Remington R51 in American Rifleman

Every time I go into my local gun shop I ogle the R51. It calls to me due to it's unusual action. I want one but haven't taken that final step... yet.

I have version 2.0 and it's been good so far. The disassembly is quirky, and not as easy peasy as Browning derived semis. But they are decent ergonomically designed single stack 9mm. guns.

I've had one for over a year now. It is a nice gun that functions as it should. No surprises. Yes, the takedown is quirky but once you are used to it, it is not difficult to do. The price is right, it is very ergo and due to the design it has a low bore axis and is easy to rack. No complaints here but it is not a $1000 gun, either.

Mine runs well. I like the short travel of the single action trigger. Not quite up to 1911 trigger standards but better than all the striker fired pistols that I've tried.

I recommend the pistol and plan to buy another this fall when Larry's Pistol & Pawn runs his next Remington sale.

My first R51 was a part of the first shipment of gen 2s delivered to Larry's and the frame did not reflect Huntsville, Alabama, as the site of manufacture (it was, but the frame was made at the old location). My next one will definitely be marked Huntsville.

Nice guns, despite the pain to disassemble and reassemble.

BOARHUNTER

"Nice guns, despite the pain to disassemble and reassemble."

Sounds like my Ruger MkII.

Really really really want a .45 version of this!

My main objection is the "styling", which is an over-the-top parody of an original R51. For some reason it just rubs me the wrong way, whatever the mechanical merits the gun may have.

I have been interested in this gun since it was first introduced. Sadly, I still hear of too many malfunctions to trust it. The article was encouraging, though.

Remington messed up on the release of this gun so badly I don’t know if it can ever bounce back successfully, even with perfect examples out there somewhere

jjones45 said:

Remington messed up on the release of this gun so badly I don’t know if it can ever bounce back successfully, even with perfect examples out there somewhere

Click to expand...

Agreed. I want to like it & keep looking at them, but I have reservations due to the issues with the original rollout.

Does it do anything significantly better than my other handguns? Do I want the Pederson action in a modern gun (I have an original Model 51) enough to spend the money & take the chance?
So far, my answer is "no", but the low prices are tempting.

But - in the end - I'm afraid Remington squandered their opportunity with the first generation problems.

I like the rear sight. Very well thought out for drawing from a pocket. That is a problem for my Shield. Going to dehorn and reshape it for an easier draw

There is something about it that keeps saying "buy me" every time I see one.

No one has ever explained what was fundamentally wrong with the first series. Remington had to do something to make this one work better, but what changed, I don't know.

Not sure that it's better, many mag problems, doesn't shoot well with anything but 115FMJ, and the difficulty of field disassembly and reassembly is not quite as trivial as people write about. Yes, there are tricks and tips that help, but it's still a PITA. I've noticed that many of the people who bought the Gen2 early and tried to give it every chance, including shooting several hundred rounds through it, have stopped promoting it and in some cases sold their guns. I'm going to. On this forum, DanOh used to be a big supporter; I think I've seen posts that he sold his as well.

berettaprofessor "Not sure that it's better, many mag problems, doesn't shoot well with anything but 115FMJ" The article in the Oct issue of American Rifleman indicates acceptable accuracy with Hornady Critical Defense 135 Gr FlexLock and SIG Sauer V-Crown 124Gr JHP. I went to a indoor shooting facility that had a R51 as a rental. Experienced no problems. I asked the gunsmith on duty to disassemble the pistol and per his instructions I reassembled the R51. The previously mentioned OCT issue AR there is a companion article ( Figuring Out The Peterson Hesitation Lock) which is informative.

Slamfire said:

No one has ever explained what was fundamentally wrong with the first series. Remington had to do something to make this one work better, but what changed, I don't know.

Click to expand...

Short chambers were common. An interior that looked like it had been milled out by a drunk gorilla with a broken chisel. I recall some people complaining that the sights were poorly or loosely mounted. What concerned me most was the short-chambering of the breech.

New ones seem better....Atleast on mine the interior work looks much better.

I received a Gen2 R51 as a gift (long story) and experienced no operating problems during the year I owned it. Due to the model's history, I tested the gun -well over "several hundred rounds"- more than I normally would before I began carrying it. The shape and size of the R51 are focused on concealed carry. The gun is thin, not tall while still providing a full three-finger grip, and with a low bore axis that increases control while reducing felt recoil.

Complaints about reassembly of the R51 are perplexing. After some initial frustration, I found the R51 ridiculously easy to reassemble, although being slow or gentle were not the answer. Put the slide on the frame, hold down the ejector, and pull the slide fully back on the frame with authority; that's all there is to it.

My gun-tinkerer son eventually got my R51. Although I had no functional problems with the R51, I did discover a design issue that I could not live with. The R51 uses a polymer ball (part #9, the "Elastomer Extractor Button" in the Owners Manual) as the "spring" for the extractor. Call me old-fashioned, but I could not get comfortable with the idea that a self-defense pistol depended on the consistent elasticity of a polymer ball.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Really really really want a .45 version of this!

Click to expand...

Remington M53

I wanted to like this gun, but tneh 1st Gen problems have soured me on this gun. I'd love an original though.

lysanderxiii said:

Remington M53

View attachment 764708

View attachment 764709

Click to expand...

Exactly! Uhhhh, but not with a poly ball for an extractor spring. That would be a deal breaker for me as well, unless I could easily replace it with a coil.....

The 'Pedersen Lock' system was basically a workaround of Browning Patents and today....being free to build the better mousetrap, the Browning design has proven to be the better of the two. Primarily due to manufacturing ease which translates into cost and reliability which continue to be a sticking point in the Pedersen design. It is just more difficult to build a working gun using the 'hesitation-lock' than the Browning tilting barrel.

Remington made the situation worse by choosing the 9mm for the introduction being as the previous successful implementations of the design used 'ACP' cartridges which all share certain characteristics which were purposefully designed into them to make for better functionality. This being a straight-walled case and operating at low to moderate pressures....both of which the 9mm is neither. A straight-walled case will normally offer more sliding resistance upon firing which makes it easier to design a blow-back mechanism as will the lower operating pressure reduce the need for slide mass and/or recoil spring pressure to delay opening long enough to get the bullet out of the barrel.

The previous Remington '51's were about the same size as competing blow-back guns using the same cartridges, so the 'Pedersen Lock' aspect of them barely useful...if at all IMHO. Compare a Walther PP and ask 'what does the additional machining and complication of the Pedersen Lock give me'? I've never fired a '51', but would imagine the recoil would be a bit less snappy, but this comes at great expense and the consumers made the final decision as to whether this was worth the cost or not.

Now....today I wonder if Remington had chosen to resurrect the '53' in 45 ACP whether they'd have had the fiasco we all watched with their 9mm version? It would have been a LOT easier to machine the 45 version well enough to make it work and even if it offered no real shooting benefits over the well worn 1911 design, as long as it was reliable they'd have sold a boatload of them. They've likely soured on the idea of any other versions of the 'Pedersen Lock' so hoping for the '53' is probably going to be futile....but stranger things have happened and now that they've mostly figured out how to make it work in 9mm...the ACP version would be a cakewalk for them.