Idea on R51 reliability issues.

[marine6680]

I, like many, was very interested in the R51 when I first head of it.

I, like many, were further disillusioned by the early reports... And further still by initial hands on reviews.


But watching/reading the reviews online has left me with a couple takeaways.

As the reviewers fire the pistol for testing... As time goes on, problems increase. One would assume a pistol would break in and do better after a couple hundred rounds.

MAC made a comment in his review about problems seeming to get worse as the testing progressed.


The next thing... People reporting that the pistols come packed full of grease in the slide and locking breech piece.


So here is my idea that these things seem to point to.

Could the R51 be sensitive to lube issues?

Malfunctions, especially ones related to the slide not cycling fully... A slide and locking block that come full of lube grease from the factory...

Many users do not use grease when lubing their pistols. Those that do tend to only use it on certain parts, like slide rails.

So could it be that the R51 needs grease to run well... Also needing cleaned/relubed after fewer rounds?

Looking at pictures of the locking block, there is a lot of sliding and load surfaces... They will be under a lot of stress... too little lube would rob the action of energy to cycle due to higher friction.

This is a low use type pistol, so needing cleaned and lubed after a hundred or so rounds isn't automatically a bad thing... Though it isn't optimum.


Anyone think this is plausible as the cause?

[Uncle Malice]

I doubt it. Far too many issues being reported to be simply related to (you need more/less lube).

Lube related failures aren't so rampant.

[Uncle Malice]

Poor QC and poor tolerances are likely to blame.

[marine6680]

There are a wide range of issues being reported, like loose sights... But sticking only with slide related malfunctions during firing...

And yes lube issues are not a huge problem on the whole for most pistols.


But this is a new action type, one that it is safe to say, no one really has experience in. It may have some peculiarities that we have to learn.


Anyone that owns one or has one for testing could test this easily. Clean and relube well with grease on the locking block and test again.


I am sure QC problems are also a part of it, maybe the main...

Its just an idea... Can't hurt to try.

[TunnelRat]

It may have some peculiarities that we have to learn.

I brought this up in the other thread. We don't have to do anything, nor does the market. This is where a big issue lies. There are almost limitless options when it comes to reliable carry pistols these days. The market doesn't have to make excuses for this at all. If it were the only game in town, sure. But it's not, it's light years away from the only game in town. In order for the market to suck up learning these "peculiarities" it has to bring something to the table no other gun can. That last part is very debatable.

[marine6680]

This is true... We do not have to do anything. But a new system to learn, should we choose to, may have its own peculiar traits.

No excuses here though... It doesn't work... It should

Sad, it is an interesting idea. Just from a pure curiosity standpoint I would like it to work.

But for carry, reliability is very important. This pistol has not shown that yet.


If the issue is fixable with a little extra lube, and owners report success with such, then good.

If not... Well there are many other options.


This post was more an exercise in thought experiment than anything.

[chris in va]

I think a stronger barrel spring and some judicious beveling of cam surfaces will go a long way toward fixing the problems.

[barnbwt]

I know MAC suggested a stronger barrel spring, but that's not the issue. The problem is the chambers are rough and short, and that means cartridges have to be swaged into place. Yes, a heavy spring will force it into battery, but that doesn't actually fix the problems and has the potential for serious consequences.

My R51 displays slide "notchiness" but not quite binding (much, much better after relubing and a few hundred rounds) and appears to be the result of the disconnector being both very difficult to press down and shaped in such a way that binding can occur more easily. I haven't taken the FCG apart to see why it takes a good 5 pounds to depress a little steel tab, but something in the disconnector is extremely hard to actuate. Remington also put the disconnector in a spot where it has to ride up and over the slide, then the bolt , then the slide, then the bolt, and finally the slide again every time you rack it; that will never feel smooth no matter how effortless you make it.

The last issue on my particular gun (and apparently others) is that the part of the slide that cams up the bolt to unlock was very sharp and extremely hard, while the ramps on the bolt were a softer metal (to be more resilient). The result was scraping/gouging of the bolt cams, which while they do not present a safety issue since they only unlock the bolt, would eventually damage the camming action enough to render the gun inoperative. I polished the corners myself, and now the gouging has ceased and the bolt ramps are burnishing smooth.

The gun continues to get better, and hopefully I can take it out again next weekend with the new walnut grips I worked up for it

TCB

[gyvel]

Talk about the ultimate in beta testing...

[marine6680]

Wow... There is a lot of sliding and moving parts... With odd geometries and motion paths.

So lubed well and parts needing smoothed over seemed to help.


A heavier recoil spring would/could cause timing and cycling issues in a design such as the R51. Completely different animal than a Browning action. The same way of thinking won't always work.


Its an interesting idea for a locking action, I would like to see it work just because its... Well... Neat... But there are options to go to if it doesn't work.

For those with the money to spare, owning one as a curiosity is fine, as they are not in a place where they need the pistol to function reliably.

[PetahW]

.


IMO the rough chambers might indicate that the maker had developmental case obturation problems - i.e. not enough obturation to slow down the recoiling parts enough to keep the pistol from destroying itself.

While the Pedseren design worked well enough at .32ACP & .380ACP pressures, the full 9x19 Parabellum (Luger) chambering may be stretching the design to (or past) it's limitations.


.

[nc-oldfart]

After so info from another tread The pistol will have some re-engineering done to them. So any pistols sold and sent back for R&R are gone till a fix is developed . I would expect a "new " pistol to come out of this .

[TunnelRat]

After so info from another tread The pistol will have some re-engineering done to them. So any pistols sold and sent back for R&R are gone till a fix is developed . I would expect a "new " pistol to come out of this .

Would you please let us know where you saw this thread? If there is a recall in the works it would be good to let people here know.

[marine6680]

I would find that interesting reading as well.

[barnbwt]

IMO the rough chambers might indicate that the maker had developmental case obturation problems - i.e. not enough obturation to slow down the recoiling parts enough to keep the pistol from destroying itself.

Ockham's Razor would suggest the rough chambers are due to the same issues as all the other rough machining in critical places. The short chambers, too. There is not one polished surface on my gun. Also, 'obturation' relates to cartridge sealing; I am guessing you were postulating the tooling marks may be intentional fluting, which eases extraction, or intentional retarding cuts, which are only useful in blow backs, which the R51 is not (and that concept has only been shown to be useful in low end rim fires, in any case). Whichever the case, the locking lug area appears to be extremely strong compared to other areas like the barrel pin or slide lugs. The case bulges are due to long bullets hitting short chambers not allowing the bolt to go fully forward and get proper case support.

TCB

[James K]

Interesting on the R51.

First, people who had never seen one were all enthusiastic about what a great gun it is.

Then people who had never seen one dumped on it, claiming it had all sorts of problems.

I am reserving judgment until I get one, or at least see one.

Jim

[TunnelRat]

Then people who had never seen one dumped on it, claiming it had all sorts of problems.

YouTube is a thing...

[nc-oldfart]

NO RECALL. Just a guy that talked to a CS guy that said they are resigning some parts. Where !! THR, defence carry or firearm and gun. If I run across it as I read i'll be back.

[blackamos]

As soon as they work out the problems I will own one. In my mind it is the most interesting and good looking pistol of the last few decades. Even if the price goes up to $750 I'm still in for one.

[gyvel]

As soon as they work out the problems I will own one. In my mind it is the most interesting and good looking pistol of the last few decades. Even if the price goes up to $750 I'm still in for one.

I think if you wait a while you won't have to pay "$750."

As I said in another thread, I won't be a bit surprised if these end up as a $299.00 closeout item in the CDNN catalog

[greyeyezz]

The way the QC is on it now I wouldn't accept one if given to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4M_TUodIUc

[barnbwt]

"The way the QC is on it now I wouldn't accept one if given to me."

Well, that's too bad for you, I guess. They're very easy shooters and a very compelling concept, if only Remington hadn't queered the deal.

"As I said in another thread, I won't be a bit surprised if these end up as a $299.00 closeout item in the CDNN catalog"
Yup, just like those POS Mateba autorevolvers that go for +5000$ nowadays . I think they blew out Coonans and AMTs at one time, too.

"YouTube is a thing..."
'YouTube is hyperbole' is probably more accurate a statement than 'YouTube is not hyperbole'

"Interesting on the R51.

First, people who had never seen one were all enthusiastic about what a great gun it is. At the same time the gun bloggers/writers were

Then people who had never seen one dumped on it, claiming it had all sorts of problems. At the same time the gun bloggers/writers were"

Then a whole ton of scared pre-orderers and lay-awayers dumped 'their' guns in a panic, and now act as if they received poor merchandise and returned it (not here so much, but this trend is really noticeable on some other forums). "That gun's such a POS, I cancelled my order sight unseen!"

Then guns started getting out into the public, and the lucky 'few' who's guns weren't inoperative began raving about how the guns were actually pretty exceptional little doodads with a lot of potential.

The ball is firmly in Remington's court, now. I will not be returning my pistol (which is getting better every day, now that I've polished the lifting cam) to some idiotic open-ended refund/buyback like Caracal did. Even if the design dies, the gun will immediately being appreciating solely due to the fact it is a functional firearm and is suddenly very scarce.

"After so info from another tread The pistol will have some re-engineering done to them."
Not buying it. The 'engineering' is hardly the problem with the gun (well, the disconnector could stand some improvement). It is all the machine work. Specifically, the interior slide, bolt, and FCG parts. The outside of the slide if fantastic and obviously built to a more accurate standard than the bolt, somehow. The frame casting and machine work were very ably done (easy to do when it's aluminum). The barrel rifling isn't awesome, but does what it is supposed to. But the milling of the interfacing moving parts is almost uniformly rough-hewn and varied. That ain't engineering, that's a shop and/or management that doesn't give a hoot (full disclosure, I'm a design engineer; the Remington R51 is not, in my 'web-eckspurt' opinion, a significantly flawed or ugly* design. It is actually pretty well done, with few inherent deficiencies)

*ugly in the engineering sense; extra parts, inefficient movements, inscrutable operation, poor control of interactions, etc.

TCB

[Uncle Malice]

barnbwt,

What about that crazy wonky trigger everyone has shown in the videos I've seen - even ones that work. Does your trigger have that much slop in it too? Reliability issues aside, that seems insane to have such a poorly fitted trigger in the gun.

As for returning the gun, it might not be a bad idea. Word from Remington is that they are holding all guns awaiting newly designed parts(which they have NO ETA FOR at this time. Maybe those will work. Who knows? I don't think I'd want to be a guinea pig a second time in a row.

A quote from Bruce Gray, "But NOTHING I have seen in my 41 years at the bench compares to this R51 fiasco."

[barnbwt]

Why return it, it works fine? :scrutiny: Yes the trigger is loose due to an oversize hole, but it does nothing bad but make the gun feel cheap (cheap radio knobs are a pet peeve of mine, so I understand ). Trigger is great except the transfer stirrup I troduces some "sponge" when it flexes. I think a lot if folks would call the C96 pistol a 'fiasco' and I own one; the R51 is a very interesting mechanical device that just happens to also be a great carry piece

TCB

[TunnelRat]

the R51 is a very interesting mechanical device that just happens to also be a great carry piece

Maybe your example, but denying that there are guns out there with issues is just as delusional as Glock owners that said the Gen 4s were perfect. Stuff happens, in this case more than I would call acceptable.

'YouTube is hyperbole' is probably more accurate a statement than 'YouTube is not hyperbole'

If you think MAC's review was hyperbole then you're in the denial stage.

Even if the design dies, the gun will immediately being appreciating solely due to the fact it is a functional firearm and is suddenly very scarce.

Rare doesn't necessarily mean valuable. Rare and desired does.

We'll see how this pistol progresses.