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

[barnbwt]

I finally found one at the local Gander Mtn (it had been abandoned by its lay-away-ee not one hour prior, probably due to him reading some of these reviews). 6000-range serial number.

Summary:
I was sufficiently impressed, that "I'll give the kid a shot." I'm not blown away (mostly because I've digitally dissected the heck out of the gun already), but I'm not particularly underwhelmed, either. Believe it or not, I'm actually feeling fairly neutral now, since I'm mostly relieved that I found one and it largely meets my expectations, so far. Hence my checklist-like review. Getting to shoot thing (tomorrow?) will obviously clench it one way or the other (though on some level I am expecting it to bind up after ten rounds, so I'll be ecstatic if it simply doesn't do that)

The short of it; design seems solid with a couple glaring but correctible flaws, R51's machining crew is on both uppers and downers, and hopefully that won't matter to my particular gun's function.

Impressions:

Overall:
-Holy crap, I think I struck oil (first it was no lube but a dot of grease, then tons of oil, then crap-loads of white grease, now it appears its crap-loads of both oozing from every orifice)
-I enjoy not having knobs and levers all over the place (lose the manual slide lock button and I'd be happiest)
-"Chairman WOW!" But is this gun ever comfortable! And all because there's no knobs, levers, sharp things, or square corners all over the place. Who knew?
-Hmm, I keep finding metal shavings on my fingers...(none after cleaning, though)
-Slide release is unbearable to drop a slide with; very positive engagement angle and rough machining means I'd probably bend the release lever before dropping the slide (whatever, I don't use them)
-Simple blade ejector, appears retained by a small spring pin through the rear of the frame rails. A bit wobbly, probably to float with the bolt instead of binding
-Harder to rack than my 1952 Hi Power, easier than my Five-seveN. Much easier than my heavy-spring CZ52 or 1912 Steyr Hahn
-Tried a couple times to bind up on me in the store; it's not doing it at all now. I think this gun actually deserves a non-firing 'rack-in' period in addition to the firing break in;; otherwise it might bind up on you
-Not sure how kids grip their pistols these days, but my thumb web doesn't even touch the underside of the safety tail, so slide bite seems impossible
-Grip is narrow for my comfort, but it's a CCW gun. I plan on making some grips from a cool wood tomorrow (see informal poll, below )


Magazine:
-Not a magazine expert, but whomever made them appears to have planed-off about half the material thickness on the back where they dressed the seam flat; I can understand splits that people are reporting (one corner of mine is nearly knife-like in how thin they milled it)
-Mag ejection and retention are excellent, the mag release is a lump that slides side to side to cam a lever which drops the mag; camming-surfaces + Remington's machining means it feels like crap now, but will probably improve.
-Follower seems as good as anything (metal would be nice, though)
-Spring seems heavy, but more importantly, the follower seems really tight in the mag body; zero wiggle in any direction, and a lot of scraping noise when depressing it (maybe that spring wouldn't need to be so heavy if the sheet metal was decent)

FCG:
-Hammer is cool in how short and dinky it is, yet apparently powerful enough to kill primers reliably (and even jam the bolt closed in some cases )
-It is a standard strut/coil spring arrangement
-It is obviously and MIM part (whatever)
-It pivots on the large pin near the rails
-Can be dropped without the bolt/slide on
-Blocks all trigger movement when discharged
-Can't tell what it falls down onto in the frame, but it isn't the aluminum frame cutout (probably a good thing)
-Is a bit loose on its pivot (unequal strut pressure pushes it against the ejector blade)
-If you decock the hammer, be sure to recock it before installing the slide again, as it will scare the tail edge (true for most guns, I think)

-Remington really screwed up the disconnector design. It truly is the "Hi Power Mag Safety" of this gun. In their zeal to cram all the FCG stuff in the same milled hole in the frame, the forgot that the bolt is wider than that. This is important because it means that whatever surface in the slide hits the disconnector will be intermittent, a short little boss rather than a continuous surface that glides smoothly across once it's pressed down (you know, like nearly every other pistol ever made ).
-This is the factor causing the notchy rack feeling; the disconnector trip surface and then bolt lug and then over the camming boss, and then over them again on the return stroke (my slide actually hangs very nearly enough to arrest it when it tries to skip back over the bolt lug
-Were it actuated by a circular cutout in the side's continuous rail (like nearly every other pistol made) there would be an initial (nearly 5lb of the slide pull weight is just to depress this stupid thing) resistance, then smooth butter.
-Because of the intermittent surface driving it, it is possible to drop the hammer at several points along the slide's travel
-However the hell this disconnector works, it is super incredibly spongy and difficult to push down. About 5 or more pounds to rack the slide with no bolt, barrel, or springs installed. I split my thumbnail trying to depress it manually
-For some stupid reason, there is not just one disconnector tab, but two (probably because a single tab kept breaking due the force required to actuate it) and there is a ton of play in the disconnector, just like the trigger. About 1/16" side to side, just enough to cause horrible binding on the funnel-shaped taper on the forward side of the bolt lug (which is why it hangs on the return)
-The hammer is self-disconnected (this is a good thing, I think), at its rear-most travel, it pushes the disconnector down enough to engage, whether or not the slide is present (one might be inclined to ask; "Why the slide-activated tabs, then?" It's because they still function as an OOB safety *see next)
-The disconnector is not dropped for a good 1/8" of slide travel, and is therefore lacking as an out of battery safety. Probably not enough to be dangerous with a round as mild as 9mm, but +P and good design stipulate a gun design can do better than this (luckily, it looks like a quick change of the engagement tab profile would probably solve this issue)
-Disco appears to pivot further down on the smaller pin adjacent the hammer axis
-I'll emphasize one more time how crappy this disconnector is

-Trigger appears, without the aid of destructive testing, to be plastic. It looks plastic, feels plastic, and is warm to the touch like plastic. If it's metal, it's under so much paint as to be a plastic part when it comes to how it interacts with other parts
-Super duper loose pivot axis, not sure what Para/Remington were thinking here. Luckily, the trigger is just pinned (again, loosely --sensing a pattern, yet?) to the sear stirrup, so a replacement should be a snap to make in a good material with the proper hole size (and no stupid skeletonizing)
-Trigger pivots on the pin nearest the takedown bar
-Oh yeah, the trigger pull is good. Bear in mind I own mostly weird/eclectic pistols, but this trigger does not seem anything less than good. Sorry if that offends the striker-fired fans out there.
-It is odd how little mechanical feedback there is in it, which I attribute solely to the super-flimsy-and-loose sear stirrup soaking up any mechanical 'finger noises'

-Sear stirrup is comically flimsy. If the hammer is allowed to only partially cock with the slide off, the trigger is locked forward, and pressing it will cause the stirrup to bow outward against the frame
-Poor trigger-pin, stirrup, or sear fit (or a combination) cause the stirrup to shift to the side against the frame in my gun under even light pressure

-Safety on mine is not "clicky" since it is gravellier than that (a good thing in my opinion, since I was worried that it broke like a trigger from the way some videos depicted it. Depressing it and the trigger will release the hammer once the safety is down)
-Very hard to see, but the safety appears to cam another piece inside down or back, probably out of the way of the trigger. I don't think it blocks the hammer, but it is very hard to tell
-Safety appears to have no impact on racking, cocking, or anything other than allowing a fully-reset trigger to move

Barrel
-Exterior turning is quite rough, considering it's a bearing surface for both springs and slide 'bushing' (if it can so be called). Finger nails sound like a zipper over it. I doubt the grip rings (which sit below the ridges) cause much resistance, but their very sharp corners might
-Crown is thoroughly "meh," since I can snag my nails on the rifling, and there is a barely-perceptible counterbore in addition to the cone, but it appears concentric enough
-Rifling looks clean and smooth, not as sharp as my 1952 Hi Power, somehow but probably as good as my bright-bore CZ52
-Machining for the slide and feed ramp look pretty good, but with tooling marks on all flat faces (including those visible through the ejection port)
-Barrel is surprisingly loose in the frame slides; it basically floats using the cross-pin as a pivot
-Chamber is quite dim. Not dark, but nowhere near as polished as even the grooves (let alone bore). I can't feel rings with a pencil lead in it, but there are definitely "stripes" from chatter running front to back, but so small they appear to the eye as a 'satin' finish roughness. They should have really hit this with a buffing tip to at least try to make up for their crappy reaming
-This thing has the largest dang hardness-testing dimple I've seen; 1/16" across and like .02" deep (hope it's supposed to be this big, but it is practically what I would call 'defacing' of the barrel

Spring/Bushing:
-Spring is, well, a spring. Yellow, however they finished it
-Bushing is machined quite rough on the inside, where it is supposed to help guide the spring's compression smoothly
-Already scratched up a bit at the forward edge and some minor scratches on the sides from poor slide nose boring marks

Slide
-Best machining on the whole gun and the worst. Exterior and operating surfaces appear very good (though extremely sharp on the interior, it is deburred). The interior of the slide nose has the worst boring-marks I have seen (they're like .01" tall ridges, and the spring bushing has to slide up into that somewhat)
-The area behind the nose but in front of the ejection port is relieved further back, but nicely sculpted with a rounded endmill (so my hypothesis about that other gun's gouges being due to wrong tool seems correct)
-This thing has a really weird resonance when contacted with metal objects. The missing mass at the back where the bolt sits makes the whole thing a bit less stiff, so it makes a lower-pitched "clunk" rather than a "clink." Not a real issue at all, but for some reason made me think it was made of cheap metal when I first took it apart (like soft malleable iron vs. hardened steel). Auditory illusion, though
-Roll marks are good enough, though a teensy bit lighter on the low end
-Sights are stiff (I haven't tried drifting them). The front of the rear sight is heavily radiused, so I think the whole "hook it on your belt/shoe" line is oversold; it'll slip off very easily
-Grip striations are very positive, but not painful. I like how the curves keep your fingers from sliding across them and slicing up your finger prints
-Sight picture is similar to my other modern gun, the FNH Five-seveN; giant blocky cubes with white dots on them . There is much more light between the blade and ears, though (the FNH has nearly none), which would seem to help me be faster, at least
-Milled catch points for the spring bushing are too dull; makes finding the 'sweet spot' needed to get the barrel in/out unnecessarily difficult

Frame:
-The tear-drop relief for the trigger finger is a total con; it's like .02" deep, but it does look pretty
-Finish machining (or is it casting?) is excellent everywhere I look, mags slide in easily but the magwell sides are not tapered/flared (even though there is room for them to be)
-Trigger angle seems fine, and the undercut an absolute blessing
-My big 'ol beef fingers all fit on the grip, though my pinkie is only 75% on there (a protruding floor plate rather than an extended one would cure this)
-Front strap checkering seems out of place, considering the backstrap safety is smooth; they should have done vertical stripes/stippling along both and the grip panels
-Grip panels are complete vanity; they appear to do nothing besides retain some unnecessarily-loose pins. They merely allow for a minor color change
-Grip screws were all tight, though the hollow grips 'sound' loose
-Why the hell is the take-down bar flush with the frame? Not even a countersink around it so you could push it out with a finger if you really needed to. Would it not be right at the already-thin magwell rail, I would suggest a Hi-Power-esque thumb cutout in the slide to both help aligning the slide/frame for takedown and facilitate pushing out the pin
-However they painted/anodized the frame, it does not feel as cold as aluminum should, which is likely a good thing (feels like a plastic frame for about 1sec after pickup)

Bolt Assembly
-This thing has the weirdest looking firing pin I've seen; it's a round pin that's milled into a triangular flat tab on the back where the hammer its it; the hammer contact surface is almost the size of the pin-head!
-This thing has the most travel of any firing pin I've seen; a good 3/16" of travel just to get to the primer (they have to make sure the pin rebounds fully even as the bolt/slide are shifting back relative to the hammer/pin; I'd have designed the pin to be flush at bolt/lug contact point so the primer would be supported)
-Extractor sucks; there's room for 2.5 9mm rims under it, small wonder we're getting bulged primers
-Extractor spring is reportedly a rubber ball shoved under the extractor tail ...time will tell...
-Extractor tail sticks out past the bolt body surface, impinging on the inside of the slide (granted, that's only when there's no case under it)
-Bolt falls out easily from the slide, and cannot be installed upside down (important one, that )

Slide Stop:
-Mine was very well made and pretty looking
-The reason the slide stop spring is so hard for some folks is due to how the retaining boss on the pin and the slide interact. The retaining bump you must align with the slide is on top (at the slide rail) and the lack of a manual safety that holds the slide back for disassembly (like a Hi Power) means that if the slide is allowed to slide forward, it will contact the retaining boss and try to rotate the stop lever upward, where it will miss the spring.
-Remington actually beveled the tab of the lever that slides under the spring so installation is much easier --so long as the lever is fully down when pushed into the gun
-(Again) why the hell isn't the far side of the pin protruding?
-(Again) dropping the slide is comically hard due to the angle of the catch/slide being very positive
-Catch handle adds 3/32" to the gun's width while adding nearly no functionality (it's not like you lock it back so you can slide the manual safety into the take-down notch)

And that's the (very) long of it so far. I won't abuse anyone reading this far any further

Except to take an informal poll on what wood for the new grips (the factory one's kinda suck);
-Ebony
-Texas Red Bud
-Palm
-Dark Brown Cocobolo
-Orange Cocobolo
-Bright yellow burl from a desert shrub
-Burl-ish Black Walnut
-Striped Maple
-Purple Heart (I have no purple suit to match, though)

TCB

[barnbwt]

I'm happy with the R51 I managed to score today, so far at least. We'll see how shooting goes tomorrow (I will be ecstatic if nothing goes wrong, since this gun is a fantastic concept, hobbled by corporate ineptitude. If my gun was an exception, there will be much rejoicing --and gloating )

I think it might be useful on the "R51 Sux" thread, to post a summary of known issues that seem to be...known, so far;

-Rough Chamber (mine is a satin finish, but it should be a mirror)
-Binding Disconnector (both on disconnector function, and in how the slide/bolt cam it down intermittently during the cycle)
-Notchy/Binding Slide (due to disconnector being knocked down by the slide, then the bolt, then the slide... then the slide again, then the bolt, then the slide --every cycle!)
-Extractor Claw (mine is a good 2.5X the height of a 9mm rim)
-Bulging primers (due to either sticking cases or excessive extractor claw gap)
-Wobbly Trigger (due to oversized pivot hole; also affects disconnector, hammer, magazine catch, safety, sear stirrup, and probably every other pivoting element)
-Weak Trigger Stirrup (very thin part deflects easily to cause frame binding and "spongy" feel at the trigger; is likely why no reset or tactile feedback is felt)
-Extremely Rough Machining of Slide Nose (causes damage/wear to spring/bushing)
-Rough Machining in Spring Bushing (causes friction/wear on spring)
-Magazine Bodies Poorly Machined (they planed the entire back on one to half its thickness dressing the weld-seam flat)
-Magazine Followers Very Tight (lots of scraping and friction, but the Hulk-rated spring overcomes it nonetheless)
-Loose grip screws (mine weren't)
-Inordinate amount of lube on gun from factory (mine was swimming)
-Loose sights and tight sights (mine weren't loose, but the front sight installation broached-out a couple metal shavings still stuck to the slide)
-Gun delivered to stores still covered in metal shavings from manufacture

That said...

I don't think any of these in particular will prevent function itself, but they could contribute to reduced reliability, and more importantly, contribute to the 'cheap gun' feel the guns definitely have if you start looking closely (they look really nice at first blush). I suggest Remington's VPs or managers at Para, SC start at the top of the list and work their way downward.

Oh yeah, other "known issues"
-The gun is extremely comfortable
-Looks good doing it
-Has near-universal reports of greatly reduced recoil
-Has an excellent sight picture
-Has probably the highest grip to slide ratio of CCW 9's

TCB

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by barnbwt

I finally found one at the local Gander Mtn (it had been abandoned by its lay-away-ee not one hour prior, probably due to him reading some of these reviews). 6000-range serial number.
...
-Remington really screwed up the disconnector design.
...
-Sear stirrup is comically flimsy.
-Poor trigger-pin, stirrup, or sear fit (or a combination) cause the stirrup to shift
..
-Extractor sucks; there's room for 2.5 9mm rims under it, small wonder we're getting bulged primers
...
Chamber is quite dim. ... but there are definitely "stripes" from chatter running front to back,
...
-Not a magazine expert, but whomever made them appears to have planed-off about half the material thickness on the back where they dressed the seam flat; I can understand splits that people are reporting

Interesting review.

What's the point of a cool new resurrected century old design, if it's not executed well? Bummer.

It sounds like there needs to be a redesign of this, leading to a "version 2" gun. That, and greater care in manufacturing would probably bump the selling price in to the very crowded $500-$650 range.

[barnbwt]

I got back from the range just now; details to follow, suffice it to say I'm typing with one hand...



...because my trigger finger is worn out from so much rapid and enjoyable shooting through the R51!

"What's the point of a cool new resurrected century old design, if it's not executed well? Bummer."
A) Because it's hard, and Remington is not really in peak fighting condition these days, and B) Because the original was so much more expensive than the competition it was unmarketable (though beloved). It is indeed a bummer, but understandable. As you say, making it nicer would invite a lot of competition that the design simply doesn't have the following to go head to head with, yet. So, though it is a missed opportunity, doing what it takes to offer them at the "nicer than a Hi Point" price point is probably a shrewd idea --at least for now. I do think an initial 'special edition' run of top-shape guns for top dollar would have been better PR, but see point A) above.

I will see about lopping off some walnut burl scales today, and see how hard roughing out some new grips is (it's just some screw holes and counterbores, so it shouldn't be too bad)

TCB

[dgludwig]

Nice reviews. barnbwt. Much appreciated.

[barnbwt]

I have found the cure to the "Crappy Out of Box Experience" common to the R51:

There is a sharp corner on the slide's camming lugs that digs into the bolt. I tore it down again today while fitting the new grips, and found little slivers of bolt metal shaved off right below those corners. They are actually adhered, and I had to pick them off with a dental pick. Convinced they were the problem, I tried hitting the corners with a needle file.

The slide laughed. The slide appears to be harder than most files (probably north of Suomi bolt wood-pecker-lip hard), so don't bother. I laid a thin strip of 120grit sandpaper on the file and drug it over about four times, until all the abrasive was scraped off (did I mention these are hard?). I noticed a very thin shiny line right on the corner, but that was about it. I cleaned out the slide real good, and not bothering to really re-lube it or anything put it back together.

Not butter smooth, but approaching oatmeal smooth. Noticeably better than right before. I also sanded down the barrel ridges somewhat, sanded the corners of the spring bushing (and found some burrs on them), and polished the inside of the slide nose a rippled rather than jagged finish. I'm confident the slide sanding is what did it (and I only used 120grit, not even close to a smooth finish for a metallic surface)

Maybe this voids the warranty, I don't care so long as the slide is no longer eating the bolt surfaces. The initial rack effort to cam up the bolt dropped by like 2 pounds (bear in mind the bolt camming surface is still uneven from the slide damage, so I think now that the much-harder slide is smoother, it will burnish the bolt instead of cutting it). Big R really should have made the bolt harder, or taken greater pains to finish this area --though I am curious exactly what kind of tool shapes the slide lugs (pretty tight in there)

The walnut grips are nearly done; just need to soak them in some Super Glue and buff them to final luster with some fine sandpaper. Right now they are about 3X thicker than the stock flat grips at the widest point, so the grip is about 1/4" fatter overall. I plan on dropping that to 1/8" but I want to go slow since adding wood back is more difficult . The tree crotch this wood is from is fairly hard, so I think with the glue soaked in it will be one notch below indestructible.

TCB

[barnbwt]

Not quite done, but getting there:

Sorry for the darkish pics of the gun; I caught glare off the shiny grips from every other possible angle. They are only finished with 120grit sandpaper and a single coat of superglue as a sealant/dressing for the pictures. Also there's no screw holes, yet (and no screws, since I'll need longer ones and Remington appears to have used some weird microscopic ultra-fine metric thread. I'm extremely tempted to blow the holes out to 6-32)

The grips are about 3/16" at their thickest (a rhombus-shaped pad that covers a little more than the lower third, and tapers in a hollow grind to match the frame edges. They are much tighter in the grip sockets than the factory ones. The grips are about 3X thicker than the originals, which works out to an extra 4 grip panels from what there was originally. They feel nice, but I think they are too thick for the rest of the gun which is of course the same thickness as before. I plan to sand them down to about 2X the original thickness, which would add only 1/8" to the overall width and be more in keeping with the skinny feel of the gun while still offering some curvature for the palm. The figure in the black walnut popped a lot more than I thought it would; it looks pretty bland until you slap a liquid on it.

To be honest, I think the brown wood doesn't go as well as something dark red or near-black would. With the white metal of the barrel/bushing and the black slide/frame, the brown looks out of place since it is not an industrial texture. I think the right kind of checkering would help, but the showy wood doesn't completely do it for me (I do think it looks better than the originals, but not by a lot). I think this gun would look excellent with carbon fiber or some other 'modern' finish for the panels.

Gun continues to get smoother after breaking the sharp camming lug corners. I see no new metal shavings and the bolt cam ramps appear to be burnishing, as I'd hoped.

TCB

[Uncle Malice]

Another review from MAC. You'll remember the problems he had in the initial overview. Remington called him and said that's definitely not normal and asked if they could send him a T&E gun for him to review...

He accepted and here are the results... (spoiler alert - still not good) That's especially disappointing on a gun that is factory approved to go out for testing and review.

http://youtu.be/aTzS4sQfn4U

Quite frankly, this gun scares the crap out of me. I was only uninterested because I thought it was ugly and using an unproven design. With all of the bad examples of these guns that have made their way out the door... it seems like Remington ought to be instituting a mass recall. Someone is going to get hurt... either because the gun does something it was supposed to do... or because the gun DOESN'T do what it's supposed to do when it's needed most.

[TunnelRat]

Another review from MAC. You'll remember the problems he had in the initial overview. Remington called him and said that's definitely not normal and asked if they could send him a T&E gun for him to review...

He accepted and here are the results... (spoiler alert - still not good) That's especially disappointing on a gun that is factory approved to go out for testing and review.

http://youtu.be/aTzS4sQfn4U

Quite frankly, this gun scares the crap out of me. I was only uninterested because I thought it was ugly and using an unproven design. With all of the bad examples of these guns that have made their way out the door... it seems like Remington ought to be instituting a mass recall. Someone is going to get hurt... either because the gun does something it was supposed to do... or because the gun DOESN'T do what it's supposed to do when it's needed most.

Watched it too, it's a shame. It looked interesting, but that is honestly a dangerous example he has.

[fiream29]

All fanboism aside, that gun is dangerous on so many levels. There are now multiple reports of out of battery ignitions and that alone should demand a recall until the problem is resolved. Someone's going to get seriously hurt sooner rather than later.

[barnbwt]

Couple points on the supposed Holy Hand Grenade:

-All of us are used to true locked breech guns, where an indication of incomplete lockup like a bulged case/primer is indicative of extremely bad mojo
-The Pedersen action is actually the most secure against bolt thrust when 'out of battery' and stopped against the locking lug. However, the case head is obviously not as well supported when so withdrawn from the chamber.
-I have seen/heard/read no instance(s) of a case head failure arising from the bulges found by a couple reviewers. I have read of a single case head separation under extraction, which is consistent with the extremely rough chambers these guns were sold with.
-There are near ubiquitous reports of primer bulging/dimpling/dimple-with-a-pimpling, but I have not seen/heard/read of a pierced primer (yet), so I am withholding judgment on whether that truly is a safety issue. If it is, it appears to be an incredibly infrequent one (and as inconsistent as these guns are, odds state that it should present itself as one more readily)
-These guns are so diverse in function from the Browing/SIG/Beretta guns in common use, that it seems entirely possible we may have to accept certain differences inherent to their operation. I'm not sold on that cop-out explanation yet, but it's a possibility. For instance, I doubt necked-cases would appreciate the initial bolt movement before lockup very much, but true locked breeches could care less.

TCB

[TunnelRat]

-These guns are so diverse in function from the Browing/SIG/Beretta guns in common use, that it seems entirely possible we may have to accept certain differences inherent to their operation.

Lol, no.

Why do we have to accept anything? If you're willing to be a crash test dummy more power to you. I'll stick to my guns, literally and figuratively.

[barnbwt]

I used the royal 'we,' man. Obviously you get to use whatever you like, and it won't be the R51. I postulated the initial bolt movement by definition means the primer, case head, and taper of a neck will have less support than in a truly locked breech. And that there may not be much you can do to avoid it in a Pedersen Hesitation lock system. That's a deal breaker for some, I suppose, but it also comes at a tremendous benefit in terms of felt recoil and space-efficiency. Sometimes there really are compromises that must be made (not always, but sometimes). Like how G20 owners have to buy a second barrel if they want to run really hot loads (alleged kabooms aside, the expensive brass gets beat to death by the poor case head support)

TCB

[JRH6856]

The Pedersen impeded blow-back action is sound, but it is very different from anything most of us have seen. It requires a change in thinking.

The breechblock locks the breech, but it only actually locks the breech when out of battery. Think about that. With the slide fully home, and the pistol in battery, the breechblock is floating. When recoil drives the slide and block the to the rear, the block is stopped by the frame. afer about 0.10" It is at this point that the breech is locked. And when the breech is locked, the chamber is sealed and the gun is operating safely.

The chamber is tight, and there is no throat. The lands start right at the shoulder where the casemouth headspaces. If the bullet is seated out too far, (even sligthly), the bullet stops on the lands before the cartridge is fully chambered. I had this happen quite a bit with American Eagle. It didn't happen with Remingtion-UMC. Even so, the pistol fired safely because the breech was locked.

I have handloads developed for my BHP that will not fully chamber in my R51. They are .06" out of battery. But, the breech is locked at this point and the gun fires them with no problem. Any longer than that up to 0.10-0.12 you may get case bulge because there is a small area over the feed ramp that is unsupported (think Glock and 40S&W), but the breech is still locked when it fires.

There are other problems related to this condition, (such as failure to feed longer rounds, and failure to eject cases stuck due to high pressure caused by the bullet staring in the lands) but safety is not really one of them

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by barnbwt

I used the royal 'we,' man. Obviously you get to use whatever you like, and it won't be the R51. I postulated the initial bolt movement by definition means the primer, case head, and taper of a neck will have less support than in a truly locked breech. And that there may not be much you can do to avoid it in a Pedersen Hesitation lock system. That's a deal breaker for some, I suppose, but it also comes at a tremendous benefit in terms of felt recoil and space-efficiency. Sometimes there really are compromises that must be made (not always, but sometimes). Like how G20 owners have to buy a second barrel if they want to run really hot loads (alleged kabooms aside, the expensive brass gets beat to death by the poor case head support)

TCB

Tremendous benefits? I think that's a bit of hyperbole. It is very much the same size as a S&W Shield, though granted with a lower bore axis. I have shot Shields and found the recoil very manageable. This is a 9mm not a 44 magnum.

I was planning on ordering this pistol, it is not a case of blind hatred. But this particular pistol is a failure pile in a sadness bowl. Besides to me what is a slightly less safe operation in terms of lockup, the failures are rampant across many models. We might be able to chalk that up to new model teething problems, but this level of QC is unacceptable by most standards. There is no benefit I have seen or that I can imagine that would make me trade away reliability.

[barnbwt]

Nor me. I just think the design is separable from its implementation, and that Remington solidly botched the latter. My sole beef with the former is the disconnector design that, at best, only does its job halfway (disconnecting the hammer during the firing sequence) and at worst binds up the slide horribly. You'll have to shoot one yourself to see, but considering all the complaints I hear about small 9's hurting to shoot and having snappy recoil, I was pleasantly surprised to find a gun as easy to shoot as a full size Browning.

TCB

[JRH6856]

I was pleasantly surprised to find a gun as easy to shoot as a full size Browning.

Same here. and I haven't seen any "rampant failures". I have seen a slew of subjective complaints from reviewers that do not seem to understand how the pistol operates or even bothered to read the owner's manual before firing it. Are there problems? Yes. Rampant ? Hardly.

[TunnelRat]

I have seen a slew of subjective complaints from reviewers that do not seem to understand how the pistol operates or even bothered to read the owner's manual before firing it. Are there problems? Yes.

Subjective? Have you even watched any of the videos? Why be an apologist for a firearm and company that has clearly dropped the ball?

http://youtu.be/aTzS4sQfn4U

Out of three examples all three have issues. That's 100% for those keeping score at home. That's pretty darn bad.

[JRH6856]

I've seen the complaint videos if that is what you mean. I have only seen one that I would call a review.

Out of three examples all three have issues. That's 100% for those keeping score at home. That's pretty darn bad.

Let's see, I have one example with no major issue. That's 100% as well.

And mine has a serial # of 0006###, so out of 6000 or so, three examples is .05%* and that's pretty darn good.

(*example only, actual numbers may vary, not valid in all states.)

[Uncle Malice]

I have one example with no major issue.

What do you mean by no major issue? Are you saying it has not had any failures to feed, fire, or extract - at all? Or that you've only had a few?

Remington quality and QC has been declining for quite a while since they were bought out by FG.Even the 870's have a lot more issues than they used to. And the venerable 700's just had a massive recall due to barrel issues.

I don't think it's far fetched at all to be extremely leery of them.

[TunnelRat]

Let's see, I have one example with no major issue. That's 100% as well.

So that means that out of the 4, only 1 works. Gee, that's a lot better.

I legitimately don't understand your argument. There are numerous reports of problems. Even the pistols that do run have a number of issues. It's a pistol, not rocket science. You shouldn't need to tweak the heck out of it in order for it to work.

three examples is .05%* and that's pretty darn good.

Yes because every gun owner goes online to post about his/her gun. So we're just assuming all the remaining ones are 100% yes? That's not how sample statistics work. You get the largest sample size you can and then use your observations on that sample to make comments on the overall population.

If your definition of a successful firearm launch is what we're seeing currently, then you must be easy to please.

[LockedBreech]

The fact is I've heard almost no report (and I've read a ton of articles and watched a ton of videos) where a user had NO problems at all. That's majorly troubling. Even the very first Gen4 Glocks had plenty of guns with no problem, and that rollout is now seen as a fiasco - albeit greatly improved now.

From what I've seen/read, Remington definitely hasn't earned my money yet, and I wanted this pistol from the day I heard about it. Here's hoping they get the bugs fixed.

[JRH6856]

I legitimately don't understand your argument. There are numerous reports of problems. Even the pistols that do run have a number of issues.

There are numerous reports of occurences that have been subjectively characterized as problems. But neither you nor I nor apparently the "reviewer" know the actual cause of these occurences so we don't know if they are problems with the gun or not.

There is a bulged case. One. Out of how many rounds did he fire? I've seen 40S&W Glocks produce entire boxes of bulged cases that look strikingly similar.

There was a failure to ? Was the gun at fault? The ammo? Perhaps (gasp!) it was operator error? We don't know. All we have are puzzled looks and subjective comments, not objective reports.

Subjectivity: a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view.

Objectivity: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Most of these "reviews" just look like a race to see who can find the most major problems or be the first to break the gun. Anybody with any intelligence (and even most idiots) can figure out how to do that so what does it tell me? That things can be broken if I really try? Nor really very useful. What I really want to know is what really made it break. I don't see much of that if any.

Take the ammo related failures. Of all the vids I have seen, only one ran with Remington ammo and it ran without problem. All the problems I have seen occurred with other brands of ammo. That is true of the problems I have had as well. Now, here is a hint. At the bottom of page 14 of the owners manual is a paragraph that states:

"The Model R51 handguns were designed for use with Remington or Barnes ammunition."

The next paragraph says:

"The use of ammunition not branded Remington or Barnes may produce malfunctions."

So from what I have seen so far of the ammo related problems, the gun is performing as within design expectations. It works with Remington ammo, it may not work with other brands.

Is this a problem? I think so. I don't really like it when a product is designed to market a companies other products and exclude competition. But that is my sujectiive opinion.

[TunnelRat]

Most of these "reviews" just look like a race to see who can find the most major problems or be the first to break the gun. Anybody with any intelligence (and even most idiots) can figure out how to do that so what does it tell me? That things can be broken if I really try? Nor really very useful. What I really want to know is what really made it break. I don't see much of that if any.

He tried three separate R51s. When the one he had originally purchased could barely open and the sights could fall right off he gave Remington the chance to make it right by sending him a new gun. Had he wanted he could have reviewed the gun based on that original sample and called it a day. He didn't. He waited til the second gun to give a review. That firearm has numerous failures in that video. Failures to go into battery, failures to fire, failures to extract, and sights that were walking themselves out of the dovetail.

I'm beginning to question your objectivity a heck of a lot more than I question that reviewer. Do you have Remington stock or something? I imagine you own the gun, and it bothers you to see people say negative things about the gun if yours is working. But you can't just ignore the other problems because of your feelings. That falls right into the definition of subjective you gave.

There was a failure to ? Was the gun at fault? The ammo? Perhaps (gasp!) it was operator error? We don't know. All we have are puzzled looks and subjective comments, not objective reports.

Operators can cause bulged cases? Boy I'd love to hear how.

"The use of ammunition not branded Remington or Barnes may produce malfunctions."

Did it ever occur to you that part of the reason might say that is because Remington also makes money off ammo?

[Uncle Malice]

"The use of ammunition not branded Remington or Barnes may produce malfunctions."

This would be a number one reason to steer clear of the gun, if nothing else. I don't necessarily fault a gun if it doesn't run well with ONE kind of ammo. For example, some guns don't run well with Winchester White Box...

But if a gun only runs with Remington ammo.... it is 100% worthless.

Would you buy a car that only runs on gas from Shell?