"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."
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?
TCB