Author Topic: "It's baaaaack" (Read 5101 times)

lee n. field · « **on:** July 22, 2016, 08:33:08 PM »

just Warren · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2016, 11:06:32 PM »

R51.1?

Looks sleek, I eagerly await the reviews.

Andiron · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2016, 11:08:25 PM »

Quote

COMPLETELY REENGINEERED FOR 2016

The last go was an epic charlie foxtrot. From what I've read/heard on podcasts, the action is fundamentally flawed. Curious if they've worked around it somehow.

I still want one.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2016, 11:09:53 PM »

Yes, it's back. I've got mine.

Had it nearly a month.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2016, 11:13:36 PM »

Quote from: Andiron on July 22, 2016, 11:08:25 PM

The last go was an epic charlie foxtrot. From what I've read/heard on podcasts, the action is fundamentally flawed. Curious if they've worked around it somehow.

I still want one.

No, not "fundamentally flawed." Just poorly executed. Most had short chambers (that's what bothered me), and all had inside surfaces that looked like they had been hacked out by a drunk gorilla with a broken chisel.
The new models look better made.
Very interesting and ergonomic gun.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2016, 12:12:12 AM »

I recall seeing one at a gun show during the first run. From seeing it on videos it was supposed to be a small sleek pistol with good recoil control. When I saw it and held it in hand, it seemed to be rather large especially compared to the single stack 9mm pistols available today. I didn't see that it offered anything new. We will see if this was is any better.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2016, 12:55:23 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 23, 2016, 12:12:12 AM

I didn't see that it offered anything new.

Vintage-inspired ugliness?

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2016, 01:48:43 AM »

No tacticool rail?

7 round magazine?

Which market segment are they, uh, targeting?

HankB · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2016, 08:34:02 AM »

Quote from: TommyGunn on July 22, 2016, 11:13:36 PM

. . . all had inside surfaces that looked like they had been hacked out by a drunk gorilla with a broken chisel . . .

You mean Remington subcontracted manufacture to Century Arms International?

seeker_two · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2016, 09:16:08 AM »

The R51 was a great idea.....until they had Para build it. Hopefully Remington has learned from the mistake.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2016, 09:21:40 AM »

Quote from: seeker_two on July 23, 2016, 09:16:08 AM

The R51 was a great idea.....until they had Para build it. Hopefully Remington has learned from the mistake.

How do you figure they had Para build it? Remington closed the ParaUSA factory and brought Para production under the Remington roof, thereby screwing up Para quality before shuttering the production line and killing off the name. Don't blame Marlington's QC problems on the former ParaUSA.

HankB · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2016, 09:54:40 AM »

Quote from: Hawkmoon on July 23, 2016, 09:21:40 AM

How do you figure they had Para build it? Remington closed the ParaUSA factory and brought Para production under the Remington roof, thereby screwing up Para quality before shuttering the production line and killing off the name. Don't blame Marlington's QC problems on the former ParaUSA.

Para quality?

Some years ago I was seriously considering a Para P-14. The clerk at the gun shop encouraged me to handle and examine a half-dozen he had in stock - build quality did not impress; fit, finish, basic operation, and triggers varied all over the place. Maybe it was a case of some guns being made Monday morning or Friday afternoon, but the QC failed to impress. Badly. Maybe the seemingly "better" examples were actually OK, but considering several examples were decidedly crappy - I passed.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2016, 03:51:26 PM »

When in the 90's I decided I "needed" a double-stack .45 for some reason. Mainly '94 AWB paranoia before they and their mags all went out of sight in price, I handled a Para P14 the LGS clerk handed me. NIB, I couldn't retract the slide. It had galled shut and was too tight from the factory. The clerk took it back assuming I didn't kow what to do, or had the safety locking the slide. Two clerks, got it retracted, one holding the frame and grip, the other with two hands on the slide, then it was done, and wouldn't go back into battery.

I passed, and got a G21 instead, and finally got rid of it around 2008 because it was just too big for my hands to ever shoot it well.

The whole initial QC problems on the first run aside, I'm not sure what need or niche the R51 fills, other than it's quasi-retro looks and for the sake of "something different". It's almost the same size as a G19, but is only single stack. So maybe a smidge slimmer.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2016, 11:32:23 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcf1cTJCGk4

Goes into single-shot on the very first try.

After that, it repeats the malfunction from time to time.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2016, 09:17:42 AM »

With as much trouble as they had, I am surprised they bothered to bring it back.

Andiron · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2016, 09:23:33 PM »

http://wethearmed.com/handguns/remington-r51-range-report/

I don't know the guy from adam, but it seems like a reasonable review.

dogmush · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2016, 09:43:55 PM »

I still kinda want one.

230RN · « **Reply #17 on:** August 19, 2016, 10:37:04 AM »

Didn't the original Pedersen rifle action require lubed/waxed cartridges? I seem to recall that in Ordnance Department testing, it showed great reliability but was rejected because of the requirement for lubed cartridges.

That sort of tells me something. Like the basic mechanism requires too much of an absolutely correct balancing between forces and timing to be workable.

According to reports, it does soften the felt recoil, I guess mainly because it sort of spreads it out, but on the other hand, spreading out the energies involved may make it too sensitive to hold and ammo and spring forces and cartridge case variations and the phase of the moon.

In one video I saw, it seemed to like the heavier-recoiling rounds more, which sorta-kinda confirms my suspicion about "delicate balancing."

Even the nose-diving could be a result of slight differences in the recoil of the gun due to slightly different holds.

Sounds like one of those designs that "can be made to work," but is not based on an inherently reliable concept.

Just my take on it.

Terry

lee n. field · « **Reply #18 on:** August 19, 2016, 03:33:08 PM »

There's this too: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2016/08/remington-reliability-and-r51.htm. Same conclusion, basically.

Sooo, maybe half the idea of the R51 has some merit. Compact single stack, single action with concealed hammer, and big grip safety -- go for it. Combine it with a Browning type tilt barrel system, that's way out of patent, and we have a lot of experience with making work.

lee n. field · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2016, 03:34:53 PM »

Quote

Didn't the original Pedersen rifle action require lubed/waxed cartridges?

You might be thinking of the Pederson toggle lock rifles.

dogmush · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2016, 09:35:36 PM »

Terry,

I can't speak for the R51, but my Model 51 is very reliable. I haven't put thousands of rounds through it (for obvious reasons), but I have put several hundred rounds of different .380 loads and bullets through it with nary a hiccup. And I have one mag, and the gun is running on 90ish year old springs.

That doesn't speak to me of a picky design, but poor execution in the new 9mm.

HeroHog · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2016, 10:42:01 PM »

He points out his 51 is great, it's the R model that sux.

230RN · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2016, 10:03:22 AM »

Quote from: lee n. field on August 19, 2016, 03:33:08 PM

There's this too: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2016/08/remington-reliability-and-r51.htm. Same conclusion, basically.

I hadn't seen that one, so thanks for pointing it out. I don't think it takes a hotshot engineer to figure out that the mechanism is too dependent on fine tuning and fine production... I guess the older ones had better production practices and different cartridges.

There's nothing wrong with delayed blowback if it is designed for a specific cartridge and power level. The roller locks on that rapid-firing German machine gun (the model escapes me) worked pretty well, I am told, but it was for a very high powered specific single cartridge, and in a rather heavy firearm.

Compare that to the R51, which is a light handgun (again, therefore sensitive to hold*) with a ticklish action concept, and in which cartridge (9mm) power, and bullet weight varied widely. Too much to expect, and once again, it doesn't take a hotshot engineer to see that.

Quote from: lee n. field on August 19, 2016, 03:34:53 PM

You might be thinking of the Pederson toggle lock rifles.

Yeah, probably. I'll have to dig around in my references when I get around to it to check. 77 year old memory, doncha know.

You want a gun just for "pretty," see if you can find a Whitney Wolverine.

Cut yer losses, Remington, both in money and reputation, pull them all back, deduct the losses from corp tax, and move on.

Terry, 230RN

* Yes, despite disclaimers to the contrary, guns do start to recoil before the bullet exits. Sometimes it's hard to measure or detect with a heavy gun, but they do.

Scout26 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2016, 02:01:27 AM »

Another Review: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2016/08/remington-reliability-and-r51.html?utm_content=bufferf44dc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Money Quote:

Quote

After 600 rounds of testing, the [second gen.] Remington R51 is looking like the kind of gun I'd want my enemy to have in a gunfight" -- TFB TV

TL;DR:

Quote

Even the original Remington model 51 was only available in .32acp and .380acp. There's good reason why blowback pistols... even modified blowback pistols such as the R51... above .380acp in power are rare.

You're already cutting your tolerances close and stacking them high... when you add questionable quality control on top of it... well... the results are... predictably unpredictable shall we say?

Which is why Dogmush's 51 in .380ACP works greats. The R51v2 seems to really like NATO 9mm which is between +P and +P+. It likes brass cartridge and full(er) power rounds. Because Physics. Anything less (especially steel) and it begins to choke, throw in some not quite QC and you have a design that quickly becomes unreliable. I just wonder with all the .380's flying off the shelves, why not just re-make the original again, in .380?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2016, 02:07:28 PM »

Quote from: scout26 on August 21, 2016, 02:01:27 AM

Another Review: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2016/08/remington-reliability-and-r51.html?utm_content=bufferf44dc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Money Quote:
TL;DR:
Which is why Dogmush 51 in .380ACP works greats. The R51v2 seems to really like NATO 9mm which is between +P and +P+. It likes brass cartridge and full(er) power rounds. Because Physics. Anything less (especially steel) and it begins to choke, throw is not quite QC and you have a design that quickly becomes unreliable. I just wonder with all the .380's flying off the shelves, why not just re-make the original again, in .380?

That was already linked to (sort of), and it's a review of the video I posted.

News:

Author Topic: "It's baaaaack" (Read 5101 times)