>>I went to two gun shops here in San Antonio, and no one knew anything about these!<<
And yet there are a couple of folks who have already placed their orders with their LGS. Go figure.....
Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.Okay, so it's an aluminum alloy frame 9mm pistol, using a design modified from an old .32/.380 pistol, never chambered in even standard pressure 9mm, now intended to handle 9mm +P.
I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.
...Has anyone heard who was involved with the design on this? I'm always hearing about that Bubbits guy's latest identical pistol variant (), so I'd like to know what seasoned vet or upstart punk headed the design and engineering teams over at Remington.
TCB
Valid concerns were raised. SIGs polymer frame flops had to get ironed out to work right.Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.
VA27 said:There seems to be some small question as to whether the original sliding trigger has been change to a pivoting trigger (there appears to be a pin in the frame of the R51 in the location where you might expect a trigger pivot to be)
Mike_J said:I didn't see anything in the article about what type of finish is on the slide. I wonder if it is blued. It might not be a deal breaker but I am not really a fan of blued finishes on carry guns as they require more maintenance than stainless or one of the salt nitriding type treatments.
Yes, because I'm sure Remington, America's oldest gunmaker, is reckless enough to release a pistol that is actually a hand grenade, waiting to explode and turn shooters' hands into jellied protoplasm.
And the design, incidentally, was also made into a .45ACP version, which the navy and marine corps tested extensively in 1915. According to their report, it performed better than the 1911. Only the entry of the US into WWI prevented its adoption. The design is a proven one. There is no reason in the world for either the materials or the design to be necessarily lacking in strength for 9mm +P.
The reviewer at TFB said in the comments that it was a Melonite-type treatment. I am guessing that the frame, being aluminum, is anodized.
Well, when you say things like:It's possible you misunderstood my comments. If so, I apologize.
I didn't say, or intimate, that the new aluminum-framed pistol would somehow be unsafe.
Why would you be averse to even handling it? I can certainly understand why you might not want to buy one, but not even handle? What would be the problem with handling one, or shooting one on the range if someone who owned one offered you a chance to put a few rounds through it? When you say things like that, the entirely natural inference to make is that you fear the gun may not be safe.Okay, so it's an aluminum alloy frame 9mm pistol, using a design modified from an old .32/.380 pistol, never chambered in even standard pressure 9mm, now intended to handle 9mm +P.
I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.
Probably because after the navy and marine corps nixed their plans to adopt in after US entry into WWI (need to get as many weapons as possible into the hands of troops ASAP meant production had to focus on existing designs, rather than tooling up to produce new ones -- which is also why more US troops went into combat carrying M1917 Enfields that Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone were already producing for the British, than M1903 Springfields, which only the Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal were set up to produce [on a much smaller scale]). After the war, there were enough 1911s in army, navy, and marine corps stockpiles that there was no need for another pistol. Remington had no other contracts for such a pistol, and as the patent on Pedersen's unique hesitation lock was still in force, no one else could produce a gun using that system either. Remington saw no civilian market for another auto pistol in .45ACP -- the Colt (and foreign guns like the Luger and C96 Mauser) filled what there was for large automatics in an age when ALL law enforcement still used revolvers, and most civilians did also.While a larger version of the design seemingly acquitted itself well in some military testing before WWI, the design itself seems to have languished for some time. Just curious why.
Where did you pre-order it from?? I've checked with 3 LGS and Cabela's. None of them had any idea of when (or if) they would be able to actually get one in. One who I've made purchases from in the past didn't think he would see any until mid summer.I just pre-ordered mine
fastbolt said:I'd think these would be reasonable questions to ask. (Not that everyone might care about knowing such things about a product, of course.)
I'm also perfectly willing to let other guys & gals rush out to be the first-on-the-block to try out new guns.
Well, when you say things like:
I'll wait a couple years until it's been used & abused in LE testing, and has demonstrated itself to be consistently reliable, before I even want to handle one.
Why would you be averse to even handling it? I can certainly understand why you might not want to buy one, but not even handle? What would be the problem with handling one, or shooting one on the range if someone who owned one offered you a chance to put a few rounds through it? When you say things like that, the entirely natural inference to make is that you fear the gun may not be safe.
I agree. Look what happened to the uniquely designed and engineered HK P7 (and subsequent variations, revisions and improvements).Fastbolt, my guess as to why the original Model 51 pistol went by the wayside is manufacturing costs.
An original 51 is a work of art, and would probably cost upwards of 3K to manufacture to the same standards today in this country.