Looks like the R51 is a bust. Can't say this surprises me.

[Mystro]

There are already ALOT of great proven alternatives out there. I want to handle one before I pass any judgment. I don't particularly care for its looks but who knows??? I don't think a gun like the Shield has anything to worry about but its nice to see Remington getting more involved in the market. That alone tells me Remington is thinking they want to be a player.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think Remington missed a bet on this one. It ought to have a safety lever (or button). Not because it needs one, but because it will have broader market appeal if it had one.

Although I personally agree, some will be put off by the lack of a safety lever or button, while others would refuse to consider the gun if it had one.

At the very least, a safety button would address buck460XVR's musing about a button somewhere to set it to "stun".

[Tom Servo]

It ought to have a safety lever (or button). Not because it needs one, but because it will have broader market appeal if it had one.

I don't think broad appeal was the point here, and that may have been part of the reviewer's problem.

This isn't an attempt at a "one size fits all" concealed carry gun for the masses. If that was Remington's intent, I imagine it would be a polymer, striker-fired Glockish type of thing. It's not. It's a more complex design, and it's not really geared towards the guy with minimal (if any) training who wants an ultra-small, ultra-light pocket gun.

Remington's taking a risk with doing something (well...) different, and I'm all for it. They realize that a light, hard-to-shoot plastic thing isn't what everybody wants.

[Microgunner]

I'm still going to buy one, not because I need another firearm but just because I want another firearm.
At this point in my life wants way outstrip needs.

[Beentown71]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

Whether you liked his synopsis or not, he did raise some valid concerns....especially for those not well experienced in gun handling and maintenance. Biased? Of course. Not unlike most other gun reviews tho. Like other gun reviews one must take it with a grain of salt. While I realize the aesthetics of the gun were derived for ergonomics and ease of carry, I still wonder if there is a button somewhere to set it to "stun".

Agreed. I would rather hear some potential problems than the powder puff reviews usually done. Sour grapes, bias...whatever. I read them for what I want to garner.

BTW.

U.
G.
L.
Y.

It ain't got no alibi....it ugly...it ugly.

[qwiksdraw]

To me it's good looking gun, kind of like a modernized Makarov or somewhat like a PPK or Bersa.

The appeal of a gun is a good reason to buy or not to buy, but shouldn't be the only reason. Glocks ain't too pretty to me, but I own one and I like it!

[Shadi Khalil]

Sour grapes or not from the writer have no bearing on design features I don't find appealing. I used **** to describe it before and I still feel the same way.

[gyvel]

And just what, exactly, is your problem with that?

My problem with that is that when I carry a cocked firearm with a round in the chamber, I prefer some sort of manual safety. YMMV

[44 AMP]

My problem with that is that when I carry a cocked firearm with a round in the chamber, I prefer some sort of manual safety

I quite agree. I also prefer having a manual safety. My point is that the gun is not unsafe without one, it has a passive safety, and a firing pin block.

A specific user might not be as safe with a gun without a manual safety, but that's neither the gun, nor the designer's fault.

[Uncle Malice]

Perhaps not necessarily... but with such short and light trigger travel, It seems awfully foolish to not have a safety on such a weapon.

[SHE3PDOG]

To me, the grip safety is enough to not make me worry about it. I don't particularly like manual safeties, but I also don't really see why the lack of one when there is a grip safety really matters. If you are drawing your gun, you are probably flipping the safety off as you pull it up anyway, the grip safety just kind of does that for you. I definitely think that it is more "safe" than a Glock, and I own two of those.

[44 AMP]

It does seem foolish, particularly because the original model 51 has a safety lever.

One wonders if the decision not to have a safety lever was to cater to those people who "won't carry a gun with a safety". Although I do wonder, why?

I'd like to see it with a safety lever, but that's a want, not a need.

[Tom Servo]

It does seem foolish, particularly because the original model 51 has a safety lever.

It did, but its placement made it difficult to use. I really couldn't envision a graceful way of implementing a usable manual safety on the new one.

[44 AMP]

Poor placement, difficult to use, awkward, etc., it is still a functional safety, should I choose to use it.

I think that is the crux of the matter for some of us. The lever, knob, button, slider, whatever may be in a bad spot, it may work the "wrong" way, it may take both hands to work it, it may be a lot of less than the best things, but if it is there, we feel better about the gun.

[SHE3PDOG]

I think that is the crux of the matter for some of us. The lever, knob, button, slider, whatever may be in a bad spot, it may work the "wrong" way, it may take both hands to work it, it may be a lot of less than the best things, but if it is there, we feel better about the gun.

I guess I can understand that to an extent, but I feel like there is probably an equal amount of people that would feel better about the gun if it didn't have a "superfluous" safety. I don't care one way or the other, but I think it is a fair point. I suppose if it did have a safety though, you could always choose whether or not you wanted it on, but without a safety you only have one option.

[cocojo]

I have to say the gun appeals to me because it doesn't have a manual safety, other than the grip safety. I hate pistols with frame mounted safeties. I won't buy them. I am left handed and most companies do not make them for the left handed user. I don't want them on my gun at all. Way too risky to activate and can't get to it, if the need arises. Some here feel the need for the safety and feel opposite of my feelings, but for me I prefer a clean gun without the safety. If you want a gun with a safety buy the S&W shield or bodyguard, I won't because of the safety. Another thing I love is how the grip safety is also a slide release. That's perfect for a lefty because most guns are right handed only. I work the slide on all my guns, but I like this concept. If your looking for a gun with a frame mounted safety there are plenty of good pistols out there, this is not the gun for you. Glad to see that Remington omitted this device for us non safety lovers. I guess that's why they make different flavors of ice cream. I prefer plane ole vanilla.

[barnbwt]

It's just a different school of thought; some think a safety should merely stop the gun, some think it should also stop the shooter (unless they consciously defeat it)

At least it takes more than a shirt tail in a bad holster to set off this passive safety

TCB

[cerberus65]

I almost replied without reading the review. But I was a good boy... :-)

I have to say that one guy hating on a gun doesn't sway my opinion much. He did point out a couple of things to look out for (and I will) but the tone of his article didn't do much for me. If something is really crap you can show that objectively (without hyperbole or hyperventilating). When he said it's roughly the size of a Glock 19 he lost me entirely. I had already spent a bunch of time comparing the dimensions of the R51 to several other carry guns I have. Small dimensional differences make a _big_ difference on a carry gun. He glossed right over that fact in his rush to crapify the gun. Meh... I'll form my own opinion, thanks.

My first reaction to the R51 was "I want one". Over the course of a month I'm now at "I really, really want to try one because I'm pretty dang sure I want one". If it feels good in the hand I'll plunk down money for one. If not, it'll join the Sig P239 in the "dang, that could have been a perfect carry gun" category. (The squared front grip of the P239 made shooting it uncomfortable)

[tahunua001]

I would say that there is more to a guns reputation than a single review, however when an internet gun blog review(usually very positive due to being paid advertisements) gives it less than a standing ovation a person must wonder. looks like they took the horrible trigger of the M&P, heavy recoil of the XDS, and poor accuracy of Kahr feather weights. 2 inches at 5 yards is nothing to brag about, although for featherweights it is a lot harder to shoot accurately.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One wonders if the decision not to have a safety lever was to cater to those people who "won't carry a gun with a safety". Although I do wonder, why?

Interestingly, the original Model 51 design, like the 1911 design, did not initially have a thumb safety.

[44 AMP]

looks like they took the horrible trigger of the M&P, heavy recoil of the XDS, and poor accuracy of Kahr feather weights. 2 inches at 5 yards is nothing to brag about

I went back and re-read the review, to look specifically at certain points he mentioned.

He said the take-up and trigger pull were "exquisite" (that means "good", I think), but he couldn't get "tactile feedback" on the trigger reset. HE goes on to say how, even after hundreds of rounds fired and a lot of dry fire practice, HE was still pulling the trigger before it reset. AND, he blames that for his less than stellar accuracy. 2 inches at 5 yds? "snort!"

To me, that's like saying "I couldn't drive it well due to the fact that I had to push the clutch all the way to the floor in order to shift gears..."

The poor baby.....

That isn't a gun problem, its a shooter issue. From his own words, this is a guy who either cannot, or will not bother to learn how to best use the pistol. He has a certain style of shooting, and if HE cannot shoot the gun well, the way he wants to shoot it, the gun is at fault. I have a descriptive word for that, but the language filters prevent me from using it...

As to the recoil, again, a purely subjective opinion. Sure, smaller guns in serious defensive calibers are less pleasant to shoot than bigger ones, and he is correct about the "bite" from the edges of the grip safety opening being something that the maker ought to do something about. But I think there are plenty of people who would barely notice or not notice a problem at all. Only getting numbers of them into shooters hands will show if its an issue for all of us, or just him (and his shooting buddy).

[Tom Servo]

2 inches at 5 yds? "snort!"

Frankly, if that's the best group the gun can hold, something's defective.

Heck, I had to shoot one of the Sccy pistols the other day. It did better than that, which was my way of showing the owner it wasn't the gun.

Perhaps our reviewer needs a similar lesson, especially since his experience contradicts that of the folks at Gunsite.

[tahunua001]

He said the take-up and trigger pull were "exquisite" (that means "good", I think), but he couldn't get "tactile feedback" on the trigger reset. HE goes on to say how, even after hundreds of rounds fired and a lot of dry fire practice, HE was still pulling the trigger before it reset. AND, he blames that for his less than stellar accuracy. 2 inches at 5 yds? "snort!"

To me, that's like saying "I couldn't drive it well due to the fact that I had to push the clutch all the way to the floor in order to shift gears..."

your logic is backwards. normally while driving a stick you want to fully push the clutch to the floor, unless you like changing out clutches every 20,000 miles. with triggers, fully releasing the trigger, I believe is refered to as slapping, which is not part of good trigger control. I have this same problem with the M&P line and that is why more people upgrade the trigger on the M&P than any other handgun that I'm aware of. you should not have to guess where the reset point is or fully release the trigger to make sure that the trigger has reset, that is just bad design. your trigger should have an audible and perceptible click to let you know that the trigger has reset and that you can stop letting the trigger out and begin taking it back in.

glocks, rugers, springfields, CZ, Berettas, 1911s, BHPs all have this click... M&Ps and apparently the R51 do not and that is why many shooters can not shoot accurately.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by tahunua001

you should not have to guess where the reset point is or fully release the trigger to make sure that the trigger has reset, that is just bad design. your trigger should have an audible and perceptible click to let you know that the trigger has reset and that you can stop letting the trigger out and begin taking it back in.

Some people subscribe to the concept of tactile and audible reset and others do not. The presence or absence of such a characteristic in a gun is only a "flaw" with respect to an individual's preferences.

[tahunua001]

and to that individuals tactical training. every course I've been at has taught to use a perceptible reset. without that everyone in such a course is pretty much out of luck.