Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by HeavyDuty, Jan 2, 2014.
All the people complaining about the looks of this pistol obviously have been looking at their Glocks too long.
Hey, guess what? It's OK for a firearm to look like something other than a brick.
The rear sight is shaped to blend in for style and to be snag free when drawn. The actual sight notch is shadow boxed well inside the swoop.
The little gun is getting a lot more attention than the hypothetical Glock .380 and longslide .45. Yawn.
I've been fascinated by the Model 51 for a long time, so I'm really excited about this. In fact, I'm more excited about this thing than I've been about a gun in a long time.
I don't usually get to excited about a new 9mm pistol but if this one is reliable I think I will love it. From the pics and videos the ergonomics look awesome and after reliability, ergonomics and shootability are the things I look for most in a carry gun. Caliber is a distant third. A very reasonable MSRP too.
Anyone care to guess how long it will be before threaded barrels are available for attachment of suppressors? That fixed barrel makes it a natural if the locking system presents no problems that can't be resolved. I hope this pistol is a success and full size (4"-5" barrel, longer grip with 10 round mag) models become available. After looking at it after few hours it now looks really good to me. Its looks have just a hint of Whitney Wolverine and 1950's era SciFi blaster while still being comfortably conventional in appearance.
I have read through the arguments for and against, and personally, I think it looks cool and I am interested! I dunno, I like different stuff.
I'm very curious about the R51. If it has a decent trigger and the feels as good as it look then I would seriously consider buying one.
I'm kinda surprised so many people find it ugly. Personally I think it's very attractive and modern.
I always thought the original 51 was a wonderful design, and scaling it up to 9mm makes this pistol a sure winner. I called my LGS and asked them to order one for me this afternoon.
Plus, I have a Springfield Model of 1903 Mark 1 rifle, designed to be used with the Pedersen Device. Owned a Pederson-action pistol feels like I'm completing the circle, somehow.
yuck. Guns just keep getting uglier..
Why would you assume that people prefer it look like a Glock? That's like saying people who think a Bugatti Veyron is ugly must prefer the look of a Chevy Caprice.
Easy. Refer to the wiseacre in post #25 who claimed to "fix it" by photoshopping on a blocky Glock slide, Glock rear sights, and removing the serrations above the trigger (since, you know, Glocks don't have those).
Seriously, people have been looking at clunky pistol designs like the Glock for so long that they have forgotten that it's possible for a functional firearm to also exhibit a degree of design intelligence with regards to function, ergonomics, and aesthetics.
Some people mistake snark for intelligence. They are not the same thing.
I also find all the negative talk about the "swoop" on the slide to be hilarious. FN pistols (the FNP, FXS, and FNS) and many Kahr pistols (P9, MK9, PM9) have the same functional cut on the slide that serves the same purposes (to reduce weight and to make the firearm easier to holster), yet no one seems to mention them there.
Some people just want to complain.
so you photoshopped and made the bottom gun. I didn't realize what was going on at first, I am sorry but Remington did a much better job. The top (the real one) is a good looking gun
Found info that magazines have an MSRP of $30.
Rubber 'overmolded' (totally a Hogue term) or 'widebody' polymer grips $20
Rosewood or faux pearl composite $30
Glad they will already have new grip panels for it. The grips are the only thing I really don't like about it.
I could really see this replacing my Taurus 709. The only thing I dislike about my Taurus is the external safety, so a grip safety only is a definite bonus.
It'll be on my radar, looking forward to reviews.
after hearing about the XDs 45 fiasco, I wont line up to be a beta tester anytime soon.
Hmmm, I wonder if this would make it more palatable?
No, wait, I know. It has nothing to do with the lines. This would make it perfection.
Wow! It's based on the design of their model 51 by John Pedersen. I did a bunch of research last night and today I will get out to my LGS and see when they will start getting them in. At that price, if it feels as good as I think it will, I'll buy on the spot. Hopefully, stores will be receiving them this month.
The same goes for 1911's, all you people who can't see beauty in anything but slab sides . Love the 'shops, Ash, very funny . Throw up the disc-gun with G## on the side for good measure . Just curious, whether they liked it or not, were people ever compelled to play with the image of the Glock, SIG, CZ, or any recent 1911 they way we are now? Methinks the detractors don't quite realize how much they themselves actually like the design, but can't quite square (pun) that realization with the boxy guns they are invested in . A slab-sided R51 would look like a Caracal with a polished slide, guys, and we all know how many people said those were ugly
The gun is a sort of new Art-Deco (very roughly sort of). Mostly in that it is obvious that some artists/marketeers/human factor guys were involved in shaping the external appearance of the gun. It is always a good thing when more disciplines have a chance to influence a design; it keeps guns from having boxy grips, ugly finishes, and square slides. I'm very impressed that Remington came up with a design that is neither tacticool nor Fudd-erly, but will still appeal to both sexes in a major way.
When I heard a Feb. release date, I wondered if this was reasonable, especially considering I've been waiting for Beretta to finally release the 223 ARX for like a year after they said they would ship "in the next 60 days" or whatever. But the pro-activeness of Remington's engagement with the aftermarket suggests the time is now; all the vendors making holsters and grips (and probably sights by now) stand to lose a lot of money on their inventory if Remington delays the project for a year out of the blue.
Unless this gun has a serious flaw out of the gate, like if the safety doesn't work, or if there's some really bad press like 5 people having negligent discharges within the first week, I think Remington has a winning pistol for the near future. Hopefully the Pedersen Action gets some more attention and spreads to some other platforms.
The man was an absolute genius; the Remington 51 was nearly adopted by the military and cost during war-time was the best reason they found to refuse it, and the rifle/cartridge he developed led both the Garand and Johnson (and 30-06 ball) for a spell before the military changed its mind --again, based mostly on cost and preference (for a rotating bolt). He worked with Browning to create the progenitor to the Ithaca M37 shotgun, and developed the sub-caliber device which could transform a bolt-gun into a sub-machine gun. While Browning was famous for ground-breaking designs which were expensive to produce but very well made, there is a definite tendency in Pedersen's works towards simplicity and producibility (the pistol only lost because it was expensive/complex compared to simple blowbacks)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and of course we all have different tastes. No harm in that.
Personally, I'm very excited about this gun and am eager to find one.
I think it's important to note that my photoshop job simply removed the decorative stuff from the original design. I didn't add any parts from other guns or change anything else. I reshaped the rear sight and the back of the trigger, and got rid of the curvy lines on the frame and slide. That's all. It's the same pistol, just with all the makeup washed off.
I think the more traditional version is much more appealing, but the cosmetics won't stop me from buying the one they do produce.
"Mac I think it may be both. I always wondered why anti snag sights were sloped the way they are. Conventional sloping towards the barrel seems that it's anti snag on the reholster not the draw. It typically isn't an issue, but I can see how the original r51 here has a decidedly more anti snag design with pocket carry."
You may be right but it may be rear sights aren't sloped to the barrel because they don't need to be. Snagging may not be an issue. I've carried all kinds of pistols for 34 years, off duty, on duty, under cover, stuck in my belt, pocket etc and never noticed a snagging issue. So yeah, I think it more of a styling issue and perhaps a marketing thing than a practical issue. I will admit that I don't dislike the way it looks. It is actually pretty cool looking.
Well, it's interesting to see everyone's opinion on what would have made this a better looking pistol, so I'll share mine. I've never been a fan of stylized decoration. The more functional looking a pistol is, the better, IMHO. I don't car for the curved lines along the side of the slide on this gun. It looks too much like purely stylistic touches, not something that's there because it serves any mechanical purpose, or because it makes the gun more snag-free for concealment. I also don't really get why, when they had the top of the slide nicely rounded toward the rear, they went and raised the sides of the slide and flattened out on top along the forward portion. I'd have extended that more rounded contour all the way forward. I wish they'd stuck a little closer to the looks of the original Model 51. Here's my photoshop, done along those lines:
With so many stylized curves in the slide, and the useless ridges on the frame above the trigger, I'm wondering if it's all investment cast and then polished. It's alot of milling otherwise.
I like it. It's a great looking pistol at an attractive price point. I'm interested to hear how the trigger is once somebody gets the chance to shoot one.
Separate names with a comma.