Would you give the Remington R51 another chance?

[raftman]

The idea that problems arose when going from prototype and pre-production testing to mass production is one that is mentioned often in explaining what went wrong with the R51.

However... This isn't exactly the first gun Remington has ever made. These guys are probably the biggest firearms manufacturer in the nation (particularly if you take into account their parent company). Not only are they biggest, but also the oldest; they've been making the transition from prototype to production for nearly 200 years! The R51 itself is just a new take on something they've already made decades ago.

A much smaller, newer outfit like Kel-Tec produces relatively ambitious/innovative (well, ambitious/innovative takes on existing ideas) type firearms. While their quality is known to be sometimes spotty, they've never done anything quite so lousy as an R51.

 

[etrain16]

Essentially "beta" testing products on the public is hardly new, it happens all the time, including with prescription drugs. That's why I really prefer never to be a 'first adopter' of any new product, service or drug. The companies are too impatient and don't have the time or resources to really shake out the problems. We are part of their R&D department to be sure. Add to that, impatient investors that want the product on the market and the idea that in some cases, a delay or re-work may be less costly than the level of testing they really need to do.

I am more of a Gen 2 or Gen 3 person. If the R51 makes it to that point and shakes out the rough parts, I may just consider it some day, after all the beta testers have done the hard work for me

 

[45 for me]

"However... This isn't exactly the first gun Remington has ever made. These guys are probably the biggest firearms manufacturer in the nation (particularly if you take into account their parent company). Not only are they biggest, but also the oldest; they've been making the transition from prototype to production for nearly 200 years! The R51 itself is just a new take on something they've already made decades ago. "

That is all true, but:

• The parent company consists of bean counters and Gordon Gecko wannabe's, not gun makers.
• When you get bought by a private equity fund, your company tends to lose key talent who don't like the takeover, or what the company is becoming. So what Remington was, is probably not what it is now.
• Yes, they made a similar gun, but the manufacturing process has nothing in common with the old one, and that is where they seem to have failed.

It sounds like a pretty thin excuse from Remington to blame the problems on the transition from pre to regular production, and it was a blunder, make no mistake about that. But, I tend to believe them based on the types of problems they were having.

 

[Liberty97045]

Not only would I not take a chance on this pistol, I am permanently off Remington as a company.

• The whole thing with the safety malfunctions went on for WAY too many years.
• A very close friend of mine had this safety defect blow a hole through the floor of his truck.
• I have seen and experienced failures of their pathetically poor quality Core-Lokt ammo.
• I saw a cow elk shot in the neck with a Core-Loct 30-06 and the bullet came apart and never penetrated the other side of the neck.
• Another friend lost a black bear on the coast after two solid hits with a 25-06. I asked him "were you using Cor-Lokt?" He replied "How did you know?" He found it a week later by following the buzzards; yep, two solid hits.

For my part, there are too many other companies out there that WANT my business enough to serve the customer.

 

[45 for me]

Hey Koolaid!...

I bought my Glock 17 in 1986 and never looked back. Over 7,000 rounds later, no problems whatsoever, no parts replacement, no mods...accurate and reliable as all get out! 300 yard silhouette target...no problem.
I liked it so well, I bought several more in various calibers.

...Oh Yeah!

I can say this about most of my guns, some of which have been more reliable than my Glocks. The Glock's 'Legendary Perfection' is just that: A legend (or myth) created by clever marketing. They are a great gun, don't get me wrong, but in a crowd of great guns, not head and shoulders above anything else.

Don't bank on a gun makers reputation, test your gun until your satisfied it will work every time.

Wasn't this an R51 thread?

 

[Quacky88]

Back to OP and topic... Absolutely not. I refuse to give any money to Remington in response to their overall defamation of the Marlin brand and overall lack of quality control and accountability for shotty work under the name that used to mean "Made in America" and the quality and service one used to expect from a classic domestic company. Remington (Freedom Group Inc.) has had to many Fails in the last years to deserve consumer loyalty or trust in their product....

 

[JamesRL]

I was looking forward to the R51 because I had a chance - long ago - to fire the Model 51 (made 1918 - 1927); it was a great little pistol.

Unfortunately, Remington "re-engineered" their old Model 51 into the R51 (probably to make it less expensive to produce...and to make it a 9mm instead of a .32 ACP / .380) and it sounds like they got caught up in overlapping tolerances - much the way the Model 700's safety did when they "re-engineered" it.

I'd like to own a functional R51, but Remington will have to do a lot to earn my trust back on that one.


Jim

 

[Velzey]

Yep! I will buy one..Just to go along with my original..

And bad Core-Lokt bullets? I thought those were for plinking?

Speaking of Remington...
Boom!

 

[pdrake]

Remington introducing a flop? Where was the R&D QC before this hit the shelves? I don't own one (obviously never will) but this is something that should never have happened with the name Remington behind it. Kind of like if Ford reintroduced the Pinto - or Chevy the Vega.

Whoa there, Nellie.

I drove a Pinto for 4 years while in college. This was a looooooooong time ago. It was an excellent vehicle for the times. So lightweight 3 guys could pull it out of a snowbank, and get back on the road. Honestly, in terms of value-for-money, an excellent vehicle.

I always thought Pinto received a shaft job. Sure, it was a crappy car. We all knew that going into the trade. Japanese cars (Corolla etc.) at the time were much better. But that Pinto served me very well. Never speak ill of the dead.

 

[RVTECH]

Never speak ill of the dead.

If you re-read my post I said IF Ford Reintroduced the cars of the past - not the ones OF the past. The big difference though is those cars were never meant to last forever where technically a gun might with the proper care. It's obvious there are more old guns than Pintos or Vegas. Regardless it appears that is what Remington did - Reintroduce something from the past, keep the designation but gave it a facelift for modern appearance and appeal but it seemed to come up short. Personally I do not own one so I cannot speak from experience but read enough to realize it might be a flop. Heck it's appearance alone was enough for me. Oh and BTW the Pinto suffered more from poor construction and body issues than from mechanical issues. The 2.3 litre engine in it was was not a bad motor and lived on in many other models and used for project vehicles.

 

[45 for me]

Technically, it's a new designation, the old guns were Remington 51's. The new are R51's. It is also a new gun, and if they figure out how to make them, a better one.