R51 re-release

I wish them the best--the last thing I want to see is any company go under, and Remington needs this to be a success--but this gun is guilty until proven innocent as far as I'm concerned.

Hear, hear. I want this gun to be a success. Remington is America's oldest gun maker. With my love of history and tradition, I want the company to be a success, and to see them produce innovative, successful products that will keep them at the forefront of the market. Plus, I have an original Model 51, which I absolutely love. I'd give my eye teeth to have a working Model 53 -- the .45ACP pistol they submitted for government trials and Navy/Marine adoption. And above all that, I want to see real innovation in firearms. I want to see something other than yet another variation of the Browning tilting barrel and polymer frame. I want this pistol to succeed.

That said: Remington f@#%d this product up like Hogan's goat. They will have to go some distance to show they have learned their lesson, and are producing a quality product. I hope they can do it.

I AM hoping that the re-release is positive and problem free. I'm still interested in having one for carry. They DO need to come out with night sights, though.

Have they fixed the quality control problems in the factory? Unless that's done, the product will fail again.

Have they fixed the quality control problems in the factory? Unless that's done, the product will fail again.

Click to expand...

They have pulled production from Para and moved the factory to Huntsville.

Both are encouraging signs.

Does anyone know if there is going to be an increase in price?

I haven't come into the habit of equating Remington with quality handguns or ammunition.

And above all that, I want to see real innovation in firearms.

Click to expand...

And what better way to do that than with a 90-year-old breech locking mechanism design?

THe frame appears cheap plastic. How does it feel on the hand ?

I thought the frame was 6061 alu?

Thermactor said:

I haven't come into the habit of equating Remington with quality handguns or ammunition.

Click to expand...

My 1911 R1 has been quality, particularly considering it's very inexpensive for an American-made 1911.

While it's a nice-looking gizmo, it's a Pedersen design, which means too many small parts. A Browning (derived) design will have fewer parts & be more reliable, which is what's wanted in a defensive weapon.

"A Browning (derived) design will have fewer parts & be more reliable"

I don't suppose you've opened one, have you? They're pretty simple. Simpler as far as production of barrels, and internals, too.

"THe frame appears cheap plastic. How does it feel on the hand ?"

I've never seen a gun with so much confusion surrounding its frame material. Aluminum, for the billioneth time. It looks plasticky since Remington was kind enough to dehorn it for carry, unlike nearly every other maker out there (the one thing they did right, they get no credit for). It feels awesome for as small and narrow a grip as it has.

"And what better way to do that than with a 90-year-old breech locking mechanism design?"

It's a 90 year old principle. The design is quite diverged from the original (and in good ways, aside from quality). The R51 is a lot more innovative than any other short recoil pistol on the market, except maybe the Boberg line (which was much better executed)

I'll bow out before this turns into another R51 slamfest, which is what happens when there's nothing new to talk about (Rem's press blackouts don't help this)

TCB

My v1 was returned last March. I am eagerly awaiting having the v2 in hand...I hope my patience pays off.

If Big Green gets it right they will sell a boat load of R51s when people discover the many advantages it offers over other designs in the same class. I want one so bad I will buy the first redesigned one I find even if I have to pay a premium price.

I still do not understand this gun. It is a single action automatic with only a grip safety? If that is true, why is that now considered a good idea?

There have been a handful of automatics designed that way in the past - some Webleys, some Frommers, some Femarus, the Savage 45 and the first Browning 45s - and the idea has never been considered a very good one. It dates back to the dawn of automatic pistol design, and remained alive only in Eastern Europe, where pistol designers seemed to have a positive aversion to manual safeties (take a look at the Tokarev, the Radom P-35, the Frommer Stop, and the Femaru 37) for no readily discernible reason. Why is it making a comeback here and now? Is it because Glocks have made people think automatic pistols do not need safety catches?

Or does this gun have a Glock style trigger mechanism, and I have misunderstood the facts completely? If so, I apologize for making a dumb post.

Put me on the list for the R51.

If you want to learn about the R51, look up posts by barnbwt. He has provided great insights on this pistol. Factual and non-biased.

I still do not understand this gun. It is a single action automatic with only a grip safety? If that is true, why is that now considered a good idea?

There have been a handful of automatics designed that way in the past - some Webleys, some Frommers, some Femarus, the Savage 45 and the first Browning 45s - and the idea has never been considered a very good one. It dates back to the dawn of automatic pistol design, and remained alive only in Eastern Europe, where pistol designers seemed to have a positive aversion to manual safeties (take a look at the Tokarev, the Radom P-35, the Frommer Stop, and the Femaru 37) for no readily discernible reason. Why is it making a comeback here and now? Is it because Glocks have made people think automatic pistols do not need safety catches?

Or does this gun have a Glock style trigger mechanism, and I have misunderstood the facts completely? If so, I apologize for making a dumb post.

Click to expand...

The grip safety on the one I examined was very well executed (much better for me than a 1911 or XD grip safety). It extends all the way to the tip of the but and it also gave positive feedback when it was deactivated. Because of the shape of my hand I could never comfortably carry a 1911 as deactivation of the grip safety was too "iffy". I would have pinned the grip safety if that was the only gun I could carry. The XD grip safety was a complete no-go.

I think it's a far better concept than the wiggly-doohickey-on-the-trigger design.

My money is on this and to be honest a break release with its own dongle is a hell of a lot better than a break release on the same dongle as the go button

Click to expand...

I take it you mean a safety on the grip is better than one on the trigger.

What's interesting about the design is that Remington advertised the old Model 51 as safe to carry with a round chambered and relying only on the grip safety. Between the grip safety and the somewhat heavyish trigger, there was felt to be enough margin of safety against a negligent discharge. The manual safety was there for those who felt the need for a little extra insurance. Having carried the Model 51 a bit, I would not feel good using that old manual safety. It's tiny, and the arc of motion being down and forward, I doubt very much if you could disengage it quickly under stress. I'm glad they didn't put that on this one.

"Is it because Glocks have made people think automatic pistols do not need safety catches?"
The R51 safety isn't nearly so easy to depress as 1911's; it's a distinct click and about 1/8" of movement. It also, in its present form, has a very aggressive sear interface that makes for a very "hard" trigger break (you have to cam back the hammer a good five degrees or so at mechanical disadvantage before it lets go). Were the sears tuned for minimal engagement and butter-smooth slip (there's no indication the design geometry wouldn't lend itself to very fine sear jobs if desired) I would agree that more measures would be needed for drop-safety.

There's even a theory that the reason for the cheap/skeletonized trigger was to reduce its weight in order to thwart discharge in the even the gun fell, hard, right onto the quasi-shrouded safety lever. A heavy trigger could pull itself in such a scenario without binding up on a dedicated trigger safety like the Glock's.

I think that if it's possible, a good alternative might be ditching the long firing pin travel and heavy return spring for a true mechanical firing pin safety, for several reasons:
1) Ditch the horrible disconnector setup they have now, and use a bolt-mounted firing pin safety plunger, deactivated by trigger takeup, to also disconnect the trigger bar when shifted out of battery (would instantly make the gun safe against out of battery discharge, and greatly improve slide pull)'
2) The unique way in which the gun operates would cause the slide/bolt to shift backward in the event of a drop on the safety lever, harmlessly disconnecting the trigger before it could release the sear under its own weight (aided greatly by the aforementioned lighter slide pull)
3) Present only a single point of contact between the slide/bolt and trigger bar perform the disconnect, making the timing of the hammer drop and disconnect far simpler (closely related to number 1)
4) True, positive, muzzle-down drop safety instead of spring + pin travel that causes primer dimples (and can be overcome by sufficient force)
4.5) Alternately, recess the barrel slightly inside the slide nose, so a drop on the front would first push the slide out of battery and cushion the impact; in that configuration, no firing pin safety of any sort would be needed
5) Mechanical drop-safety in the direction of the trigger would allow the sear surfaces to be far more neutral, for a shorter, lighter trigger pull.

Call it a "Kinetic Safety" if you want a buzzword, Remington

TCB