Remington 9mm R51

[1SOW]

Swamp ash,  the design is great.  It's a shame REM. Failed.  They likely have proprietary rights to the basic design.
Sure do wish a reliable company could do it right.  It would be my hands down selection for SD.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Swamp ash,  the design is great.  It's a shame REM. Failed.  They likely have proprietary rights to the basic design.
Sure do wish a reliable company could do it right.  It would be my hands down selection for SD.

I'm sure they do own the rights to the original Pederson design which they produced from 1918-1927. That gun was very well made and reliable and would be a better design for deep concealment than just about anything made today being only 3/4 inch at it's widest point.
Personally I just don't think you can use modern manufacturing techniques on the design as it's far too complex to allow the tolerance swings they incorporate. This design screams for and requires some close hand fitting to work. Not going to happen today.

[eastman]

Swamp ash,  the design is great.  It's a shame REM. Failed.  They likely have proprietary rights to the basic design.
Sure do wish a reliable company could do it right.  It would be my hands down selection for SD.

I'm sure they do own the rights to the original Pederson design which they produced from 1918-1927. That gun was very well made and reliable and would be a better design for deep concealment than just about anything made today being only 3/4 inch at it's widest point.
Personally I just don't think you can use modern manufacturing techniques on the design as it's far too complex to allow the tolerance swings they incorporate. This design screams for and requires some close hand fitting to work. Not going to happen today.

The original design worked for .380 and .32. The mechanics may not have translated well to full power 9x19mm.

[1SOW]

 I SAW the results of ridiculously poor machine work.  "Some" few of the guns sold worked moderately well.
They actually were not that complicated,  just different.  They have much fewer parts than a hammer CZ,  especially small pins, springs and small parts.  Cutting sight dovetails, machining "round" bbl chambers and mounting triggers that don't move side-side and pull smoothly "before even being attached to the action" is not rocket science complicated. 

Whatever,  it appears Pedersen's basic design is more than our computer enhanced machine capability can handle.   

[OldGringo]

Since the beginning of R51 saga, I've wondered if Remington's designers under pressure from the Freedom Group had the time to think through this whole concept of a retro handgun.

The original pistol was all steel and chambered in .32 and .380. The interesting thing is that these cartridges can be fired from straight blow-back pistols like the PPK. The Pederson system was installed to make the pistols smoother recoiling and much easier to manipulate than comparable pistols in that size and caliber. That appears to have their original selling point. Even with these features however, the original R51 didn't exactly take the market by storm back in the 20s and 30s.

The problem with the modern R51 seems to be that by chambering the pistol in 9mm Remington took what had been an extra feature and made it an essential part of the function. The alloy frame doesn't seem to help much ether since the Pederson steel locking breech rides/slams back over the frame. Not as big of a deal in lower calibers when the frame is also made of steel but it seems to cause excessive wear in 9mm on the alloy frame. Once the frame (serialized) gets sufficiently worn/damaged its bye-bye pistol.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Since the beginning of R51 saga, I've wondered if Remington's designers under pressure from the Freedom Group had the time to think through this whole concept of a retro handgun.

The original pistol was all steel and chambered in .32 and .380. The interesting thing is that these cartridges can be fired from straight blow-back pistols like the PPK. The Pederson system was installed to make the pistols smoother recoiling and much easier to manipulate than comparable pistols in that size and caliber. That appears to have their original selling point. Even with these features however, the original R51 didn't exactly take the market by storm back in the 20s and 30s.

The problem with the modern R51 seems to be that by chambering the pistol in 9mm Remington took what had been an extra feature and made it an essential part of the function. The alloy frame doesn't seem to help much ether since the Pederson steel locking breech rides/slams back over the frame. Not as big of a deal in lower calibers when the frame is also made of steel but it seems to cause excessive wear in 9mm on the alloy frame. Once the frame (serialized) gets sufficiently worn/damaged its bye-bye pistol.

Nothing really took the market by storm back in the 20's and 30's. People just didn't go hog wild collecting firearms back then like we do today and a gun like the R51 had no practical police or military use and there just wasn't the concealed carry market back then like today. A person could buy a Thompson subbie at the local hardware store with no paperwork or background check yet the average gun buyer wasn't interested and it became a gangster piece and later military. Imagine how they'd sell today if purchase was still that easy.
Anyway I think the aluminum frame of the R51 could work if they took the time to fit the gun properly. I don't think any of these guns are running well enough to make it too the wear out stage.