Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Ric, Jan 30, 2014.
It sure seems that way, but this gun has so much potential I'd hate to see it utterly abandoned due to one actor's incompetence. I'm also confident it could be buffed into something exceptional with a little investment. It seems the bolt camming specifically may be the root problem, which means there is likely a simple root solution. True, a gun that needs tuning (or finish-machining ) will not be successful in a market of ready-mades, but I am still anxious to get my hands on one and see how it ticks.
But I'm a gun nerd, and most people aren't. I think the Cobray Pocket Pal is a brilliant little doo-dad that puts the Liberator to shame, but most would call both a POS. I think the Pedersen is superior to the Browning in many ways, and was unjustly killed by market too poor to afford its quality; now, it seems the company is too poor to produce a competitive product in a market rich with alternatives. What we need is someone with the money and know-how to adapt the design principle to a quality weapon (I would if I were a Mr. Boberg, but alas I am not )
FWIW, the 'quality' of the R51 is not unprecedented; it's just that we haven't seen shoddy machine-work marketed in firearms in a while. It is still disturbing to see Remington reduced to producing stuff on par with turn of the century Belgian knock-offs, though.
Really? No one is excited to learn how the thing works, how it was machined, where exactly Rem screwed up, how the issues could be fixed, or what opportunities the vastly-different design may offer compared to the competition? Like I said, what I fear far more than the gun sucking, is people thinking the mechanical concept itself is the flaw.
-Integral suppressors; impossible with a tilt barrel, but perhaps not here
-Muzzle devices; suppressors, accurizing bushings, compensators, bayonets --none will impede operation
-Hot rodding; we have no idea how much thrust the beefy bolt and lug can carry
-Pistol/carbine conversions; barrel length doesn't impact the operation
-Sighting arrangement; frame mounted makes a lot more sense with a fixed barrel
-Customization/modification; melting and stretching/shrinking of the frame
-Scalability up or down in power/size; the fixed barrel means a carbine could operate this way with no gas system but without blowback fouling
-Competition; even Remington's abortion has a better trigger than other guns in this class --a quality race gun frame-mounted sight or laser would be truly keyed to the fixed bore, and the hesitation lock dampens recoil impulse which could possibly reduce split times. With good parts, why wouldn't it be every bit as accurate as an H&K P7, but with an infinitely better trigger?
Yet another Glock or 1911 or Browning-derivative --now that is boring to me. What're they gonna 'innovate,' a new rear sight notch shape? A new 'finish?' Mid-slide serrations? That branch of firearms design is a great big healthy log, just full of sedentary hardwood, and not going anywhere soon. The hesitation lock is like one of those desert cacti that won't sprout except during a monsoon year but makes really tasty fruit (notice how Remington only dared to roll it out during what is arguably the highest-sustained demand & upward trajectory of the civilian firearms industry our nation (or the world?) has ever seen.)
The first time I picked up a Luger P08, it felt quite a bit different than my 1911. That toggle bolt is very different from the slide and tilting barrel of the 1911 and it just felt wrong. There were torques in the wrong direction, and resistance where I didn't expect it. It took a bit of getting used to. Same with the trigger the first time I fired a S&W 59. Compared to the 1911 and BHP I was used to, it just felt weird. Very few people have fired a pistol with a Pedersen action and the ones that have don't seem all that put off by the R51. So I'm hoping that unfamiliarity is a large factor in the negative reviews we are seeing.
All this Remington bashing and everyone declaring the gun is "dead" and "broken" because of a few reviews online. I think the problem here is no one is speaking out on the positive side. Kind of like the old cliché, the squeaky wheel gets the grease right?
I love my R51 and think that yes, maybe a few have a couple of kinks, but there are a vast amount out there that don't. People that are happy with theirs aren't wont to get on a board and praise them no less complain about them.
I really do think there is group of people out there working to denigrate the Remington for ulterior purposes and motives.
Sure, mine was hard to rack initially out of the box. Fixed with cleaning and oiling and a bit of grease. I've put 250 rounds through mine so far without a FTF or FTE. It's smoothing out even more now. I'm going to put another 200-300 through it this weekend. Break in will be at about what is recommended for new guns these day.
As a caveat, I like the trigger and safety grip and have no problems with either. I can totally rack mine with two fingers. My wife absolutely loves how easy it is to rack the slide as she can completely do it with this pistol where my other small pistols are very difficult for her. Plus, the recoil is the lightest of any 9mm I have ever shot.
Anyway, just had to throw that out there. I'm a bit amazed and shocked at how quickly some have gone to declaring the gun broken and dead without actually even experiencing one.
I just don't have the time or energy to get on and defend against every negative comment out there and imagine others who are happy with theirs are the same. YMMV.
I suspect you are correct.
Are they really positioned "head to head"? R 51 9mm G 42 .380, just saying......
I suspect that it could be something as simple as . . . . these guns WILL require a breakin to help smooth out the internal operating mechanism, and then will run well. I sometimes wonder how well the troubled R51 pistols were cleaned and oiled/greased.
I still have one on order, . . . . and am torn on whether or not I'll accept it when it comes in. Of course, I have a gunsmith friend who may be able to trouble shoot any issues that arrise with it.
No, they probably really aren't. But hitting the market at the same time, and being marketed for the same general purpose (CCW), means they are to some extent, competing for a share of the same market so comparison is almost inevitable.
Sure, I had high hopes of this new (supposedly based on the Model 51) gun with the neglected Pedersen devise, would be a CCW dream come true.
I like guns that work right, out of the box. So far, this one hasn't.
Perhaps in a few months or a couple of years, things will all be better, and we can have a reliable carry. I'm waiting to hear the good news.
Remington, please don't drop the ball, but get it right, like the R1!
Unknown about the Model 51. The more recent R1 (1911 clone), is a well operating and well respected handgun. Whatever they did right about the R1, they should do with the R51.
My LGS got one in a few days ago with the "hard to rack" slide problem. I was able to examine it and found the problem had nothing to do with the locking mechanism, but was the trigger disconnect.
The disconnecter is a single stamped steel part that holds the trigger bar up against the sear. When the slide cycles it moves backwards slightly then cams downward. In the pistol I examined the downward movement was where it hung up, causing the "sticky slide".
Pulling the trigger with the slide in it's rearmost position keeps the disconnecter depressed. With the trigger held, it cycled as smoothly as my own R51.
I tried placing it at the 4 or 5 o'clock positions, and found that the longer grip (both height and front/back length) would probably print given my wardrobe selection...something my SP101 doesn't do.
..speaking of, was actually in the store to pick up some 158gr XTP pills, and stumbled on a jar of Win296 (and H110) powders. Haven't seen those in stock in a while! Looks like the powders are finally getting back to the shelves...
This is as true as it is idiotic . I personally think it's because both were also hyped at around the same time, that the comparisons were made so frequently (easy to compare things when neither is present). The most obvious culprit for the comparisons is that dumb fool who single-handedly nuked the rollout before Remington even had a chance to screw it up by posting very inaccurate dimensions. To this day people won't forgive Remington (for what that unaffiliated guy said on the internet )
"I found the mag release a little awkward to get to, and the pistol does indeed dig into the webbing of the hand -even in just holding it."
Wonder if it just needs a beaver tail or extended mag release . See, even the 1911 wasn't 'flawless' out of the gate (it also wasn't made poorly, either)
"So, . . . why DO you think this new R51 isn't operating well like the Model 51? Did those have issues when they were new. . . . .and the ones around today have just been shot enough to smooth out past issues?"
Pretty much everything I've learned indicates the Model 51 was built to a higher standard than the 1911 at the time. Do recall that the design was discontinued because it was so much more expensive and refined than crude blowback pocket guns, and the Depression was coming on hard. The only issues --big ones, though-- that the 51's had were bolts and slides prone to breaking, but that was due to a very inefficient design choice by Mr. Pedersen early on, that likely stemmed from the lack of knowledge of fatigue mechanics in that era (Liberty ships and the DeHaviland hadn't taught us those lessons, yet ). The R51 very seems to have been improved admirably, at least in that particular instance, for a much stronger design.
"It's been one blunder after another."
-Leak of the secret project in December (not scripted, Remington was livid)
-Suspiciously scripted pre-trial shooting at Gunsite pissed off non-invitees
-Wildly inaccurate dimensions by a blogger
-Inaccurate dimensions go uncorrected for weeks
-Low-ball MSRP (a minor slight, and surely due to Remington giving a number too early)
-Gun missing from SHOT show when it was most needed for PR, causing suspicion
-Simultaneous price increase and (finally) corrected dimensions 'revealed' at SHOT looks like a bait & switch
-Very few brief, uninformative, but unanimous bad reviews from SHOT
-Nick Leghorn's hatchet job review somehow came out weeks ahead of the next one
-No news after the first negative review for nearly two weeks
-The few initial positive reviews by early buyers were left to fend for themselves and not trumpeted by Big Green
-Vast storms of BS gradually eclipsed the few good reviews as numerous negative reviews gave carte blanche to trolls/haters to pile on ad infinitum
-Weeks pass, and there is finally a halfway-decent technical review put online of the damn thing (RyeOnHam)
-We, the dedicated consumer/gun geek, slowly begin deciphering what the hell Remington screwed up for them (Flashcube, disconnector and camming surfaces seem to be very recurring themes, the latter ironing itself out readily)
And, here we are today. Yes, it has been quite the panoply of errors, hasn't it? To be honest, half the issues are self-inflicted and either directly caused or inflamed by incompetent marketing, media control, or promotion. Those are a lot easier to solve than manufacturing issues, so I can see why Remington wanted to address the marketing side of things first when they fired the VP the other day. Heck, I'm an untrained idiot with an engineering degree, and I saw a whole litany of mistakes and missed opportunities every step of the way --how did their MBA golden boys miss them?
Good post. I completely agree. The company obviously has some issues. The CEO of Freedom Group resigned a few weeks ago too. No one's perfect but this stuff is amateur hour.
Separate names with a comma.