New Remington R51 - 3913 killer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but what if Remington produced it both ways with the one with the less machine/casting work being the economy version? I don't know how much cheaper it could be since the MSRP is already very reasonable, but Kahr does this between their PM and CM pistols or the P and CW pistols.

Just thinking out loud. :)

 
This gun just answered EVERYTHING I want in a pistol. (For the record, BillyShear's interpretation I like best...).

A Blowback 9mm single-stack that retains SLIM features, cuts at 4.5" height and has a decent swept grip angle. ALSO - Metal Frame. I'm SO tired of everything being poly frame. I can't stand the things.

RE: Cheap - Well, Remington has many manufacturing sites now, and considering the Pedersen system was able to be manufactured semi-easily in the '20s, I'm sure modern techniques do it MUCH easier. Remember also that Marlin is now with Remington - and the kind of manufacturing needed to make a Pedersen pistol is similar to what is needed for a lever-action rifle...just by taking a brief look at it.
 
Hollywood should love this pistol as it legitimately makes a "clicky" sound every time you bring it on target!;)

Seriously, as soon as the beta testers out there get done wringing it out I will add one to my collection if its as good as it seems to be.
 
Oh, something I just noticed about this too...

Picture from Gunblast's review:
DSC09988.jpg

That slide seems a little overbuilt for 9 and 40, given the metal around the barrel. Granted, it keeps a spring underneath, but how likely is it that they've pre-designed the slide with the notion of a .45-barrel hole cut in the end of it?

The 53 was a successful design, and I think that if this sells as well as all the the internet buzz is showing it will, there's a good chance of a .45 variant coming down the river to us...
 
That R-51 has an arse that is very similar to the Vektor CP-1:

R51_zps1cdfe864.jpg

Pistol-VektorCP19mmP_zpse454d6e3.jpg

There is no sense at all in changing the orientation of the rear sight: that whole rear contour is designed to be snag free and I can tell you (at least from the perspective of having carried a Vektor IWB for 3 years 24/7) it makes for a very comfortable carry gun with a smooth draw.

They seem to have a better front sight on the Remington (the Vektor one is sharp and does snag in some cases).

Next time I am in the US I am going to try my best to get hold of one of those R-51s to try, it looks like my type of gun.
 
I think it's great looking the way it is. I just hope they don't release it with the skeletonized trigger I've seen in some images. If the beta testers report it as reliable, I'll buy two.
 
It looks like the 'love-child' of a HK P9S and a Vektor CP1. :cool:
 
As I explain to my wife, it isn't that I am bitching, but rather expressing my opinion...

I would prefer a bit more conservative design, but the 51's current configuration certainly wouldn't dissuade me.

To me, the biggest reason for a more conservative style is a nod to the pistol's heritage. I am a big 1911/Hi Power fan, and love their aesthetics. The original 51 has a sleek, elegant design, similar to the BHP. The new version, not so much. If the new model is a success, hopefully Remington would consider also manufacturing a "classic" edition similar to what Colt did with the 1918 version of the 1911.
 
Quote:
"Looks like a lower cost alternative to the Kimber Solo, with the added benefit that it's not made by Kimber. "

Amen to that!

I hope it has that gorgeous deep bluing that the original had! I always liked that little pistol and now it's even better as a 9mm!
 
I literally just heard about this gun, very excited to see an affordable slim 9mm with a metal frame coming out. For that price, I'm signing up for the beta test.

As to the thread title, the other gun that really was supposed to be the 3913 killer was the P239, but no matter how much I've wanted to I've never enjoyed shooting them for some reason.
 
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.

The rear of the slide doesn't have a barrel/spring assembly running through it, just the bolt body which sits lower in the frame. It may well be the metal was getting thin if they ran the taper all the way forward.

"That slide seems a little overbuilt for 9 and 40, given the metal around the barrel. Granted, it keeps a spring underneath, but how likely is it that they've pre-designed the slide with the notion of a .45-barrel hole cut in the end of it?"
Possible, but I kinda doubt it. The spring, plus clearance, plus another .12" or so of steel surrounding it probably adds up to about what we're seeing. I'm pretty sure they'd need to redo the frame/lower for .45, and that means the slide would need stretching and a bunch of other changes, too. I do think a 45 version is inevitable if Rem doesn't utterly blow this thing (hard to imagine how, given the reviews, pre-emptive aftermarket, and feature set so far)

"It looks like the 'love-child' of a HK P9S and a Vektor CP1."
"The original 51 has a sleek, elegant design, similar to the BHP."
"That R-51 has an arse that is very similar to the Vektor CP-1:"
"Whitney Wolverine"
"Space gun"

I love how no one seems able to describe the aesthetic look of the gun; that's almost a sure sign Remington is onto something real, here. Also, the gun is nothing like the CP-1, a straight blowback with the attendant recoil, it merely has a smooth rear side for carry that slopes forward like all non-glock pistols have for at least a century. The original 51 was thin and rounded like other small pocket guns from Europe during the era like the Ortgies, but unlike its competition had a true locking breech. The Hi Power is a giant pig of a gun (by comparison) with slab sides and angular lightening cuts across it.

"I literally just heard about this gun, very excited to see an affordable slim 9mm with a metal frame coming out."
I think it surprised everyone. It's hard to believe rumors or concept drawings of this piece haven't floated out before now. I have to assume it was kept under deep wraps to keep the competition from springing similar guns at the same time.

And the reason SIG is unable to sell an "anything killer" is because they have too many dang model numbers to keep straight anymore (it's gotten worse than Glock, and their endless variations on the same gun clutter up gunstore display cases relentlessly :D). Which one's the P239 again? :p

TCB
 
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.
The rear of the slide doesn't have a barrel/spring assembly running through it, just the bolt body which sits lower in the frame. It may well be the metal was getting thin if they ran the taper all the way forward.
I don't believe that's the case. The original Model 51 and the .45ACP Model 53 used the exact same action, and they both did extend the rounded contour on the top of the slide all the way forward to the muzzle. If the metal were a little thin, they could simply make the metal in that area a little thicker. Most modern autoloaders using the Browning tilting barrel mechanism have a flattened top surface on the slide because most of them nowadays have dispensed with locking lugs on the upper surface of the barrel, which mate to recesses milled into the underside of the slide. Nowadays they use the ejection port itself as the locking point, mated to a block-shaped section around the chamber end of the barrel. That necessitates a more or less squared-off slide contour. But this gun doesn't use the Browning tilting barrel. It uses the same Pedersen hesitation lock that the original Model 51 and Model 53 did. and there's no need for a blocky slide contour. They may have done it for manufacturing ease, but given the extraneous, swoopy contours they milled into the slide, I doubt even that. I think they were simply following the current aesthetic trend in automatic handguns. But while that aethetic is dictated by the modern versions of the Browning tilting barrel, it's not needed for the Pedersen hesitation lock, and the gun would have looked a lot better without it.
 
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.

In all likelihood, The curves DO serve a purpose.

Notice that they are not arbitrary in size, shape, or location. They flow from the front of the guide rails back, with material above cut out, which reduces weight. This means it may be likely that the .40S&W uses the same frame, with some of the weight possibly added back to the slide, much as the Walther P99 does with its 9mm & 40S&W versions.

This cut also allows for a slimmer upper part of the slide, and allows the pistol to be more easily holstered. As mentioned before, a number of other pistol designs (FNP, FNS, FNX, and many Kahr pistols, among others) have a similar cut in the slide.


he useless ridges on the frame above the trigger

I'm pretty sure those ridges have purpose as well. They look like an excellent way to index your weak hand thumb when shooting, or your strong hand index finger when you are not shooting.

They may also serve as an aid during disassembly (similar to the ridges on the barrel), though I'm not sure about that.



.
 
Last edited:
In all likelihood, The curves DO serve a purpose.

Notice that they are not arbitrary in size, shape, or location.
The location is not arbitrary, and the size is not completely, the curve at the front, however, is.

They flow from the front of the guide rails back, with material above cut out, which reduces weight. This means it may be likely that the .40S&W uses the same frame, with some of the weight possibly added back to the slide, much as the Walther P99 does with its 9mm & 40S&W versions.

This cut also allows for a slimmer upper part of the slide, and allows the pistol to be more easily holstered. As mentioned before, a number of other pistol designs (FNP, FNS, FNX, and many Kahr pistols, among others) have a similar cut in the slide.
The weight they saved by slimming down slide above those curved bulges above the rails, they then added back to the slide by extending the flats upward and making the top flattened in contour, instead of rounded. And I don't think that making that portion of the slide a millimeter or so slimmer would aid all that much in holstering -- especially when the flattened top part of the slide is less conducive to discreet, comfortable, inside the waistband carry than a more rounded slide would have been.

They could have gone either way. And don't get me wrong, the gun is still the most interesting thing I've seen come down the pike in years, and I definitely mean to acquire one. But I think they stylized it just a bit excessively, and I would have preferred it had they been just a little more conservative.
 
Also, the gun is nothing like the CP-1, a straight blowback with the attendant recoil

The CP-1 is delayed gas blowback, it is very comfortable to shoot but has one of the worst triggers I have ever felt on a firearm.
 
Well, I'll be dipped; the Vektor is gas-delayed, basically an even uglier variation on the P7 :eek:. The Remington appears to have a much better safety layout, as well as trigger design by all accounts so far. Also looks better made (on the outside anyway, and no polymer). Also cost the same as the Vektor did years ago :confused:. I am curious how much effect the gas delay has; IIRC, it is less effective than mechanical delay systems like rollers, so the reciprocating mass still has to be fairly large compared to a true locking breech. The Pedersen is more like a blow-back actuated but recoil operated scheme. Sort of like those primer-actuated Garand prototypes in a way.

I think I understand exactly what design feature Billy Shears was talking about now; not the pocket/step cuts on the slide, but the round-over radius from the top of the slide. My belief is Remington wanted to preserve some of the flat-top designs which are so popular and familiar in America. Many folks like a flat top since they claim it helps them align the sights better, for one. For two, you already see how many people think it looks like a cheap Euro-trash blowback pocket gun; rounding over the slide like those would make it look even more foreign to the ignorant sensibilities of the average American gun buyer. It probably wouldn't look as cool on an Isometric elevation on gun mags without a bit of a flat surface up top to catch reflections when polished ;)

TCB
 
I certainly won't replace my 3913 with the new R51. But I like the fact that a newly designed retro style all-metal single stack is entering the market. I hope it's a big success.
 
Wow that's really hard to visualize what is what from those patent images.
I think the CGI animation is clearer what's going on.
 
This new R51 looks to check all the boxes with respect to what, functionally, makes an efficient concealed carry pistol. Great. Other handguns do too, but the R51 goes on to appeal to me for myriad other quirky reasons that have nothing to do with logic.

Given the price, I'll probably buy one.
 
>>I certainly won't replace my 3913 with the new R51<<

I don't intend to replace anything with it... I'm getting one "just because". ;)
 
Someone thought that the trigger goes back like a 1911, but I think it is a hinged type trigger. I was hoping for it to be 1911-ish, but regardless, I'm betting it is hinged. I'll still get one, though.
 
The original R51 DOES have a trigger like a 1911. But the new R-51 has a pin right where you'd expect a hinged trigger to be. I'm hoping I'm wrong and it does in fact have that straight back pull.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top