How Big R misjudged the R51 market

[Hangingrock]

[QUOTE="RX-79G,
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.[/QUOTE]
We are talking about the R51Gen2 as opposed to the R51Gen1 that the manufacture Remington removed from the market place. As for the R51Gen2 the example I fired at the indoor range facility was with out problem (150Rds of three different brands of self-defense ammunition). The Consumer Reports you speak of would G&A Handguns Dec2016/Jan17 issue article "Return Of The R51 by James Tar" a in depth six page article that covered the problem plagued R51Gen1 and the return of the R51Gen2 be considered a qualified "Consumer Report" from one of the original Beta testers that Remington invited to the factory to test the prototype R51. His commentary covers R51 prototype, R51Gen1, and R51Gen2.

 

[RX-79G]

My "Consumer Reports" comment is a reference to all the consumers who have received Gen2 pistols and have reported their failings on multiple forums. I have no idea why you seem to discount the first hand reports of Gen2 owners and seem to be encouraging more people to invest $300+ in disappointment.

 

[Hangingrock]

My "Consumer Reports" comment is a reference to all the consumers who have received Gen2 pistols and have reported their failings on multiple forums. I have no idea why you seem to discount the first hand reports of Gen2 owners and seem to be encouraging more people to invest $300+ in disappointment.

Ok what forums are those reports on? Direct me to the forums and I'll search for the reports.

 

[Yo Mama]

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).

Man I'm dreading the time they go to screwl!

 

[barnbwt]

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

The 'accuracy pistol' guys tell me that barrel/slide fit is the real determinant for handgun accuracy rather than frame/barrel, which I suppose makes sense when the sights are up top, and in such case a slide/barrel locking arrangement would be more ideal for accuracy (I personally suspect this effect is far below human accuracy levels, though). At any rate, even Remington's cut-rate product --when it fires-- has actually gained something of an accuracy reputation. I've noticed it hangs with my five-seven, others have said it compares with SIGs and such --not bad for a <400$ trash gun, if only it could do so consistently from the get-go. Apparently whoever is making Green's barrels is still doing a decent job.

You paid for an example of a fully functional self defense pistol produced with modern manufacturing techniques. You paid for an example of a fully functional self defense pistol produced with modern manufacturing techniques.

For whatever it's worth, I sure as heck didn't. I paid for a unique offering of an interesting development in firearms tech at a rather bargain price (the nearest competition in this respect was the $1000 Boberg), with the full knowledge it was not going to be a high quality item (being a Remington, after all) and likely to have some share of issues. Frankly, so did anyone else with a clue. A lot of folks --also with a clue-- decided not to go for it for the exact same reasons because they wanted a turn-key firearm vs. entertainment. Folks without a clue bought one and expected it to hang with pistols twice its price and the beneficiary of decades of development & product improvement.

That's kind of where I am on the pistol (the Gen 1's) at this point; you're a fool if you expected a flawless product from Remington at $400, but there were enough other aspects to this particular product that it could easily be worth the squeeze if you had the lemons. The Gen 2's are honestly about as decent as any other low-end locking breech pistol (Kel Tecs and the like) that don't have quality aftermarket magazines available. Which is to say not nearly as good as guns costing a bill or two additional. I personally think this is a mistake on Remington's part since the design is not especially cheap to produce in and of itself, so why force it into competition with highly-optimized Browning derivatives already on the market? Unless of course, there is no option to make it better, because the company is unable to make finely-finished machine parts with polished exteriors anymore.

Now, no one ever thought Remington would produce guns quite as bad as they did (and they certainly did) but that's what the recall/refund was for, and to Remington's credit they didn't deny the issue for forty years this time, but offered a refund/exchange program to anyone unwilling to wait for a replacement pistol. For those buyers like myself who got a functional lowish-quality piece unlike anything on the market; mission accomplished.

Since my Gen 1 is likely to be worthless in the face of the Gen 2's (even though it works since I fixed the chamber, it will always have a bad 'street' reputation, is not particularly well made, and will not become particularly rare if Gen 2 production continues much longer) I am even more tempted to go full-on Bubba with my specimen, and polish/blue its exterior like I did some of its insides. I've always thought a shiny finish would look awesome vs. the bead-blast suck-fest offered by Remington. Do a high-gloss black powder coat on the aluminum frame/safety lever, a proper hot-blue on a high-polish slide --c'est magnifique!

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

The 'accuracy pistol' guys tell me that barrel/slide fit is the real determinant for handgun accuracy rather than frame/barrel, which I suppose makes sense when the sights are up top, and in such case a slide/barrel locking arrangement would be more ideal for accuracy (I personally suspect this effect is far below human accuracy levels, though).

The "accuracy pistol" guys comments are only useful for Browning recoil guns. For the Beretta 92, Makarov, Luger, Walther PP, P9S, revolvers and every blowback 22 that mantra is misplaced. If anything, Browning system guns are the least accurate of any common design with combat pistol clearances.

 

[barnbwt]

Like I said, I always figured the few-thou slop between slide & barrel vs. the maybe-a-few-thou-more slop between slide & frame was probably below any human's accuracy potential.

It does need to be remembered that practically all fixed-barrel autos are simply blowbacks, and that simple blowbacks are practically all firing much lower power ammunition than locked-breach counterparts. A 22LR olympic pistol is different enough from a 2011 race gun in enough ways that I'm loathe to attribute any difference in accuracy solely to the locking system. As far as service-gun tolerances I also honestly couldn't say, since again, a Makarov is quite different from a Walther P38, but in that case I'd bet a donut any accuracy trade-off is due to the trigger & not the locking system

(weird, the forum software is inconsistently retaining edits; need to restrict use of this feature in the future)

 

[barnbwt]

If anything, Browning system guns are the least accurate of any common design with combat pistol clearances.

Well in that case, you oughta *really* love the R51; you can cut the chamber .01" short and the darn thing'll still run! PTG 9mm reamer only dropped halfway into my (egg-shaped) chamber, yet the gun still generally ran on the Wolf garbage ammo I was feeding it. Brass came out looking like it was scrubbed with 60-grit, to boot, yet still generally extracted. With a clean, smoother chamber, it's been far more consistent (on par with my FN P35, actually) though it does recoil noticeably harder now that it isn't swaging/filing the brass upon extraction, lol. Still softer than the FN despite being much smaller/lighter, though.

As disappointed with Remington's quality as I was, I remain mildly amused/mildly impressed it functioned at all once I saw what all it had going against it (shallow/rough chamber, sharp/rough camming surfaces, debris/dirt in the FCG and bolt areas, very rough-shod FCG and safety parts). One thing the Pedersen hesitation lock does really well, is tolerate headspace variation; a trait unheard of in any other locked-breach system I've seen. MAC's initial test showed you can fire the cartridge about .03" out of battery and nothing particularly bad happens*; a 1911 won't even get close to a firing condition in that scenario, and God help you if it finds a way.

TCB

*Nothing worse than the average 10mm fired from a Glock. His case bulged, and the action locked up/failed to cycle since the bolt was already hard against the locking lug when he dropped the hammer, most likely because his chamber was way too shallow/tight like mine and so many others. No kaboom or missing fingers/eyes, though, despite a foolish absence of gloves (the gun had been repeatedly hanging up just out of battery prior to this failure; I'm not sure what he was expecting to happen by continuing to press the issue)

 

[RX-79G]

It does need to be remembered that practically all fixed-barrel autos are simply blowbacks, and that simple blowbacks are practically all firing much lower power ammunition than locked-breach counterparts.

Except for all the delayed blowback and gas guns. P7, GB, P9S, Benelli, Astra, DE, etc, etc.

 

[herrwalther]

I don't think Remington misjudged the market. They misjudged the character and memories of their customer base. I was 100% interested in buying an R51 when they came out. Loved the idea and the price tag for it. But, along with anyone who has an internet connection, I saw all the problems Remington had with the design for rushing it out the door. Along with issues I had with a Remington rifle, I will never own anything with a big R on it.

 

[barnbwt]

Except for all the delayed blowback and gas guns. P7, GB, P9S, Benelli, Astra, DE, etc, etc.

So you agree with me then; practically all fixed-barrel autos are simple blowbacks. DE is gas operated, P7/GB/CCP are gas delayed, P9s and Korriphila are roller delayed, the Benelli is effectively recoil-operated...the Astra 400 is a simple blowback but as practical as a Hi Point 9mm for all the same reasons. A number of the above guns have accuracy reputations, but also quality on par with Korth (again, so different from a common gun that a direct comparison is dubious). Your point does illustrate how much harder it's been to find a good fixed barrel design for more powerful rounds, considering how diverse the solutions have been. Recoil operation bounced between like four different concepts before solidly landing on the Browning tilt-barrel.

My point is that fixed barrel guns are generally blowback. For a target shooting gun, the only way this is practical from a recoil-tolerance standpoint is to use weaker cartridges like ACPs or rimfire. Add to that most competitive pistol marksmanship is at very close range, ballistically, and there is no advantage in shooting more powerful rounds. Voila; "fixed barrels are inherently accurate" the same way "32acp and 22LR are inherently accurate." They're accurate because they're being shot from guns optimized for accuracy at close ranges without power factor requirements.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

I wonder if the Pedersen action could be executed more like the Luger or P38 than the Browning, with the whole mechanism behind the barrel vs around it, and evade all the take-down issues that have always plagued slide-based fixed-barrel pistols?

 

[RX-79G]

So you agree with me then; practically all fixed-barrel autos are simple blowbacks. DE is gas operated, P7/GB/CCP are gas delayed, P9s and Korriphila are roller delayed, the Benelli is effectively recoil-operated...the Astra 400 is a simple blowback but as practical as a Hi Point 9mm for all the same reasons. A number of the above guns have accuracy reputations, but also quality on par with Korth (again, so different from a common gun that a direct comparison is dubious). Your point does illustrate how much harder it's been to find a good fixed barrel design for more powerful rounds, considering how diverse the solutions have been. Recoil operation bounced between like four different concepts before solidly landing on the Browning tilt-barrel.

My point is that fixed barrel guns are generally blowback. For a target shooting gun, the only way this is practical from a recoil-tolerance standpoint is to use weaker cartridges like ACPs or rimfire. Add to that most competitive pistol marksmanship is at very close range, ballistically, and there is no advantage in shooting more powerful rounds. Voila; "fixed barrels are inherently accurate" the same way "32acp and 22LR are inherently accurate." They're accurate because they're being shot from guns optimized for accuracy at close ranges without power factor requirements.

TCB

My point was that there have been quite a few fixed barrel guns that aren't simple blowbacks. The new CCP and R51 are just the newest.

I don't know why you'd say anything has "solidly landed on the Browning tilt-barrel". The Beretta 92 is one of the most common handguns in the world. PX4, Luger, C96, Strike One, P-38, FiveSeven (sorta), Boberg, Grand Power all are types of recoil operation that don't tilt. Don't let the flood of Glock copies fool you.

 

[barnbwt]

Glocks, 1911s, Hi Powers, and CZ75s comprise the vast, vast (vast) majority of locked breech semis by any measure. The 92, much like the 1911 in years past, persists almost solely due to US military insistence against all reason. Your other examples, while more interesting, are either long out of production or being made in hundreds-to-thousands quantities; not hundreds-of-thousands (and not for contracts, unless Russia changed its mind on the Stryk again). Not to say they aren't good; my pop's PX4 40SW shoots way softer & nicer than my USP40, but there's a lot more of the latter. I didn't say all innovation ceased (case in point, Boberg) but that the market solidly favors one or two Browning-derived solutions (1911 & Glock)

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

The 92, much like the 1911 in years past, persists almost solely due to US military insistence against all reason.

The 92 and copies are the issue firearm for France, Taiwan, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and several others. And many of those countries adopted the gun before the US. Plus, the second largest US police force - LAPD - has been issuing the 92 for 30+ years. If anything, it is the most widely issued "modern" 9mm in the world.

And that's not counting the 1951 model it replaced, which was very common in the middle east.

 

[Capybara]

My problem with the R51 is that it is a Freedom Group product and is junk just like my "Remington" 870 that came out of the box with three factory defects. Remington is dead, Freedom Group killed the brand by putting it on crappy guns like this one.

 

[Hangingrock]

The 92 and copies are the issue firearm for France, Taiwan, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and several others. And many of those countries adopted the gun before the US. Plus, the second largest US police force - LAPD - has been issuing the 92 for 30+ years. If anything, it is the most widely issued "modern" 9mm in the world.

Veering of course from the topic of the R51, The Beretta 92 is probably in the twilight, as example GB-Military adopted the Glock G17 and the US-SOC has gone with the G19. This would indicate the Beretta 92 days are numbered

 

[RX-79G]

Veering of course from the topic of the R51, The Beretta 92 is probably in the twilight, as example GB-Military adopted the Glock G17 and the US-SOC has gone with the G19. This would indicate the Beretta 92 days are numbered

In the US military. Not necessarily everywhere else.

Regardless, non-Browning service pistols are certainly not rare today or at any point in the last 116 years.

 

[berettaprofessor]

One other R51 thought that I'm interested in seeing if other owners experience. My R51 throws brass every where from 6 feet ahead and right to almost next to my feet at 3:00 to behind me 4 feet and 4 feet right. Occasionally it throws brass directly over my head and behind. Do they all do this?

 

[gc70]

One other R51 thought that I'm interested in seeing if other owners experience. My R51 throws brass every where from 6 feet ahead and right to almost next to my feet at 3:00 to behind me 4 feet and 4 feet right. Occasionally it throws brass directly over my head and behind. Do they all do this?

The ejection on mine has not been quite as consistent as my 1911s, but close.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The "accuracy pistol" guys comments are only useful for Browning recoil guns. For the Beretta 92, Makarov, Luger, Walther PP, P9S, revolvers and every blowback 22 that mantra is misplaced. If anything, Browning system guns are the least accurate of any common design with combat pistol clearances.

A serious question: except for the Beretta and variants of the Walther designs (all of which seemed to be based on the original P-38), what are the more accurate designs with combat pistols clearances actually in use around the world, in combat or service pistol applications? Except for the Beretta (and Taurus copies), the vast majority in use seem to be Glocks and SIGs (and a bunch of CZ pattern guns in the Middle East (all using variants of the Browning systems. I'm not sure the lack of wide-spread acceptance in those applications by various militaries and LEO agencies is the fault of the bean counters alone.

A fixed barrel gun isn't automatically accurate -- and I think you'd have a hard time proving that any given system or design is more or less accurate than any other system until you attach a price tag to the guns in question (which indicates the level of attention paid to manufacture and materials used, etc.)

When the sighting system is attached to the slide, in a non-fixed barrel system, barrel to slide fit is the critical relationship. Getting consistent lockup may be more difficult with the Browning system than some of the others, but that barrel/slide relationship becomes a variable in production costs and sale prices; it is NOT a technical issue that can't be overcome. (When the sighting system is attached to the frame, consistent barrel/slide/frame alignment is critical -- but only because the slide is a key to lockup.

The Makarov can be accurate, but there are darned few fixed-barrel designs in calibers greater than 9x18; 9mm seems to be the lowest common denominator in both the service pistol and combat pistol world -- and when this issue is discussed, that's typically the unspoken component. Only the Communist Bloc seemed to like the 9x18 round, but those folks also used a lot of 7.65x17 and 7.62x25. (The 7.62x25 [Tokarev] used the Browning SRLB in the original Tok design, but thnat was a long round; it made for an awkward grip that was not easily converted to double-stack. It was an effective round and more potent than 9x18, but - very LOUD with a lot of muzzle flash which could have a downside in night-time combat.

The Luger could be very accurate, too; I had a Soviet-captured S-42 with a badly corroded barrel that was a true tack driver. Lugers were unique and well regarded in WWI, but considered troublesome in WWII; Hi-Powers (after the Germans took over Belgium) and P-38s were far more popular with the troops -- arguably because the newer designs were hardier weapons in combat environments.

I think the weakness of the Browning Short-Recoil Locked-Breech design is that it has often leads to a higher bore axes in most guns. That higher bore axis can lead to more muzzle flip -- but that's more a practical issue (possibly slowing the rate of fire) than an accuracy issue, and I'm not sure that all Browning SRLB designs have a higher bore axis than the Beretta M9/92 series.

In my somewhat limited discussions with folks who have fought in combat, most of the ones I've talked with, given a choice, preferred the SIGs (228 or 229), a Hi-Power, or a Glock 17/19 to a Beretta M9. Some were able to choose.

 

[RX-79G]

A serious question: except for the Beretta and variants of the Walther designs (all of which seemed to be based on the original P-38), what are the more accurate designs with combat pistols clearances actually in use around the world, in combat or service pistol applications?

The HK P7 and P9S. Passed service trials for several countries, served fairly widely as police and SF/SEAL team weapons. The P9S is essentially a really small MP5 action in 9mm and 45. The P9S is particularly accurate and there was no real mechanical difference between the basic model and the target versions.

One thing that is poorly understood about pistols is that the frame is what is really being steadily held, aimed and fired. The sights/slide have to have a consistent relationship with the frame, as does the barrel. A Browning pistol puts the barrel in close connection to the slide rather than the frame, so any slop between barrel and slide and then slide and frame is additive - just like tolerance stacking.

But a true fixed barrel gun has barrel and frame as one unit, and there isn't a complex camming relationship affecting how the slide and frame interact, so the slide/sights return very consistently.

For other recoil guns - Beretta 92, P38, Luger, C96 - the barrel slides directly on its own frame rails and the movement of the slide does not affect the recoiling of the barrel very directly, simplifying the barrel's relationship to the steady platform of the frame.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The HK P7 and P9S. Passed service trials for several countries, served fairly widely as police and SF/SEAL team weapons. The P9S is essentially a really small MP5 action in 9mm and 45. The P9S is particularly accurate and there was no real mechanical difference between the basic model and the target versions.

The P7s were certainly once widely used as police weapons in Germany -- but that is no longer the case. And while the P9S may still be in use, I don't think it's widely used. The P7s had an unusual squeeze grip that took some getting used to, and in a firefight the P7 could get very hot very quickly. I've seen people burned by the hot barrels at a nearby range! Marvelously accurate, however.

I had not heard of SF or SEALs using either of those H&K guns, but I realize that those type of units can get or use just about anything they might need for specific tasks or missions. The SEALs have recently started moving from various SIGs to Glock 19s for general applications (like ship assaults; a couple of SEALS who are "content experts" on the AR-15.COM forum have discussed the use of handguns in their missions and training, but were happy about the shift to Glock 19s. preferring them to the SIG P226 and P228 they had been using. A growing number of different units within the US Special Operations Command -- including both Army Ranger and Marine Recon troops -- have adopted the Glock 17 and 19 as a commonly-used weapon.

Most of these folks seemed to prefer long guns to handguns, and one SEAL I talked with said given a choice, he might carry an extra canteen of water rather than a handgun. (He might've been pulling my chain, but he seemed serious.)

 

[RX-79G]

I competed with a P7M8. The heat was never a problem. The P7M13 was also in the XM9 trial. It was largely eliminated due to corrosion issues - it was the most accurate gun in the trial.

The P9S was the Navy SEAL suppressed handgun system after the S&W 39 and into the '90s. GSG-9, Spain and Japan's special operation teams also used them. Greece actually set up a EP9S and later EP7 factory and were issued as the standard firearm.


None of which has much bearing on what is made or used today. We are no longer living in the golden age of handgun design. But the current guns are sure inexpensive.

 

[barnbwt]

I think the weakness of the Browning Short-Recoil Locked-Breech design is that it has often leads to a higher bore axes in most guns. That higher bore axis can lead to more muzzle flip -- but that's more a practical issue (possibly slowing the rate of fire) than an accuracy issue, and I'm not sure that all Browning SRLB designs have a higher bore axis than the Beretta M9/92 series.

The barrel-tilt requires some height, but not much (it's like an 1/8" of an inch at most). I think the tendency for high bores in the SIG and HK and other 'wonder nine' guns is more due to how their dual-stack mags are shaped; by raising the feed lips as high as possible above the wrist, the mag can hold an extra round or two while not getting silly-long like the Arsenal Strike One (guess how that gun manages a markedly low bore axis without compromising on mag capacity ). I'll never understand what those Germans were thinking though, using a very lightweight polymer lower frame, and an almost-clunky large steel slide weighing like five times more slamming back and forth with each shot, nearly a full inch above the wrist. My USP is pretty to look at and works nicely, but it's probably the most unbalanced top-to-bottom of any handgun I've shot (including a PX4 with similar construction)

The HK P7 and P9S. Passed service trials for several countries, served fairly widely as police and SF/SEAL team weapons. The P9S is essentially a really small MP5 action in 9mm and 45. The P9S is particularly accurate and there was no real mechanical difference between the basic model and the target versions.

That's another way of saying they were all made to target standards; a nice feature, but makes direct comparisons more difficult. Especially when it comes to HK's obnoxiously nice/expensive barrels vs almost anybody else's, which directly impact accuracy more than any other factor. It's like stacking a Manurhin MR73 against the Colt or S&W police magnums to make a claim about lockwork's impact on accuracy; the barrel is such high quality it overrides any further conclusion you might make.

One thing that is poorly understood about pistols is that the frame is what is really being steadily held, aimed and fired. The sights/slide have to have a consistent relationship with the frame, as does the barrel. A Browning pistol puts the barrel in close connection to the slide rather than the frame, so any slop between barrel and slide and then slide and frame is additive - just like tolerance stacking.

But a true fixed barrel gun has barrel and frame as one unit, and there isn't a complex camming relationship affecting how the slide and frame interact, so the slide/sights return very consistently.

Are you one of those guys who buys Accuwedges for their ARs? The bore/sight line relationship is all that matters, in any gun, no matter what, when it comes to user accuracy of aim. You hold the frame, but you aren't aiming with your hand, but your eyes via the sights (and you aren't aiming the frame, but the barrel with them). In a recoil action, this means the barrel/slide fit is paramount, in blowbacks the frame(barrel)/slide fit is paramount. But since the barrel doesn't have to reciprocate in close proximity to the slide for any but the very start of the cycle when locked (compared to the slide which closely glides on the frame its entire travel), you can tolerate much looser clearances between moving parts at the extraction/ejection/feeding positions. The P7's barrel never 'wedges' into the frame at the front of its travel, it just stops when the round chambers, so you have a direct tradeoff between accuracy potential and fouling tolerance of the slide (or you do what HK did and throw a lot of money at the problem to make it go away with very nice machining, resulting in a pistol that was generally too expensive for export and would probably still not do great in a dust test). It still doesn't matter since the minute of angle of slop of either method done decently is still way below anything your eyes are capable of resolving with iron sights.

I competed with a P7M8. The heat was never a problem.

You must have competed with gloves on, then. The gas piston full of thousands-degrees-hot condensing vapor thermally joined to the same steel frame as the shooter's hand a half inch away is an obvious problem with no good design solution. It's only the constant refrain of every review of the gun, ever, that it gets uncomfortably warm after a couple mags, especially with rapid fire. Like, literally the single flaw with the gun (well apart from the cleaning procedure being more difficult and necessary than for recoil ops or blow backs, and requiring special tools). I like the idea of the gun and would love to add one some day, but it's hardly the panacea its fan boys always make it out to be, otherwise HK would still be making the things for paying customers. It's just a clever gun that was made to exceedingly high standards; you tend to get a reliable and accurate collector's piece with that combination (case in point Luger vs. its competition). A combination that would have brought about the same happy conclusion for the R51 were Remington's production facilities allowed to make a quality product (the Model 51s were quite a lot nicer than the simple-blowback competition of the day and --surprise-- they enjoyed a reputation of both reliability and accuracy as well as pleasant shooting, but --surprise-- were abandoned during lean economic times that killed the sales of all high end luxury goods)

TCB