How Big R misjudged the R51 market

[Good Ol' Boy]

Again, you should have specified being exactly the same dimension instead of "similar" size if you wanted to be that picky about the discussion. I personally think you're splitting hairs.

My LC9 and my previous 709 disappeared when carried IWB even in the lightest of clothing, and with or without the "pinky" extension.

 

[barnbwt]

R51 is quite narrow for a 9mm (or 45acp) which also goes unmentioned. A lot less of it is that full width dimension than a Glock, too.

 

[RX-79G]

Kahr has done an admirable job of optimizing the K9 design.

That does not change the fact that a locking mechanism inline with the barrel does not require as much height as one that is below the barrel.

No, not really. The lower locking lug of the barrel needs somewhere to go, but there is room in the frame for that 1/4" of drop without adding a 1/4" in overall height. Kahr did it by putting the lower lug off center, the BHP does it by putting the trigger bar in the slide.

As I already pointed out, if the advantage you're talking about existed, a 7 round Kahr would not be smaller in all dimensions than a 7 round R51. But it is.

Comparing size efficient 8 round guns is the same. The HK P7's fixed barrel and 8 round mag is 5 inches tall, but that's the same as the S&W 3913.

And grip length can always be improved by undercutting the trigger guard. So the theoretical advantage you're talking about currently doesn't exist.

Anyone looking for a 7 round gun with dimensions like an R51 would be better served with a Kahr, since it is smaller all around and thinner. And it actually works.

 

[gc70]

As I already pointed out, if the advantage you're talking about existed, a 7 round Kahr would not be smaller in all dimensions than a 7 round R51.

The relative efficiency of the Kahr and Remington designs does not change the fact that putting a locking mechanism under a barrel requires space (height).

Comparing size efficient 8 round guns is the same. The HK P7's fixed barrel and 8 round mag is 5 inches tall, but that's the same as the S&W 3913.

The P7's has a gas system that takes up space under the barrel.

I get it that lots of people are happy to dump on the R51. What is disappointing is the unwillingness or inability to think conceptually about the potential of a locking system inline with the barrel.

 

[barnbwt]

That Kahr also has less extra space than the R51; the magwell, slide and barrel all have enough extra volume to accomodate 45acp. It can get smaller if that is wanted. More than volume, the R51 has a lower bore axis than aby of those.

As mentioned, the R51s troubles do not seem to be the result of the design so much as QC. Feel free to illustrate how a 1911 with a shallow chamber and loose/off spec barrel link or safety would get along just fine

 

[RX-79G]

The relative efficiency of the Kahr and Remington designs does not change the fact that putting a locking mechanism under a barrel requires space (height).



The P7's has a gas system that takes up space under the barrel.

I get it that lots of people are happy to dump on the R51. What is disappointing is the unwillingness or inability to think conceptually about the potential of a locking system inline with the barrel.

It's not an unwillingness or inability to think conceptually - it's that you are failing to acknowledge that the advantage you think is there simply doesn't work out that way.

The R51 is not smaller in the dimensions you're talking about, and the height of the trigger is something easily dealt with by undercutting the trigger guard. Why? Because the index finger has 20° of up and down movement, so it can reach a high or low trigger despite the rest of the hand's angle. Alternately, you can put the middle finger higher up and effectively lower the bore by sloping the grip angle, like Glock does.

Another factor in this is that you don't seem to realize that many of the older style of Browning locking systems don't swing down to unlock. The swing up to lock, and come back to horizontal when unlocked. Which means that something like a 3913, BHP or Mustang puts their barrels in the same position as the R51 when they are unlocked.

I like the Pedersen lock. But the advantage you're talking about doesn't actually seem to happen in the real world. Welcome to the real world.

 

[C0untZer0]

I'd love to see a quality .32 ACP use the Pedersen design.

 

[Gordon]

Shame ! I just had to take my great condition original Model 51 Remingtom .380 and fondle it and unload 3 rounds of Geco ball into my shipping container range bullet trap. It is the only .380 I have, it eats the hottest or namby pamby factory ammo of what ever style with aplomb, it is very accurate for tiny sights and the recoil is very light for a .380 of its slim size. Too bad they didn't Cam cad the original in stainless.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I am convinced a Makarov PM would be a far better defensive gun than the janky R51 pistol Remington is cobbling together. Yes I know the new ones are somewhat better than the old ones, but they are still not good or serious defensive firearms.

For the same or less money, one can get an unissued essentially brand new Bulgarian military Makarov PM that will be an extremely rugged and reliable (even with hollow points) pistol that will be just as concealable and just as accurate as an R51, but it will actually WORK.
as far as firepower goes, there are some high performance 9x18mm JHP loads on the market that would give short barreled 9x19mm real world effectiveness a run for it's money and still have less recoil.

I just do not see the appeal of the Remington R51, at least in its current botched state.

 

[berettaprofessor]

I get it that lots of people are happy to dump on the R51. What is disappointing is the unwillingness or inability to think conceptually about the potential of a locking system inline with the barrel.

Oh, I get the potential. Remington just didn't reach it.

 

[Yo Mama]

My R 51 has shot over 600 rounds without any major incident, i like the pistol, by far not my favorite of the 150 or so pistols that i own but a nice shooter. It is obvious that there are those who are anxiously waiting for Gen 2 pistol to fail so all of their print would not be for naught.
Let's see, my RM 380'works, both 1911's work and now this 9mm seems to do what is expected of it...but Remington must be doing a bad job somewhere that i can complain about!
PS: The single shot 300 BO in the photo was made by one of the Remington (Freedom Group) bunch, it obviously works also. Have a nice life

So because you have had no issues, there is no problem? And the attitude I also don't get.

 

[Hangingrock]

Yo Mama, have you shot a Gen2 R51? If you have what were the problems you encountered? The example I shot, at a shooting facility, a rental was problem free in 150 rounds fired. As I have stated before on this subject I can only speak to the R51 that I actually shot.

 

[barnbwt]

Shame ! I just had to take my great condition original Model 51 Remingtom .380 and fondle it and unload 3 rounds of Geco ball into my shipping container range bullet trap. It is the only .380 I have, it eats the hottest or namby pamby factory ammo of what ever style with aplomb, it is very accurate for tiny sights and the recoil is very light for a .380 of its slim size. Too bad they didn't Cam cad the original in stainless.

We'd be complaining about broken bolts & slides right now. The R51 design does improve over the original, I just wish they'd make it to the quality of Cooldill's commbloc Maks

 

[berettaprofessor]

HangingRock have YOU taken one down and reassembled? Tried other than expensive defensive ammo in one? Looked at the bearing surface wear? A Ruger Mark III is an accurate problem free pistol but the Mark IV will outsell it and make it obsolete in time for the average user.

 

[Hangingrock]

berettaprofessor, per my post #15 of this ongoing discussion as to the ammunition type, quantity, and I did witness the take down procedure of the R51 by the shooting facility gunsmith. No I have not fired the R51 with WWB-115Gr-FMJ as an example. The only experience I have with the R51Gen2 is the range facility rental. The next time at the shooting facility I'll ask the gunsmith if a tabulation of ammunition fired is being kept.

 

[Tirod]

There are a number of compromises a design can take to get the bore over height reduced. As for a locking arrangement forcing more height because it's under the barrel, no, not so much. The HK P7 gas delay cylinder is under the bore and it's one of the shortest bore over designs ever marketed.

As for mag capacity there are ways to increase it, too. Eliminate the spiral wound spring under the follower and use clock springs, done. It will increase mag capacity because the coiled up spring doesn't exist as the last rounds are put in.

I get the OP's point - in a mass market there is either a way to make money on lower production quantities, or by making more of them at a lower price point. Remington has shown it can mass market the more expensive guns - the Rohrbaugh is one example, a near $1,000 .380 pistol which is now sold under $400.

S&W has responded to mass production of some guns by simply not offering them any more - the 3Gen automatics. In point of fact they chose to make and sell 1911's rather than their own all stainless design. It doesn't make S&W 3Gen fans happy knowing they can't get new ones anymore, that about all that are left on the market are LEO turn in's and those are drying up fast, along with the $400 plus used gun prices. However, they aren't in the business of making a few collector guns for the discerning buyer - they make guns that sell to the larger market, and they are putting their money on the 1911 (regardless of it's actual intrinsic design compared to the 3Gen.) Discerning buyers aren't the market, sorry. Joe Bubba buying tactical barbecue guns is.

Thems the breaks. Technically interesting or even superior designs are not what America seems to want much if they can't also have the Low Price Guaranteed.

 

[Yo Mama]

Yo Mama, have you shot a Gen2 R51? If you have what were the problems you encountered? The example I shot, at a shooting facility, a rental was problem free in 150 rounds fired. As I have stated before on this subject I can only speak to the R51 that I actually shot.

I don't get to shoot often, I have 3 kids, so the last gun I purchased was a move up from a Taurus pt145 to a Springfield XD mod 2.

So............you're saying because I haven't shot one, that they don't suck? I'm confused, see on this forum, and many other forums the details of this abysmal failure of a gun have been discussed. Why would I actively go out to look for a problem gun to shoot that I have no plans to buy or own in the future?

I'm glad your experience was good, but many other people have had the opposite. To many to say the gun is good to go, even after the 2nd generation "fix".

 

[barnbwt]

The truth is, you can't know if they "suck" without handling one. Especially now that they generally work (you'd be right about the Gen 1s since functional guns were rare). You definitely don't have the perspective to weigh in on advatages/disadvantages of the design, or whether Remington should continue to pursuing development.

 

[Hangingrock]

Yo Mamma, My point is I have actual hands on experience thou limited to an example of one R51Gen2 (Rental) and 150 rounds fired at a indoor shooting facility. Not to diminish your prospective but I tend to value actual experience over word of mouth thus we'll simply agree to disagree on the subject at hand. In reference to children mine are adults now. If you feel poor now wait till when you have to finance their higher education (a worthwhile investment).

 

[gbeecher]

I think it was just another Remington quality control issue gone wrong. Probably lots of blame to go around, from executive management to engineering, accounting, quality control, etc. A rush to production and shipping, to make money.

 

[RX-79G]

I'm glad some people like being Beta testers, because I would not be pleased buying a pistol that turns out to be pretty unreliable for a significant number of examples.


As far as the technology itself - I love the Pedersen lock. Applied to a full size combat gun with a design that rigidly joins the barrel to the frame, you could get P210 accuracy for Glock prices with compact dimensions. But Remington's current salute to the original Model 51 is homely and doesn't work right. Maybe someone else will take the success Remington had in demonstrating that it can work well in 9mm and build something competent - unless the reputation of the mechanism is forever tainted by the R51.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I am convinced a Makarov PM would be a far better defensive gun than the janky R51 pistol Remington is cobbling together. Yes I know the new ones are somewhat better than the old ones, but they are still not good or serious defensive firearms.

For the same or less money, one can get an unissued essentially brand new Bulgarian military Makarov PM that will be an extremely rugged and reliable (even with hollow points) pistol that will be just as concealable and just as accurate as an R51, but it will actually WORK.
as far as firepower goes, there are some high performance 9x18mm JHP loads on the market that would give short barreled 9x19mm real world effectiveness a run for it's money and still have less recoil.

I just do not see the appeal of the Remington R51, at least in its current botched state.

The appeal would be a lighter and smaller handgun in a more potent caliber than .380. That said, my Russian Makarov is my most trusted handgun and I usually carry it as a backup. I'm convinced that you can't find a more reliable semi automatic handgun than a Makarov.

 

[Ibmikey]

Yo mama, You ask about attitude ( which there was no intent to be derogatory) and you make comments but have no real time with the pistol. Because problems exist ( so you say) i simply reported that no significant problems exist with my pistol other than reassembly with weak and arthiritic hands which complicate a complicated process. I purchased the pistol to shoot and have fun with, i am not suggesting others buy one or use one for defensive purposes or any other reason......again mine is for fun shooting and it performs just fine.

,Fivetwoseven, I have a half dozen Makarovs and yes they do work but they are not what i would choose for CC, would i choose the R 51? Maybe as mine is quite reliable but there are better pistols for CC in my opinion, my Shield or Sig P 938 have all the advantages i desire for that purpose.

 

[Hangingrock]

I'm glad some people like being Beta testers

Yes that is interesting concept that an individual actually/physically uses thus test fires the pistol in question as opposed to relying on word of mouth and etcetera for their opinions with out ever using.

 

[RX-79G]

Yes that is interesting concept that an individual actually/physically uses thus test fires the pistol in question as opposed to relying on word of mouth and etcetera for their opinions with out ever using.

No, it isn't. You paid for an example of a fully functional self defense pistol produced with modern manufacturing techniques. Instead you received a pistol from a series that is well known to have such serious problems that it would be downright foolish to interpret the functionality of your one example as anything more than a fluke, since your gun is made of all the same identical parts as all the guns that don't work right.

Would you go climbing with rope that has a reputation of breaking 30% of the time, regardless of how you 50 feet seems to be holding up?


I would happily "test" any pistol (consumer item) I didn't have to pay for, but any gun I invest in needs to be a good example from a good production series. You seem to be suggesting that people should ignore all the bad reports on the R51, but people are actually smart enough to read the Consumer Reports before they buy a piece of garbage.