington, and to ensure that what I feel is a correct representation of the matter is communicated.

Remington used the word “flawlessly” twice, in their 170 word July 25th “product update” on the R51. Specifically:

“During testing, numerous experts found the pistol to function flawlessly.”

“The new R51 will be of the same exceptional quality as our test pistols, which performed flawlessly.”

The definition of the word flawlessly is as follows:

flawless [flaw-lis] adjective - having NO defects or faults,

Let's break this down. Remington used the word flawlessly twice – this wasn’t a mistake – they seemingly want to convey that the guns at Gunsite functioned without fail. For the R51 to be qualified as functioning “flawlessly” at the event, then all guns should have provided 100% reliability – i.e. having no “faults”. I don’t believe this is a word even open for debate given the relative low round count associate with the Gunsite R51 launch. So, If we think about it, the colloquial use of the word a “few” typically is used to represent 3-5. That could be extrapolated to be a 1% failure rate at Gunsite. Possibly low by some peoples estimations (not mine, not for a SD firearm), but certainly nowhere near “flawlessly” either. I base this on what Bryce Towsley stated he observed while in attendance at the Gunsite launch event.

Towsley stated in his article on the R51 that at the Gunsite launch there were 12 guns and 5000 rounds fired through them. He clearly states that “. . .near the end, we did see a few jams.” He attempts to explain this as an issue with wind, dust and the guns being dirty. Applying some basic math to the situation he described, there were about 416 rounds fired through each gun. For the sake of argument, let’s assume they were 90% of the way through the ammo at the time they started seeing “jams.” This would be around the 350-375 round mark. Personally, I don’t buy the “Gunsite” is a dirty a place excuse, and I am NOT impressed by guns that that start to malfunction with less than 400 rounds through them. Regardless, my opinion shouldn’t even matter hear because Remington said the guns functioned “FLAWLESSLY.” Therefore, there should have been ZERO “jams” reported for the day for Remington’s statement to reflect what was reported by Towsley.

In Jeff Quinn’s video on the R51 (at :47 seconds in) he states regarding the Gunsite launch of the R51 “there was a malfunction or two during that time, they were pre-production guns…” To be clear he doesn't specify whether this was for all guns, or just a couple - but I'm inclined to believe it means a malfunction or two per gun.

In Jeff Quinn’s Gunblast review of the R51, he reports problems with 2 different manufacturers of ammo – WCC and Buffalo Bore. Again, the gun is not reported to have functioned “flawlessly.”

So let me share this as well. I personally find Towsley’s, Quinn’s and Richard Mann’s articles, videos, comments to videos, and blog posts to all be quite generous to Remington. Further, all 3 were invited to the corporate junket, err R51 product launch at Gunsite. (Mann declined to go, choosing to hunt instead, with the other 2 attending) Two of these 3 (Quinn & Mann) were among the very first to report on and actually post Youtube video on the R51. Given that Towsley was invited to the launch as well, I believe that these 3 are among the “experts” cited by Remington in the product update. None of the 3 have stated that the guns ran “flawlessly” in what I’ve been able to find - contrary to the Remington statement.

I don’t see where anyone (aside from Remington marketing) has stated publically that the even the pre-production guns ran “flawlessly.” I find it disingenuous therefore that Remington would tell me (through their “product update” )that they would be providing me a gun that runs “flawlessly” when the ones they reference didn't even do so. I don't believe the guns ever ran "flawlessly" and I question Remington setting such a high bar given the failure they've had right out of the gate with this firearm.

Kleanbore
September 16, 2014, 02:02 PM
All speculation and hype.

We'll see what develops.

1SOW
September 16, 2014, 10:26 PM
"We'll see what develops."

That's the truth of the whole fiasco.
My new in the box 51 is said to be coming home next month. I was on the list early, so they (Reimington?) said I'd get one of the first available.

I'm crossing my fingers that this means carefully quality controlled to make sure there isn't isn't an immediate second fiasco.
I AM an optimist.
I AM an optimist.
I am an optimist?

Monac
September 16, 2014, 11:15 PM
Deleted.

JRH6856
September 16, 2014, 11:40 PM
"We'll see what develops."

That's the truth of the whole fiasco.
My new in the box 51 is said to be coming home next month. I was on the list early, so they (Reimington?) said I'd get one of the first available.

I'm crossing my fingers that this means carefully quality controlled to make sure there isn't isn't an immediate second fiasco.
I AM an optimist.
I AM an optimist.
I am an optimist?
When it arrives please post a report. I'm holding off on exchanging mine until I am reasonable sure that what I get back will be better than what I now have.

And for 445gsd: flawless means without flaw, not without failure. Not all failures are due to flaws, and the reported failures did not appear to be associated with identifiable flaws.

Frank V
September 17, 2014, 07:20 PM
I'm hoping they get it right too, I have some doubts. It took an awfully long time to get the Marlin fiasco sorted out & they lost a wonderful reputation. Some say it's still not sorted out.
Let's see, the Marlins, the triggers on the 700s (I'm not convinced it wasn't operator error) & now the R51???
They've got a LOT of sorting to do.

Gun Master
September 17, 2014, 07:56 PM
I'm hoping they get it right too, I have some doubts. It took an awfully long time to get the Marlin fiasco sorted out & they lost a wonderful reputation. Some say it's still not sorted out.
Let's see, the Marlins, the triggers on the 700s (I'm not convinced it wasn't operator error) & now the R51???
They've got a LOT of sorting to do.

Yeah, sort of ! :o

barnbwt
September 17, 2014, 11:12 PM
Okay, I may be about to sound like an oversensitive 'feely' for a minute, so bear with me;

I put this thread together to give a (then) thorough look at the internals of the R51, along with an explanation --derived as I went along-- of how everything worked inside the gun. For the benefit of both myself, as a curious tinkerer, and for others who are unfamiliar with the Pedersen action or the R51's incarnation of it. I worked fairly hard on the photo/text project at the front end of the thread (primarily for my own amusement, of course). I know this is a public forum/thread, so it's not like I'd play at claiming 'ownership' of the discussion, but I do somewhat resent seeing my efforts smothered by off-topic banter not having to do with the pistol.

It was not created to bash, denigrate, speculate, opine, or even report on the progress of the gun's sale or subsequent withdrawal for rework. It should not be closed, since I fully expect to post another teardown of the "new" R51 should the next batch prove to be superior or notably different from the first iteration. I don't deny the issues, I've weighed in on them at length; but my patience for deviating from the thread's purpose is getting stretched.

The thread has drifted considerably. Understandable, since there has been little else to speak about for six months besides how crappy the rollout is/Remington's bad customer service/how 'dishonest' a promoter's press release is about a troubled product (I assume you hold Don King to such high standards as well?).

But that does not change the fact that such discussion has nothing to do with EXPLAINING the R51. The purpose of the thread. If you care to give meaningful explanations as to why something works or does not work the way it does, or heck, even to toss up valuable info on how your gun was flat-out mismade or something, by all means speak up. If you have function questions or ideas about how stuff could be improved or expanded upon, for goodness' sake, spill the beans already!

If you want to gnash and weep about how a product you bought sight unseen based on early (and quite spotty, as I recall) reports didn't quite live up to your high standards ("flawless" is something even H&K wouldn't claim, and you think a gun worth two Hi Points should be held to the same, regardless what some PR hack says?), start a flame thread elsewhere about your CS experience or recall check or whatever. The properties of the check have no bearing on how the gun works (or am I missing something?)

Here's some good "What the H--- Happened to the R51?" threads such conversations would be right at home in;
Whatever Happen to the R51? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751655&page=5&highlight=happen+r51)
A Thread Specifically About the Recall Process (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=759456&highlight=r51)
Hey, here's one with me ribbing the R51, just so you know I'm not a fanboy without humor, but just a devoted fan (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=757709&page=2&highlight=r51) ;)

I don't think there's been any actual gun related discussion here since page 5 or thereabouts. Please consider taking it up in another thread.

Thank you for looking over the thread and for your helpful or enlightening contributions regarding the function and construction of the Remington R51. This Pansy Service Announcement is now complete; thank you for your cooperation :)

Here's a jumping off point for someone; has anybody gotten the laser guard thingie for the gun, yet? How well does it work, how/how well does it attach?

TCB

Frank V
September 18, 2014, 11:31 AM
barnbwt

I guess I'm as guilty of drifting as anyone & I humbly appologise.
I will not drift farther.
Frank

Kleanbore
September 18, 2014, 11:54 AM
I very much appreciate the discussion.

I have followed the R51 since the initial announcements, and I have been very disappointed with the problems that have occurred.

The proof will be in the pudding--reliability, shootability, etc.

I'll shoot one before buying.

445gsd
September 18, 2014, 04:23 PM
Here's some good "What the H--- Happened to the R51?" threads such conversations would be right at home in;
Whatever Happen to the R51? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751655&page=5&highlight=happen+r51)
A Thread Specifically About the Recall Process (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=759456&highlight=r51)
Hey, here's one with me ribbing the R51, just so you know I'm not a fanboy without humor, but just a devoted fan (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=757709&page=2&highlight=r51) ;)
TCB

Any reason the link to the thread that had pictures of ruptured cases from OOB discharges only pulls up in a text version? I'd like to see the actual thread (and pics) if anyone has the link.

Thanks.

JRH6856
September 18, 2014, 11:11 PM
Which thread is that?

I too, would like to see the pix of ruptured cases as I can only recally seeing pix of bulged cases.

Deltaboy
September 18, 2014, 11:20 PM
Man this is a lesson in poor engineering and manufacturing processes. What a mess.

Gun Master
September 18, 2014, 11:37 PM
Man this is a lesson in poor engineering and manufacturing processes. What a mess.

......., and poor PR !:mad:

Gun Master
September 19, 2014, 08:17 PM
I wish Remington, or somebody else, would make a good replica of the old Remington Model 51 in .380ACP !:D

Yeah !:)

JRH6856
September 19, 2014, 09:18 PM
I wish Remington, or somebody else, would make a good replica of the old Remington Model 51 in .380ACP !:D

Yeah !:)
With a redesigned bolt block as that seems to have been the weak spot of the original.

But I'm curious as to why. :confused:

barnbwt
September 19, 2014, 09:29 PM
If they're gonna scale it down (as if they would; it's pretty plain they intended to do a 45acp, first), I'd actually prefer it in 32acp. Being a locked action, they could increase pressure a good bit without bumping into safety or recoil issues, and you could shrink the whole platform quite a bit. Make it upward-ejecting, and I think you could get it extremely thin, as well (the slide's strength won't be as effected across the rails).

I still would like a mouse-gun using this action in 5.7x28, with a ~10 round "1.5-stack" magazine. Unfortunately, case length would likely dictate the gun couldn't get much shorter than it already is, but I strongly suspect you could get it to nearly 3/4" thin and a little shorter on the grip (three finger instead of four). The frame itself is so simple that I've actually been looking into whether or not a production gun could be adapted to the Pedersen setup with a welded-on & hardened block, and the original slide milled out for a separate breech block and bolt-on lifiting cams.

TCB

JRH6856
September 19, 2014, 10:34 PM
I think they intend to do .40S&W on this same frame/slide before scaling up to .45. Probably just need to scale up the slide. The mag well will almost accept my 1911 mags.

barnbwt
September 20, 2014, 09:13 AM
Someone with a 45 check for me, but I thought we'd determined acp would fit in the existing mags if the stamped grooves were absent --that's why my assumption. Heck, the mags are almost long enough to feed 7.62x25 (almost :()

It's funny; remember how ticked off everyone was after that idiot blogger falsely said the R51 would be the size of a Glock 380? With all the online folks saying the gun was now "huge" and et cetera? I wonder how they'd feel about a 5-6 shot 45acp (+P?) the size of a G26, but 3/16" narrower?

TCB

JRH6856
September 20, 2014, 01:06 PM
1911 mag is just a little too long (front to back) to fit the R51 mag well. .45ACP 230g hardball seems to be just a little too long to fit the R51 mag. SWC or truncated cone or deeper seated round nose would fit the mag if the spacer folds and front lip were reshaped. The R51 frame should handle .45ACP just fine. I'm just not sure about the slide and bolt.

agtman
September 20, 2014, 05:55 PM
R51 ... Junk, get rid of it.

JRH6856
September 20, 2014, 06:20 PM
R51 ... Junk, get rid of it.
Well, that's helpful :rolleyes:

Gun Master
September 20, 2014, 08:40 PM
"The R51 is dead ! Long live the R51 !":(

445gsd
October 16, 2014, 07:37 AM
Anyone get theirs yet? When are they supposed to show up?

barnbwt
October 16, 2014, 09:50 AM
October... :rolleyes:

TCB

1SOW
October 16, 2014, 09:03 PM
barnbwt+1

Fingers crossed.

Gun Master
October 16, 2014, 09:31 PM
October... :rolleyes:

TCB

Hey, this is October !:confused:

Any insider info on R51 resurrection ?:cool:

Goju
October 16, 2014, 10:33 PM
And Remington did specify 2014.....right?

barnbwt
October 16, 2014, 10:36 PM
Actually, come to think of it, I don't think they actually did give a year in their press release :D :D

You would think there'd be some sort of insider (or official, for Pete's sake :rolleyes:) announcement proclaiming either a delay or the triumphant start of production. Remington employees have tighter lips than the State Department, it seems. Either that, or there's no one working on the program to leak about it :evil:

It's like Willy Wonka's factory over there, or something :confused:

TCB

Frank V
October 18, 2014, 03:15 PM
barnbwt

Oct. Wow Oct is here. Do we really dare hope?
I was just starting to warm up to this gun when everything went south.
Hope they pull it out!

Gun Master
October 18, 2014, 04:06 PM
Maybe they're waiting until Halloween, to scare us all ?!!!!:evil:

JRH6856
October 18, 2014, 04:46 PM
Wouldn't Halloween be the best time to bring something back from the dead?

lincen
October 18, 2014, 05:26 PM
On the Remington forum there is a post that includes a response from a "senior executive" at Remington;

"Thanks for your continued interest. No firm release date yet…still working on a couple of enhancements.

I will let you know when production resumes."

Another comment there got me to thinking. Does anyone think that the aluminum frame will hold up like the older steel frame Pedersen action handguns?

JRH6856
October 18, 2014, 06:41 PM
Does anyone think that the aluminum frame will hold up like the older steel frame Pedersen action handguns?

Based on what I am seeing on mine so far, yes. I would not consider a steel frame to be an enhancement as it would definitely make it too heavy for pocket carry. OTOH, a hybrid polymer/steel frame might be.

Gun Master
October 18, 2014, 07:45 PM
Based on what I am seeing on mine so far, yes. I would not consider a steel frame to be an enhancement as it would definitely make it too heavy for pocket carry. OTOH, a hybrid polymer/steel frame might be.

How about more options ? Alloy/steel; polymer/steel; steel/steel !

Me likie choices !:D

JRH6856
October 18, 2014, 08:08 PM
How about more options ? Alloy/steel; polymer/steel; steel/steel !

Me likie choices !:D
I think they are going to have a hard time getting market acceptance for just one of those.

Gun Master
October 18, 2014, 08:17 PM
I think they are going to have a hard time getting market acceptance for just one of those.

I had my hopes up, but I'm afraid you're right.:o

I wish they'd reproduce their original Model 51, and do it well. That would be really worth waiting for.:D

1SOW
October 19, 2014, 12:18 AM
With the fixed bbl, the aluminum frame should hold up fine if the internals are machined properly. Sig P-series aluminum frames last just fine .

barnbwt
October 19, 2014, 01:18 PM
"Does anyone think that the aluminum frame will hold up like the older steel frame Pedersen action handguns?"
It probably isn't an issue. Or rather, it doesn't have to be. But that's a question of how well the parts were engineered. So long as the contact area is broad, there will be no peening, and as long as the parts are smooth/lubed there should be no galling or abrasion. I noticed my bolt/shoulder wore to mate each other pretty rapidly, but then have stayed mostly stable since then.

The problem I keep running into is that the bolt is so soft, its locking surface is peened outward by riding over the disconnector, this little raised bur digging into the aluminum shoulder of the frame. Granted, this is mostly evident on the top face of the frame, not the front where it matters, but I still don't like metal moving around like this.

Simply because the whole aluminum/steel thing seems to be a bridge too far for most folks (it just keeps coming up on the 'worries' list), I suggest they mill a pocket into the frame, and install a hardened steel locking shoulder like the FAL or BREN did. What I don't understand are people who have doubts on the aluminum/steel rails. I thought numerous companies have been successfully doing aluminum lower frames for...decades :confused:

The funniest part of this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter in all likelihood, at least for less than 1000 rounds. There's been no indication the shoulder can wear enough to fail to stop the breechblock, so the gun will lock up safely, and the way the Pedersen system works, if the locking face sets back even a massive .01" inside the gun, it would still function identically so long as the bolt can easily slip up and over the frame shoulder. Obviously neither of these things is good for long term durability, but it sounds like the action should be far more resilient in the face of damage/deformation than, say, a 1911 whose lugs would peen/shear, then immediately Kaboom to inform the user something was wrong :D

TCB

barnbwt
October 19, 2014, 01:22 PM
"I wish they'd reproduce their original Model 51, and do it well. That would be really worth waiting for."
We'd be hearing about broken bolts/slides almost immediately. As bad as the R51 has been, it seems Remington at least corrected the two true design flaws of the original. If they'd built this new model to standards of the original, the gun would be like 1500$, but would probably hang with 1911's in the same range. I don't blame Remington for catering to a broader market, though (I do blame them for failing to cater to anyone without cooking the food fully)

TCB

lincen
October 19, 2014, 03:21 PM
barnbwt, thank you for your response. I was hoping you would post about that concern. Since I had sent mine back I no longer have an example to observe. I have no worries about aluminum frames and own a good number of them. You answered my concern as it was only about the Pederson action with an aluminum frame. I do appreciate you in-depth explanations of the functioning of the model R51.

Jaymo
October 19, 2014, 05:56 PM
My LGS has one and the counter jockey advised me against buying it. I was tempted to get it anyway.
Its shape reminds me of the Mauser HSC, Makarov, and the Vektor CP1.

I like how snag free it appears.

Sure hope R51 v2.0 has the bugs worked out.

I remember grumblings about problems with the Ruger SR9, when it was a new, I finally bought a new SR9 in 2013 and it has been fantastic.

As much as I dislike the Glock (IJ ripoff) trigger, I'd rather Remington use it if it fixes the problems with the trigger.
Ruger used it and it works well for them.

I just want the R51 to be a good gun, because it appeals to me.

I appreciate your teardown and explanation of the gun.

JRH6856
October 19, 2014, 06:09 PM
As much as I dislike the Glock (IJ ripoff) trigger, I'd rather Remington use it if it fixes the problems with the trigger.

What problem do you believe the trigger has that would require such a drastic redesign of the pistol? Remember, the R51 does not use a partially pre-cocked striker, it uses a fully cocked hammer.

Jaymo
October 19, 2014, 06:52 PM
I was just saying that IF it required such a radical departure to fix it.

It looks like what it really needs is for the crack pipes to be taken away from the decision makers at Remington. ;)

Seriously, building it more like the prototypes seems as if it would fix most of the problems.
That, and utilizing a little thing known as quality control.
As much as I hate to advocate the use of MIM parts, that could very well be what needs to be done in order to make it into a working gun.
I know that MIM parts can be great, when done correctly. I'm just not ready to jump on that bandwagon.
I honestly hope Remington gets it right. I really want one.
Even though a Kel-Tec P11 makes more sense for me because I can use my 59 and 69 Smith mags in it, I like the look and feel of the R51.
I hope they don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm still tempted to go back and buy it, just to see how good/bad an example I get, and see what a cleaning and fluff/buff can do for it.
Eve if it's short and/or tight chambered, a reamer will put it in spec.

I guess now is a good time to bring back the old nickname for the 742; Jammington.

JRH6856
October 19, 2014, 09:34 PM
I was just saying that IF it required such a radical departure to fix it.

That is what puzzles me. There is nothing radically wrong with. Just a little wobble that can be fixed with a bushing.

Jaymo
October 19, 2014, 09:51 PM
So, basically, just building it correctly.

barnbwt
October 19, 2014, 10:23 PM
Every small part inside the gun (likely including the breech block before final machining) is MIM, btw. These parts exhibit the best apparent workmanship apart from maybe the exterior surfaces. Not surprising since it seems thoze were farmed out to a subcontractor.

A striker fired conversion would seem to be really difficult since the bolt body tilts up and down inside there. I'm sure it could be done, but I bet the trigger would be inconsistent, shot to shot, as the striker/sear move relative to eachother. Total redesign of the lower, at best. You would also end up with a crappy trigger pull, compared to what the R51 is capable of achieving. It would be cool to have a no-manual-safety striker gun out there without a trigger drop safety lever, though :cool:

TCB

445gsd
November 3, 2014, 04:01 PM
Anyone get theirs back in October?

Rumor mill states has it that the gun is held up pending some sort of engineer "sign off." No ETA.

1SOW
November 3, 2014, 10:26 PM
I emailed a few weeks back asking if they would be ready soon. I haven't heard a word from Remington.

In Texas, if it's a replacement pistol it appears an FFL isn't required even with a different ser. number. Some/Most others would first get asked for an FFL to transfer it to the owner..

Gun Master
November 3, 2014, 10:54 PM
I emailed a few weeks back asking if they would be ready soon. I haven't heard a word from Remington.

In Texas, if it's a replacement pistol it appears an FFL isn't required even with a different ser. number. Some/Most others would first get asked for an FFL to transfer it to the owner..

Ah-hah!

Shame on you Remington! You blew it !:rolleyes:

445gsd
November 7, 2014, 02:57 PM
Latest rumor from Remington Owners forum...

Long time reader, first time posting.

I returned my R51 (serial # 00018XX) in early July due to primer flow issues. Overall I liked the pistol but didn’t feel comfortable with the possible overpressure. Three days ago I sent an email to Remington asking the status of my replacement pistol. I received this update yesterday:

The 2nd generation R51 Pistol was expected to release by end of month October. We received notification by the manufacturer there has been a delay on completing necessary testing and inspections of the pistols that have been produced. Currently we do not have an expected release date, we hope to have this information available over the next couple of weeks. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused, it was much to our own surprise as well.

Sincerely,
Customer Support

Gun Master
November 7, 2014, 11:40 PM
Latest rumor from Remington Owners forum...

Long time reader, first time posting.

I returned my R51 (serial # 00018XX) in early July due to primer flow issues. Overall I liked the pistol but didn’t feel comfortable with the possible overpressure. Three days ago I sent an email to Remington asking the status of my replacement pistol. I received this update yesterday:

The 2nd generation R51 Pistol was expected to release by end of month October. We received notification by the manufacturer there has been a delay on completing necessary testing and inspections of the pistols that have been produced. Currently we do not have an expected release date, we hope to have this information available over the next couple of weeks. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused, it was much to our own surprise as well.

Sincerely,
Customer Support
I reading into this "...., ...., pants on fire ".

barnbwt
November 8, 2014, 10:01 AM
Wow, so they didn't plan for a T&E period twice in a row, now! :D

TCB

JRH6856
November 8, 2014, 11:48 AM
In Theory, everything works in practice. In practice, not so much. I'm beginning to believe the whole company only works in Theory.

1SOW
November 8, 2014, 07:22 PM
:cuss::banghead:
At least they responded to you. Mine went back much sooner. Nothing but put-offs since then.

DT Guy
November 10, 2014, 12:03 AM
We received notification by the manufacturer

Wait-aren't THEY the manufacturer? :scrutiny:

Larry

JRH6856
November 10, 2014, 10:18 AM
Wait-aren't THEY the manufacturer? :scrutiny:

Larry
Maybe they contracted the 2nd Gen to someone who might actually do it right. :/

Gun Master
November 10, 2014, 02:52 PM
In Theory, everything works in practice. In practice, not so much. I'm beginning to believe the whole company only works in Theory.

Well, that sounds like a pretty good Theory.:uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "The Remington R51, Explained" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!