Return of the Remington R51

From the video, we can see that so far;
-Set screws were added to the sights (presumably so Big Green doesn't even have to maintain dovetail tolerances anymore; previous guns had either bound-up or loose sights)
-The frame machining has gotten cheaper, evidenced by the very shallow scallop being omitted (no biggie, it was never more than an aesthetic touch, but makes telling the versions apart easy --hint). I think it was simply a facing mill run at a shallow angle, but I guess a step saved is a step saved.

The loaded chamber indicator hole rolleyes was present on the last model, too...leaving a very thin strip of metal that looks more fatigue-prone than is needed, to my eyes.

Grip safety being sharp; I to this day have no idea what people are talking about here. The lever has square corners, yes, but the part is clearly blasted/tumbled, which puts about a .03" radius on all sharp edges. You'd only even notice the corner if gripping the gun without depressing the safety, because it drops down flush with the surrounding frame.

Trigger being plastic; looks exactly the same as my gen 1. Granted, this MIM part looks EXACTLY like plastic in the first place, due to the really thick application of some paint. All I care about is whether the new one is as loose as the original.

I notice the takedown pin is still flush on the right side, which apparently makes disassembly difficult for people with stubby fingers. I had heard they were changing how the slide lock spring worked, so it can no longer be assembled incorrectly (despite the hue and cry, it's pretty dang simple to do correctly, and was mostly an excuse for non-technical folks to bash the gun in lieu of real reasons)

Oddly, the frame still says Charlotte, NC, though these guns were supposedly being made in Alabama. Since this is a legal point, I sure hope Remington didn't screw up Taurus Curve-style and release a gun that needs an immediate recall to rectify a clerical error.

Possible explanations;
-Somehow still using the address of the previous manufacture plant; pretty sure that's not legal & would need to be addressed
-The Pineville, NC facility's death was somewhat exaggerated, and workers were secretly still producing new R51 frames in secret (and hopefully in shame)
-Remington is recycling frames of the old R51s for either the warranty guns, or general production. Possible, but I'd like to think they aren't that stupid (which is sadly all too possible at this point) due to the very bad karma of the original guns. This would explain why the scallop feature on the sides is gone, though; poor quality control may have just missed it the first time around (I've seen pictures of guns where the wrong-size tools were made to do internal cuts, or where secondary operations were forgotten)

Has anyone fired one of the new R-51s yet?

Good info barnbwt. Thanks.

Remington isn't really a gun company. They're an investment group that is trying to market a product to customers in a chosen sector of the marketplace.

Tolerance stacking is what engineers decided was the root cause of the initial release failures.
Not surprising on a weapon designed by John Pedersen.
Not surprising to anyone familiar with his work which as a general rule is always more complicated that it ever needed be..

It's nice to see people getting guns but it is also concerning about the markings if they do force yet another recall.

Ryeonham's Tabletop Review!

**Spoiler Alert; those of you expecting a S&W Registered Magnum will be dissapointed**

"The R51, Explained," a reference for those unfamiliar with this firearm

Highlights;
-The new gun has been shot quite a bit (not necessarily bad, unless Remington really is returning old guns as 'new' models. A bit crummy seeing as they claim the service life is <5000 rounds, though)
-The frame scallops are still there (just hard to see in the previous video)
-Totally new disconnector mechanism (appears much 'smoother' for the slide to ride over, and moves much more freely)
-Trigger is plastic, is still loose on its pivot (possibly a lucre-ative market)
-Trigger appears to be lighter (presumably a more reasonable sear geometry)
-The bolt looks far better finished (no MIM mold flashing or sprue marks)
-Bolt has two hardness test punch-marks (absent on the previous, soft bolts)
-Bolt & other internals are "nickle/chrome" finished, making them smoother; I suspect it may be nickle-boron, which would hold up much better to the very hard nitrided-steel slide cams
-The bolt cam surfaces appear to have those washboard gouge-marks I mentioned earlier (caused by unpolished slide cams 'digging in')
-New disconnector design prevents sear release a very short distance out of battery (mine will drop the hammer into the bottom of the bolt from a good .5" out of battery)

He goes on at length about how much smoother the action is to cycle; I will claim this is primarily due to the new disconnector design, which appears to pivot about its rear end, vs. sliding straight downward (perpendicular to the slide contacting it). The disconnector also now appears to properly function as an out of battery safety (I will reiterate that the firing pin cannot be struck until the bolt drops down, though)

Again, folks go on about how critical a 'clicky' trigger reset is; I just don't get it. My R51 has a two-stage trigger (for an internal trigger safety being moved), and it's pretty obvious where the important one ends when releasing your finger, even if you don't feel a *click* as the hammer strut is driven back into engagement with the sear (a cursory examination of the FCG design shows why; the transfer bar drops into the sear notch at an angle, hence no 'click' although you can feel it fall into place). My thought is that the 'tactile reset' thing is a fad brought on by striker guns, which by necessity drop the striker onto the trigger upon reset (which results in a 'click'). The R51's hammer is caught by only a single sear, which is disengaged from the trigger early in the firing cycle.

Oddly, the grip-safety is TOO clicky . From what my investigations determined, the safety camming design relies on a lot of leverage, meaning that tolerances & surface finish will have a discernible impact on how it feels to operate. At least it works; I remember hearing of some folks whose safeties would not disengage (the internal parts didn't move enough to let the trigger engage the sear)

He mentions the hammer hangs up if you short-rack the pistol; this is kind of to be expected, since the hammer tip is square, and the locking block has a square notch at the rear where it locks to the frame. Seeing as any other pistol design thusly short-racked will likely go into battery as well, I'm not seeing this as a major issue (and if the R51 is now easier/smoother to rack, is unlikely to be a problem)

It appears the gun is still prone to some wear issues. The peened/worn areas on the bolt & slide he mentions are from riding over the disconnector, which implies there may still be more force required to operate it under power than is desirable. These peens will eventually dig shallow trenches across the top of the frame locking lug area. Not a safety issue, and self-limiting as the square bolt corners round off, but an unsatisfactory improvement over the original, I say. BTW, as those corners round, the disconnector will allow the hammer to drop farther and farther out of battery; whether it is enough to matter cannot be said at this time.

Slide internals and small parts in the video appear to be of MUCH higher quality. Also absent is three tablespoons of white grease mixed with metal shavings. More importantly, it looks "polished," which means it was blasted/tumbled to knock off sharp corners internally before the exterior was finished. My slide has visible tooling marks, burs, and sharp corners on the interior (only the exterior was blasted prior to finishing). The reviewer was right about the sight set-screws being a cheap bandaid fix in lieu of proper machining. The "R51" logo moved forward to just behind the ejection port. The front of the port is still square and oddly sharp, given the careful rounding of the rest of the gun (including the rear side of the port)

Bolt no longer appears to be MIM casting, but a machined piece (or a convincingly-finished MIM part), and gleams like a flawless jewel compared to the turd in my weapon. See the video vs. my old photos for yourselves; Rem has definitely upped their game to something approaching "acceptable" in this area. Firing pin hole still looks huge, and firing pin still has a ton of travel, so expect primers to still have the distinct "pimple with a dimple" due to poor primer support throughout the cycle. Contrary to what Ryeonham says, I do not believe the gun requires a dedicated drop safety, since the lightweight pin would have to move a full 1/4" against a 2lb or so spring to hit the primer. Really hard to tell from the video, but the firing pin looks more blunt than the conical point mine has, so maybe primer support will be better than I expect.

The ejector has had a hook at the underside near its tip that locks it down onto the locking shoulder in the frame removed, so now it freely pivots up when the gun is disassembled. Not sure what the advantage in doing that is.

I THINK the new disconnector pivots on the ejector mounting pin at the very rear of the pistol; there are two slots that go back further than the original FCG pocket, and the two sides of the shiny disconnector appear to reach back there. This will approximate the vertical motion that operated the original disconnector an inch or so forward at the sear area, but will likely control its motion against binding much better than two sloppy slotted holes riding over the FCG pins.

Barrel chamber looks mucho nicer; not at all like sandpaper. Still looks like they may have been a little aggressive in rounding the feed ramp, though, so cases may still exhibit some guppy-ing. Hooray for decent tooling, though! Turning marks on the barrel exterior are an order of magnitude smaller, which I can attest will greatly improve the ease and smoothness of the action when cycled. A proper ground & polished chrome finish would be best, but whatever. Still very ugly mill marks on the only visible portion of the barrel where the chambering is stamped (c'mon, Remington )

Magazines looks better designed, but still as cheaply made as before

My main takeaway from the video? "Yeah, it probably works, now." But that's about it; still not what you'd call a 'nice' gun, but again, this is modern Remington we're talking about, and this is an American-made 9mm +P gun in the $400 price bracket (unless someone's heard something about a new price for the 2.0's). It's not the re-make of the Model 51 we need, it's the re-make of the Model 51 we deserve

...or something like that

TCB

My 2nd Generation R51 arrived today. I'll get it to the range next week, but here are some initial observations.

As promised, the gun comes with the 2 standard magazines, 2 extra mags and a Pelican hardcase. The mags are the first differnces I noted.

MAGAZINES
1G: Thin, flat floor plate that fits flush to the butt.
2G: Thicker, rounded floor plate that extends slightly past the butt for more sure seating of mag.

1G: Flat follower
2G: Follower has a raised center ridge rising from a point 3/8s from the rear

2G: Slightly wider front lip tab. Less likely to catch in hollow point cavity.

THE GUN

Model logo on right side moved to just behind ejection port.

Trigger has less side play than my 1G but still has some. Has a definite reset, but will likely still draw criticism because there is a false reset feel just before the actual reset. Trigger weight remains the same 3.5-4lbs.

Rear sight has a set screw to lock it in place and prevent drift during firing. Front sight also has a set screw that I don't remember being there in the 1G.

Breechblock is more cleanly finished, looks like a machined piece rather than a finished casting. May be electroless nickel plated.

Frame locking lug is still aluminum, but is more precisely machined and hardened.

Interior finish of the slide is a lot cleaner with no rough machine marks.

The ejector is only pinned with one pin and it will pivot upward on this pin. If it does so when trying to remount the slide, it will get in the way.

I did not disassemble the firecontrol, but the disconnector feels much smoother in its vertical travel leading to less resistance and less "chatter" when racking the slide.

Overall, it just has a higher quality feel. I'm sure others may note more differences, as I seem to have one of the few 1G R51s that was actually fully functional. My major complaints were the "pimpled" primers and tight chamber which preveted some brands of ammo from fully chambering without deeply engraving on the lands. A quick plunk test shew that the chamber is still tight, though not as tight as my 1G. American Eagle 115g FMJ which engraved in my 1G seat fully without engraving in my 2G, but 122g Lead conical (MBC 9Cone) seated as max OAL will not chamber without deeply engraving. They seat fine in my Browning HighPower for which they were initially loaded.

Plunk test approved, awesome! Might be exchanging mine if a couple shooting reviews come up positive, after all

The revised manual no longer says use only Remington or Barnes ammo, and instead says that this is "highly recommended" It also says that "Remington designs firearms to function was most commercially available ammunition".

Visually, the rifling appears to be shallower at its beginning as though they actually did run a finish reamer. I may have to do a chamber cast to tell for sure. Range trip next Tuesday will reveal whether or not the chamber walls are still "frosted".

If anyone is wondering, the square data code on the side of the frame simply repeats the serial number. I was able to read it from a photograph with my smartphone.

Judging from what I've seen, here and elsewhere, I won't be running out to buy one, though I still might if they hold up well. It all about quality, and that set screw in the front sight tells me all I need to know about their confidence in their own machining tolerances. That's at least two extra steps, and an extra part, added for only one reason.

It's a damn shame because I really like this little gun too.

MikeJackmin said:

...that set screw in the front sight tells me all I need to know about their confidence in their own machining tolerances. That's at least two extra steps, and an extra part, added for only one reason.

It's a damn shame because I really like this little gun too.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Some people might like carrying the tools necessary to drift a sight with them to the range, others might just prefer an allen wrench and their fingers. The fact that each sight needs a different wrench is a bit inconvenient, but only one needs to be moved for windage. Now is would really be bad if you needed both the allen wrenches and a drift punch and hammer.

MikeJackmin said:

If anyone is wondering, the square data code on the side of the frame simply repeats the serial number. I was able to read it from a photograph with my smartphone.

Judging from what I've seen, here and elsewhere, I won't be running out to buy one, though I still might if they hold up well. It all about quality, and that set screw in the front sight tells me all I need to know about their confidence in their own machining tolerances. That's at least two extra steps, and an extra part, added for only one reason.

It's a damn shame because I really like this little gun too.

Click to expand...

I have other guns the quality of which is beyond debate that have those set screws in the sights, so to me thay say nothing.

I don't know. Some people might like carrying the tools necessary to drift a sight with them to the range, others might just prefer an allen wrench and their fingers.

Click to expand...

If it was just the rear sight, I could understand it as a feature. But both?

MikeJackmin said:

If it was just the rear sight, I could understand it as a feature. But both?

Click to expand...

Call it a "double-feature"

The fact that each sight needs a different wrench is a bit inconvenient

Click to expand...

What the--? That's stupid. They even looked like the same shank size in the video. C'mon, Remington...*

Call it a "double-feature"

Click to expand...

What, like a pair of bad movies?

that set screw in the front sight tells me all I need to know about their confidence in their own machining tolerances

Click to expand...

Actually, the fact that the engineering team allegedly pins the many 'repeated injuries and usurpations' above on "tolerance stacking" when everything is being made with CNC tooling, tells me a whole heck of a lot about their expectations of the guys out in the shops

In possibly related news...
ATF Investigating Possible Missing Handguns at Remington's Alabama Facility

C'mon, Remington...* :banghead:

*new corporate slogan for 2016!

barnbwt said:

In possibly related news...
ATF Investigating Possible Missing Handguns at Remington's Alabama Facility

C'mon, Remington...* :banghead:

*new corporate slogan for 2016!

Click to expand...

The first returns went to the Para USA plant in Pineville, NC.

I wonder how many people got return shipping packets and then sat on them waiting to see what Remington was going to do before sending in their R51s to a Pineville, NC plant that had been closed. Does UPS do forwarding addresses? Do they return the packages as undeliverable? Did the new occupants of the facility accept the packages and head for a gun show?

"...to a Pineville, NC plant that had been closed."

Speaking of which; does your new R51 also say "North Carolina" on the side of the frame? I'm still trying to figure out what's going on, there, since Remington cannot legally use the old address on guns built in 'Bama.

Did the new occupants of the facility accept the packages and head for a gun show?

Click to expand...

Okay, that's funny. "Gee, why do all these guns keep showing up?" I more suspect the lost guns were due to either a system treating sent out RMA's as recalled guns --"it says here the gun was returned, but we can't find it, derp"-- or Remington unceremoniously flushing the returned guns down the toilet without properly documenting things --"good luck with that ****". In all seriousness, I can't imagine how complex & impossible it must be to manage a large scale returns operation in the middle of a new facility startup, so I'm really not surprised that stuff is falling through the cracks. Still very disappointing, though.

Whatever. If nothing else, the R51 has taught me a whole lot about what the Pedersen action really needs to be a good design, and maybe one day soon I'll be able to make one (current concept is to hollow out a 1911 slide for a breech block that locks into a standard or slightly modified steel frame)

TCB

I'm not particularly interested in the pistol, but I want Remington to do well.

Really, there's a ton of interesting firearm actions out there. Back in the day, Winchester would just buy all of JMB's patents to keep the competition from getting them. A ton of it never made it to production.

It's exciting to see something completely different rather than just another "me too" firearm.

The action has a lot of promise, so it's kind of interesting that we haven't seen any other Pedersen hesitation locks out there.

The .45 acp version as the Remington 53 was supposed to be significantly better than the 1911 in most ways. If we weren't already tooled up for the 1911 when WWI kicked off, maybe we'd all have hesitation locked Glocks and Remington 53's these days instead of 1911's.

barnbwt said:

"...to a Pineville, NC plant that had been closed."

Speaking of which; does your new R51 also say "North Carolina" on the side of the frame? I'm still trying to figure out what's going on, there, since Remington cannot legally use the old address on guns built in 'Bama.

TCB

Click to expand...

Yes, the 2G has the same rollmarks in the same locations as the 1G:
"REMINGTON ARMS CO. CHARLOTTE, NC R51"

Maybe they are using 1G frames that were already fully fabricated in NC with some additional finish work? After all, ATF considers the part with the S# to be the gun and everything else is just parts.

IOW, I dunno.

I also noticed that the slide stop mechanism appears to be the same as before, and not improved for assembly --please confirm, JRH

A way to check whether the frame was reused might be to examine the pin holes. Originally, there was really aggressive knurling which cut ugly 'spikey' notches into the sides of the frame holes and removed some finish --Rye's gun looked like it had more normal looking pin holes, but maybe that's just the side opposite of where they were pushed in?

TCB

barnbwt said:

I also noticed that the slide stop mechanism appears to be the same as before, and not improved for assembly --please confirm, JRH

A way to check whether the frame was reused might be to examine the pin holes. Originally, there was really aggressive knurling which cut ugly 'spikey' notches into the sides of the frame holes and removed some finish --Rye's gun looked like it had more normal looking pin holes, but maybe that's just the side opposite of where they were pushed in?

TCB

Click to expand...

I didn't see any difference in the slide release. I'll post some pics when I get back home.

As near as I can tell, the pin holes in the 2G look "normal", but so did the pin holes in my 1G....until I tried punching out the pins. Ruined a couple of brass starter punches without budging a pin. I never got those pins out so I don't know if they were knurled or not, but there were no "spikey notches" visible with the pins in place on the 1G and same on the 2G.

Anybody have a range report? Anyone actually SHOOT the new 51s?

I never got those pins out so I don't know if they were knurled or not, but there were no "spikey notches" visible with the pins in place on the 1G and same on the 2G.

Click to expand...

Imagine hammering a splined shaft through a hole the size of its minor diameter; that's how my pins were

Cooldill said:

Anybody have a range report? Anyone actually SHOOT the new 51s?

Click to expand...

I plan on getting to the range on Tuesday.

RyeonHam has posted his Range Report.

Ammo used was Tula 115g Brass Maxx and Remington 115g FMJ

Tula ammo:
First mag (new mag) fed OK, 2nd mag was an original had an initial failure to feed twice in a row (second was on the slide rack to clear the first). Third mag (new mag) had a nosedive FTF.

through 3 mags, cases appeared have little or no frost from rough chamber walls. Half of the fired cases bulge slightly from lack of support above the feed ramp, other half OK. Primers still have the pimple with a dimple.

As his testing goes on, there is less case bulging. He continues to have random FTEs but he is using a mix of old an new mags and doesn't say which ones the failures are occurring with.

Switches to Remington 115g and has no issues, including no case bulge. All of the failures were apparently with the Tula ammo.

I'll do my own testing on Tuesday.