First is choose the ammo it'll work with, specify which brand/bullet weight/case material it's made to shoot and not care that it won't shoot anything else. Of course, the smart move would be to choose something compatible with the largest field of competitors so people have the most options...but trying to make it shoot ANY 9mm is going to bite them in the butt...again.
Not sure what you're talking about at all, here. The chambers were stupid-tight (i.e. cut with worn-out reamers) and only short-ogive, narrower-than-usual Remington 'spec' had a shot at chambering in many. Had nothing to do with the loads, but the parts being made right. When I reamed my chamber to proper spec, the cutter stopped about halfway it; chamber was probably about .005" too tight overall, and oval-shaped!
But making the Pederson lock work in 45 is a heck of a lot easier than in 9mm. It's an almost straight walled case that works at fairly low pressure...and for the Navy they only had to work with ONE bullet, the 230 ball.
Again, zero to do with the actual problems. My brass looked like it was drug through sandpaper the original chamber was so rough, and after finish reaming & polishing it, recoil was noticeably harsher --that's how much the surface finish was affecting extraction! Still cycled, though. Extraction was actually quite reliable for my gun, the only issues being intermittent failure to feed, usually getting hung up in the cheapo mags. Folks with really bad chambers found the gun would properly feed, but would fail to go quite all the way into battery, often the last 1/8" where camming of the bolt occurs (which, if you are also wedging a case into a narrow chamber, will obviously tie up the gun). Didn't help that the finish work on the camming areas so critical to smooth operation during the critical initial extraction phase was awful (the cams in the slide were extremely hard and sharp-cornered, and would gouge the soft MIM bolt body)
Reason is the Pederson action gets all of its' energy in that first .080" or so of blowback, and the rest of the action must be machined to allow this input to fully function it but also control battering should it be too energetic. Compare a relatively 'sticky' brass case with a steel one...and that blowback energy pulse is going to be very different. If you make it to work with one...it's likely to not work with the other or if you do it the other way around it'll be battered to death in a few thousand rounds. At least that's my take on it.
And yet a locking lug made of aluminum is able to safely contain a 9mm +P without peening (the only peening I ever witnesses was on the MIM bolt, and caused by the disconnector blade being almost wedged in the vertical position and contacting the bolt in a very small surface area. The bur turned on the bolt would then gouge the upper face of the locking surface.)
Ironically enough, the 'squish' in the Pedersen actually makes more resilient against excessive thrust, and more reliable across a broad range of inputs. Whatever energy is delivered, is delivered during that first .05" or so; it's not like a Browning where inertia is delivered to the barrel/slide throughout the entire travel of the bullet down the bore. Picking up and dragging back a stationary bolt body also dissipates recoil more than slamming a heavy barrel into a frame stop to unlock. It's hard for folks who haven't shot one to understand, but the initial squish means a 9mm and 9mm +P feel about the same as far as recoil; one's just louder.
Of course, the first aborted attempt to produce the R51 was also compromised by sloppy assembly and machining. Loose sights, wobbly triggers and slides that can't be racked have nothing to do with making the cartrige work with the Pederson action...that's just crappy work.
Agreed. In fact, it was so poor a Browning design would be hard pressed to function any better. Any tilt-barrels out there with all MIM internals but the barrel & slide? File/tool marks on the camming & locking surfaces? Half finished chambers?
But even a perfectly built gun is going to be hamstrung trying to eat any ammo you feed it.
I will call this a wildly unsupported/unsupportable statement. Far too few Pedersen designs out there to make such a declaration. I also don't get where this "R51 has a reputation for short stroking" thing came from; the guns had issues with feeding, issues with chambering, issues with firing out of battery*, loose sights, magazines that wouldn't stay in (having taken my gun apart down to pins & reassembling, I guarantee the fiddly mag release spring was not installed properly in many of these guns), and incredibly cheap triggers. There's a lot wrong with these guns, but the design is sound. make it with good, or even decent parts, and it will be an excellent weapon.
*while inexcusable as the result of shoddy workmanship, the design is uniquely configured to withstand an OOB better than a Browning-derivative. If fired while withdrawn slightly, the locking surface is hit sooner, and the gun fails to cycle, locking up tight with just enough case support to probably avoid a serious case rupture (despite all the reports of OOB, I've only seen one pin-hole puncture of a bulged case)
I'm positive that it can be made to work but is always going to be less flexible than a Browning tilting barrel and thereby more expensive to produce.
Not sure how flexibility with ammo has anything at all to do with manufacturing costs, not that there are flexibility issues. Remington claiming only 'their' ammo works was a cop-out. The chambers were miscut, and Remington makes its ammo at the undersized end of the spectrum, presumably to better work with their terrible chambers. At any rate, the design was flexible enough that the magazine well is long and wide enough for a 45 ACP magazine, and the barrel is positioned below-center in the slide by roughly the same amount as a wider 45ACP barrel would rise to be on-center. It's clear the design was destined for a 45ACP chambering with the swap-out of a barrel & magazine (and maybe recoil spring).
Perhaps Remington should take a look at its competition.
Perhaps Remington should hire some workers & managers that give a darn about the product they're making? And not dump the project on a factory that's about to be shut down after the initial production run (who'd a thunk that they would phone it in on their way to the unemployment line?)
The Ruger (and all the competition) use the vastly superior Browning tilting barrel operating system which is much, much more accomodating to variables in cartridge power. The friction characteristics of the case being used is unimportant until it comes time to extract it...and generally using a stout extractor will take care of the sticky ones.
Way too little data on Pedersen actions to declare them 'vastly inferior' at this point. The M53 did beat the 1911 in trials, after all, only being passed over due to the urgency of WWI & immediate availability of the Colt for purchase. Browning himself was rather taken with the design. As far as friction, the Pedersen is as or more tolerant than the Browning. When initially firing, the bolt thrust vastly outweighs whatever friction dissipates; cycle speed is not greatly affected. However, when extraction does finally occur after unlocking, there is now slightly less surface area in the chamber to crack loose, unlike the Browning that has to start from square one long after the driving force of the pressure is gone. Not really an issue in either design, though.
Some people online keep harping on how great the Pederson Lock is...I disagree. It's a fussy and difficult design that offers NO advantages over the Browning and is a form of mechanical masturbation that offers some satisfaction when you finally get it to work. Sort of.
It's been used in exactly TWO designs, and when made correctly for the first one, yielded a gun with a fantastic reputation that sold well for years until the Great Depression. The advantage is a fixed barrel & much better recoil-handling than tilt-barrels. My R51 recoils like my FN P35 Hi Power which weighs a whole lot more & with a wider grip. A fixed barrel makes for more reliable feeding (granted, modern tilt-barrels have largely figured out reliable feeding also), and allows the use of silencers or muzzle attachments without worry for how they impact function --no need for Nielsen devices. The solid locking and interrupted 'power stroke' of the action also means they will be more tolerant of longer pressure curves caused by silencer back pressure.
Going beyond the locking system, the safety arrangement is pretty darn slick, itself. Glock-like ease of use, while preserving a (theoretically) excellent trigger geometry and also a positive, external safety that's still intuitive.
What Remington needs to do is fire every single one of their QC members (if they even have any) and hire a brand new, trained team.
They did. What remains to be seen is if the Alabamans are any better.
How much money was wasted on this cock up gun?
Sadly, probably a lot less than we think. Yeah, Remington had to eat the cost of some of their own 1911s, but that action still kept their facilities employed (unlike a straight cash refund, which only a small number took). By hanging out the possibility --however unlikely-- that new models would be coming, they kept many others (like me) from sending our guns in to be destroyed. Many folks are still waiting after sending in their guns for some reason, as if there's a chance they'll be satisfied one day. And seeing as the NC plant was to be closed regardless, and production moved to Alabama, I have to wonder if the cease in production for two years was a foregone conclusion.
The only cost to Remington was their brand name's reputa-- HAHAHAHA!
Couldn't get through that one without cracking up!
If it works.. great.. It would be the perfect pocket 9mm.
If not.. Off to the safe it goes all the while becoming more valuable as on oddity.
You see, that's the right attitude. I bought my gun knowing that Remington would probably screw it up (there were a confluence of bad factors going in, not to mention the brand's already shady reputation), but hey, it's only 400$, and a lot more interesting than any other $400 new production handgun. Best case it's an awesome CCW probably to rival any other (thin, comfortable, controllable, accurate, powerful, good looking), worst case it's a Rogak to look upon with whimsy in a few decades with an eye towards 'what might have been.' I own a Mateba and a lot of other weird guns, so I'm fully comfortable with either.
The only folks who are rightly pissed are the guys who were depending on the gun being a practical defensive arm; and they kind of shoulda known better than to expect perfection in this case (ignorance can be forgiven, it's not like everyone's a nerd following every bit of news about the gun as it was introduced). No one should be angry at this point, just dissapointed. Anyone who sent in their gun should have gotten a decent 1911 as a better-than-fair trade by now, or a straight refund, and moved on with their lives. Anyone still waiting for a new gun is, in my opinion, being a bit foolish, since they are wasting a lot of their money's time, with little evidence of an eventual 0% return at best.
There's been a rumor of 'imminent re-introduction' every quarter for two years now. There's been nearly zero official corporate statements regarding this firearm within that time (and only to do with the recall). I don't think there are even pictures of the 'new production' pistols supposedly nearing their ship date. Sublimation-ware; was solid, now gaseous.
Yeah, I'd take an R9 over the 51.
Seeing as you can only buy one of them at the moment, I'd tend to agree
If they could, it would surely outsell the R51 as it is even smaller.
The Rohrbaugh is so tiny as to be clumsy to use. The R51 is still large enough for a pinky-grip, and is handled more or less the same as a full size pistol. IIRC, it's around 1911 'Officer' size, not really a true compact, let alone a sub compact mousegun like the 380 Rohrbaugh (I think Remington is having issues with the notoriously finnicky/delicate 9mm version, which is why the 380 is all that's available for now)
TCB
