New Remington R51 - 3913 killer?

[mooner]

Am I the first to notice that the heading is 3913 killer? Unfortunately, S&W killed that little bugger off long before this came out.

 

[Dain Bramage]

>>I went to two gun shops here in San Antonio, and no one knew anything about these!<<

And yet there are a couple of folks who have already placed their orders with their LGS. Go figure.....

Same here. I've got a long working relationship with the owner of my LGS. I emailed him and he said it was okay to come in and put down a deposit.

The workers at the LGS were confounded by the lack of information; even Remington doesn't list the R51 on its website. But, the owner set them straight and made out a work order. Now I'm first in line locally.

 

[Orion8472]

mooner, . . . . no, I thought the same thing.

 

[Mike J]

Dang. Every forum I visit regularly has a thread on this pistol. The more ya'all discuss it the more I want one. They wont even be available until Febrauary. I guess time will tell whether I wind up with one or not.

Edited to add: I didn't see anything in the article about what type of finish is on the slide. I wonder if it is blued. It might not be a deal breaker but I am not really a fan of blued finishes on carry guns as they require more maintenance than stainless or one of the salt nitriding type treatments.

 

[Sistema1927]

I think that my wife has found a new carry gun.

 

[RUT]

>>This gun is not available to be shipped let alone reserved to be shipped based on the dealers I spoke to thus far.<<

I'm pretty much getting the same story. (that is, if they've even heard of it!)

 

[fastbolt]

Okay, so it's an aluminum alloy frame 9mm pistol, using a design modified from an old .32/.380 pistol, never chambered in even standard pressure 9mm, now intended to handle 9mm +P.

I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one. I've no desire to be a Beta Tester anymore. There are plenty of well-established & proven compact 9's already available for use.

Also, considering the low cost, where's it being made?

 

[Billy Shears]

Okay, so it's an aluminum alloy frame 9mm pistol, using a design modified from an old .32/.380 pistol, never chambered in even standard pressure 9mm, now intended to handle 9mm +P.

I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.

Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.

And the design, incidentally, was also made into a .45ACP version, which the navy and marine corps tested extensively in 1915. According to their report, it performed better than the 1911. Only the entry of the US into WWI prevented its adoption. The design is a proven one. There is no reason in the world for either the materials or the design to be necessarily lacking in strength for 9mm +P.

 

[VA27]

...Has anyone heard who was involved with the design on this? I'm always hearing about that Bubbits guy's latest identical pistol variant (), so I'd like to know what seasoned vet or upstart punk headed the design and engineering teams over at Remington.

TCB

From what I've read after scouring the net, it's the original 1917 Pederson design modified for modern manufacturing methods and materials. There seems to be some small question as to whether the original sliding trigger has been change to a pivoting trigger (there appears to be a pin in the frame of the R51 in the location where you might expect a trigger pivot to be) but other than modifications I don't think there is any other 'designer' involved. Of course I could be wrong and it was designed by aliens. That could explain the slide sculpturing. It helps keep the muzzle down when it's being fired while traveling at hypersonic speeds.

 

[JHansenAK47]

Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.

Valid concerns were raised. SIGs polymer frame flops had to get ironed out to work right.

 

[gc70]

There seems to be some small question as to whether the original sliding trigger has been change to a pivoting trigger (there appears to be a pin in the frame of the R51 in the location where you might expect a trigger pivot to be)

This is an interesting question. Looking at other metal-frame guns, the trigger pivot pin is very consistently very low on the frame and above the face of the trigger.

The R51 slide release lever's pin is directly above the face of the trigger, but it is probably located too high in the frame to act as a trigger pin. Below and to the rear of the slide release lever pin is another pin. That pin is a more appropriate size and is at the right height in the frame, but it is far behind the face of the trigger, which would result in a very unusual pivot motion for the trigger.

In short, the things that look like trigger pin candidates on the R51 are probably in the wrong places for that purpose. However, that is far from conclusive about the nature of the trigger; in a quick search, most polymer-framed guns did not have externally visible trigger pins.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I didn't see anything in the article about what type of finish is on the slide. I wonder if it is blued. It might not be a deal breaker but I am not really a fan of blued finishes on carry guns as they require more maintenance than stainless or one of the salt nitriding type treatments.

The reviewer at TFB said in the comments that it was a Melonite-type treatment. I am guessing that the frame, being aluminum, is anodized.

 

[Orion8472]

gc70, I hope it is a straight back pull. The angle of the trigger would be odd for a straight pull back, but it very well could be a matter of asthetics how that angle is better. We'll have to wait and see on that.

 

[fastbolt]

Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.

And the design, incidentally, was also made into a .45ACP version, which the navy and marine corps tested extensively in 1915. According to their report, it performed better than the 1911. Only the entry of the US into WWI prevented its adoption. The design is a proven one. There is no reason in the world for either the materials or the design to be necessarily lacking in strength for 9mm +P.

It's possible you misunderstood my comments. If so, I apologize.

I didn't say, or intimate, that the new aluminum-framed pistol would somehow be unsafe. I especially didn't say anything about any company being "reckless".

I question the interesting idea to resurrect a design formerly used for .32/.380 by the company, and to chamber it in 9mm (+P), without having done so in the last 100 years, and then be able to offer the inherent reliability, and robust durability, of other designs which have become a bit better established in common use since 100 years ago.

While a larger version of the design seemingly acquitted itself well in some military testing before WWI, the design itself seems to have languished for some time. Just curious why.

Also, considering how some of the larger fed, state & local LE agencies have adopted some extensive T&E methods for service pistols over the years, and how cops using equipment can sometimes be the very picture of "abuse" and an "acid testing", I've come to appreciate seeing how new firearms perform when subjected to those conditions.

I've found myself in the unwitting position of serving as a Beta Tester, and wouldn't willingly become one again.

The other thing I wonder about is the source of the major components, and even the smaller parts & assemblies.

For example, are they using parts made by an off-shore MIM house and forging facility? The experience and reputation of that facility, or facilities? Sure, there may be some non-disclosure agreements in place, as has sometimes been the case when one or another of a couple major American gun companies have provided forging, machining, fabricating, heat-treating, or whatever, for "rival" gun companies.

Is this pistol being assembled in the US, of foreign parts & assemblies? Or, is it being manufactured in the US?

I'd think these would be reasonable questions to ask. (Not that everyone might care about knowing such things about a product, of course.)

I'm also perfectly willing to let other guys & gals rush out to be the first-on-the-block to try out new guns.

At first blush, I'm glad to see a new center-fire compact pistol, chambered in one of the common defensive/service calibers, released with a metal frame.

Now, let's see how well it performs and lasts.

I'm also curious about the described test of 10 factory provided pre-production guns used for demo purpose, and how the functioning issues experienced were able to be resolved with minor cleaning and lubrication. Maybe a follow-up article or blog posting will clarify.

 

[RX-79G]

Fastbolt,

Some of the most conservative pistol designs of recent years have poor reliability reputations, while some of the most bizarre designs work almost perfectly.

This leads me to believe that it isn't the design principle that is important - and I could name 9 that are in common use on today's pistols - but the execution.

The Pederson system is really simple and the forces pretty straightforward.


What if the Browning system was actually one of the most ungainly way to cycle bullets threw a pistol, but the sweep of history has fooled us into thinking its dynamics are simple and easy to execute? I think that controlled feed system demanded by tilting barrels is actually a real design problem, and may be part of the reason you've been a Beta tester.


Remington will either take this well established design and execute it competently, or they won't. They have better chances of getting it right than Kimber or Taurus do with their haphazard copies of other people's designs.

 

[fastbolt]

I was trying to avoid naming any names of other gun companies.

I certainly agree that the execution of manufacturing of any particular pistol (or other firearm) design is going to be pretty critical to producing one that's not only proven itself to be reliable, but generally embraced and accepted as "successful" by the market.

The fixed barrel design has been successfully used in some modern pistols, but it's also certainly taken a backseat to the Browning system. German and American engineers have certainly tried the fixed barrel concept enough times.

As a simple user and LE armorer for a number of different guns, I try to avoid becoming caught up in arcane and armchair debates & pursuits of the engineering. I'm more concerned in the quality of the materials used, manufacturing/production, any necessary fitting, as well as maintenance & repair practices.

Then, how well does it actually run in any ordinary user's hands, using any of the common training/service ammunition made by any of the major American ammo makers?

If I wanted to say I carried an over-engineered pistol, I'd be carrying a P7 or HK P9S .45 .... although that P9S .45 I carried off-duty for a short while was an accurate pistol, even if it wasn't popular among plainclothes holster makers, had an interesting manual of operation and wasn't exactly the easiest gun for which to find parts back then. )

So, why do you suppose this venerable design has repeatedly languished after repeated attempts for so long? Maybe this latest attempt will be the ONE?

This resurrected design and new pistol may be quite a shot-in-the-arm for those folks wanting a compact metal-framed 9mm.

Time will tell.

Wouldn't it be interesting if some sort of delayed blowback pistol eventually displaces the big names?

I'll wait to watch it proved, though.

 

[Mike J]

Madcap Magician wrote

The reviewer at TFB said in the comments that it was a Melonite-type treatment. I am guessing that the frame, being aluminum, is anodized.

I guess somehow I missed that Thank You for pointing it out to me. I would much prefer that to a blued carry gun.

 

[Datsun40146]

I just pre-ordered mine I've been packing a S&W 3913NL for years now. Use it for IPDA, USPSA, and IPSC. Probably has around 25,000 rounds through it now. Never jammed, and I've fed it the cheapest ammo I could find. I'm excited for this new gun, and cant wait to get it in! Hopefully it will be the equal to my beloved Smith.

 

[RX-79G]

Fastbolt,

Non-Browning designs certainly aren't rare. Aside from all the police and military P9S and P7 users, the P-38 and Beretta, French MAB show that large organizations adopt "weird" designs all the time. I think the Browning thing might be an anomaly.

Maybe people will suddenly start to appreciate having combat guns that fire groups smaller than 3".

 

[Billy Shears]

It's possible you misunderstood my comments. If so, I apologize.

I didn't say, or intimate, that the new aluminum-framed pistol would somehow be unsafe.

Well, when you say things like:

Okay, so it's an aluminum alloy frame 9mm pistol, using a design modified from an old .32/.380 pistol, never chambered in even standard pressure 9mm, now intended to handle 9mm +P.

I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.

Why would you be averse to even handling it? I can certainly understand why you might not want to buy one, but not even handle? What would be the problem with handling one, or shooting one on the range if someone who owned one offered you a chance to put a few rounds through it? When you say things like that, the entirely natural inference to make is that you fear the gun may not be safe.

While a larger version of the design seemingly acquitted itself well in some military testing before WWI, the design itself seems to have languished for some time. Just curious why.

Probably because after the navy and marine corps nixed their plans to adopt in after US entry into WWI (need to get as many weapons as possible into the hands of troops ASAP meant production had to focus on existing designs, rather than tooling up to produce new ones -- which is also why more US troops went into combat carrying M1917 Enfields that Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone were already producing for the British, than M1903 Springfields, which only the Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal were set up to produce [on a much smaller scale]). After the war, there were enough 1911s in army, navy, and marine corps stockpiles that there was no need for another pistol. Remington had no other contracts for such a pistol, and as the patent on Pedersen's unique hesitation lock was still in force, no one else could produce a gun using that system either. Remington saw no civilian market for another auto pistol in .45ACP -- the Colt (and foreign guns like the Luger and C96 Mauser) filled what there was for large automatics in an age when ALL law enforcement still used revolvers, and most civilians did also.

There was a much bigger market for pocket autos, and Remington thought they could compete there. But it turned out the design didn't offer enough advantage over simpler blowbacks like the Colt M1903/M1908, which were cheaper to produce.

Guns don't always fail in the marketplace because they are inferior designs. The Hi Power was originally designed for a French military requirement. The French picked a native design, which has long since fallen by the wayside, but the Hi Power went on to arm practically half Western World's armies. They can also fail because of purely economic reasons. The Johnson rifle was a damn good rifle, but it came along after the Garand, and offered no advantage to justify switching. The original AR-10 was a better rifle than the M-14, but the army rigged the tests to pick the M-14 over the FAL and the AR-10 both. The AR-18 was arguably a better basic design for an infantry rifle than the AR-15, but by the time it came along the US military was committed to the AR-15, and it wasn't worth switching anymore than it had been with the Johnson.

 

[SFreed]

I just pre-ordered mine

Where did you pre-order it from?? I've checked with 3 LGS and Cabela's. None of them had any idea of when (or if) they would be able to actually get one in. One who I've made purchases from in the past didn't think he would see any until mid summer.

 

[bill larry]

Fastbolt, my guess as to why the original Model 51 pistol went by the wayside is manufacturing costs.

An original 51 is a work of art, and would probably cost upwards of 3K to manufacture to the same standards today in this country.

 

[gc70]

I'd think these would be reasonable questions to ask. (Not that everyone might care about knowing such things about a product, of course.)

I'm also perfectly willing to let other guys & gals rush out to be the first-on-the-block to try out new guns.

Bravo, fastbolt! Your comments and questions about the R51 are excellent and mirror nearly all of my thoughts about new guns. And for those very valid reasons, I have consistently been slow to embrace new designs. However, you did not mention one critical factor - the feature set of a gun.

The R51 appears to match my ideal feature set for a compact carry gun more closely than any other gun introduced in the last 50 years. Notwithstanding my normal conservatism regarding new gun designs, the R51's feature set overwhelms other considerations for me and I will be a willing beta tester of the product.

Maybe later I can share with you how things turn out.

-----

BTW, the original Model 51 fell victim to the same economic factors that effectively killed off all production of semi-automatic pistols by US companies, except Colt, between the late 1920s and early 1950s. It is arguable that the 1911 would have shared that fate if Colt had not been sustained somewhat by it government contracts.

 

[fastbolt]

Well, when you say things like:
I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.

Why would you be averse to even handling it? I can certainly understand why you might not want to buy one, but not even handle? What would be the problem with handling one, or shooting one on the range if someone who owned one offered you a chance to put a few rounds through it? When you say things like that, the entirely natural inference to make is that you fear the gun may not be safe.

You're reading some sort of melodramatic intent into my comment that isn't there. It may be "natural" for you to think you see it, from your perspective, but that doesn't mean it's there.

It's simply not interesting, for me, until new guns (calibers, ammunition, equipment, etc) have proven they're going to stay around and be of some relevance.

There are a lot of firearms in which I have little or no interest, let alone want to handle them. Why? Unless I expect to be seeing a lot of a new gun as either a LE firearms instructor or an armorer, or see it filling some current "need" of my own, I mostly don't have any desire to handle them. (Maybe if I were a gun writer and it was my bread & butter. )

Not because I fear they're inferior, or that they'll be unsafe ... (that's the melodramatic assumption you seemed inclined to make ) ... but simply because I don't have any interest in handling them and paying any particular interest to them until they'll shown that they're going to be around for a while ... and will serve some specific purpose for which I may need to be familiar.

I've seen enough new guns come and go to get interested in seeing another new one. Remember the Bren Ten? Steyr GB?

I'm the same way with new calibers, for that matter.

I'm definitely that way with cell phones.

Even if I entertain the possibility of maybe becoming interested in some new gun design & model at some future point, meaning after a gun has demonstrated a good degree of proven quality of manufacture, reliability, good functioning with proven defensive ammo, etc ... why get interested in it until it's shown it'll be around in a couple years?

I also don't involve myself in trying to revisit history and wonder about what might have been for firearms. When I was younger, to some degree. Would'a, could'a, should'a ... but it is what it is and I have enough to do to keep up with what is, nowadays.

I waited until 10 years after the .40 S&W had been introduced and demonstrated itself in-service as a LE caliber before I decided it wasn't a fad.

 

[fastbolt]

Fastbolt, my guess as to why the original Model 51 pistol went by the wayside is manufacturing costs.

An original 51 is a work of art, and would probably cost upwards of 3K to manufacture to the same standards today in this country.

I agree. Look what happened to the uniquely designed and engineered HK P7 (and subsequent variations, revisions and improvements).

Cost.

Even long proven designs can fall prey to the rising costs of manufacturing, as well as the occasionally fickle interest of the consumer and their grasp on a wallet, though. See any new production Colt Pythons?