Remington R51 reliability issues?

[mercman]

Is Remington's R51 offering failing? It seems that Remington is pulling ads for the pistol. I have one of the original model 51's from the 30's and was hoping to see this new production pistol succeed and hopefully be upgraded to the .40 S&W caliber. Hopefully this endeavor won't be given up on and will have the bugs worked out.

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/r ... r-website/#

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_fil ... _saga.html

[Synchronizor]

Definately a rough launch.

It's not at all unusual for multiple bugs to suddenly reveal themselves when a new product hits the market. Thousands of shooters of various skill/familiarity levels running all kinds of ammo were bound to reveal issues that didn't show up during Remington's internal testing. It's also not unusual for problems to arise when a product transitions from being manufactured in small prototype batches to full-scale mass production. In this case, it seems both have contributed to the R51's issues, and they're exacerbating each other.

I was honestly expecting some problems to show up on release, the R51's action is a major departure from other modern handguns, and it's hard to predict every tiny thing that can go wrong when there's little precedent or experience to work from. Still, I wasn't expecting it to be quite this problematic. From what I understand of the gun's design and operation though, it seems like the problems I've heard about are not major, concept-level issues, just small things that should be addressable with some investigation and tweaks to the gun's design and manufacturing. Hopefully the pulled advertising means Remington is taking the time to do this properly. I still think the Pederson action is a solid concept, and I'd hate to see Remington throw in the towel on it.

[mercman]

I think that this is indicative of the mindset of some manufacturers to do their Beta testing with the consumer instead of spending the time and ammunition to present a finised, reliable product. I remember when S&W fielded their semiauto 645 .45 ACP pistol series. S&W actually shot sever thousands of rounds through several 645's and made corrections and enhancements to the pistol's design before its release to the public. It is disquieting that Remington chose to 'dump' the R51 on the market without apparently performing extensive testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26 ... _Model_645

[Synchronizor]

I highly doubt it was Remington's intention for the R51 to be a "public beta". The reviews for the pre-production R51s were very favorable, and Remington obviously would have performed a lot of testing & development in-house using those prototypes. The major function & quality issues only started to show up when the production guns hit the market. So while the R51 obviously had some kinks and weak points to work out - which is to be expected with such an unprecedented design - it seems to be poor QC on the production line that really turned them into problems.

For example, perhaps the biggest issue with the production R51s was the trouble many had returning to battery after cycling. One gunwriter who attended the initial announcement and test-firing session reported minor issues with some of the demonstration prototypes, but said that cleaning and lubrication solved the problems. Since those pre-production guns had been going through hundreds of rounds at the event, this understandably wouldn't raise a lot red flags, as it's a phenomena also seen in small Browning-action pistols after a lot of rounds.

But then the production guns - which often showed signs of poor internal machining - started to have frequent issues returning to battery, even resulting in out-of-battery discharges in some cases. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it's not tough to see how the Pederson action with its separately-moving locking block and relatively soft recoil spring could be sensitive to rough machining in this way, but it's also not hard to understand how this potential problem could have gone unnoticed in the small-batch prototypes.

So while Remington's QC people definitely dropped the ball when this pistol was launched, I don't think it's fair to assume that the company intentionally released an unfinished design, or one with serious known problems. While some bugs are to be expected when a new, unfamiliar device like this is released to the public, Remington would have had no reason or motivation to release the R51 if they thought it could have had the issues it did. Also, remember that a lot of folks didn't experience major issues with their production R51s. I don't know if they were the majority or minority, but we all know that folks who have bad experiences with a product are always more vocal, and the internet loves to repeat and spread negativity.

[Synchronizor]

Update in the form of a Remington press release:

Remington R51 Pistol Product Update

Earlier this year, we launched the innovative R51 subcompact pistol to critical acclaim. During testing, numerous experts found the pistol to function flawlessly. In fact, they found it to have lower felt recoil, lower muzzle rise and better accuracy and concealability than other products in its class.

However, after initial commercial sales, our loyal customers notified us that some R51 pistols had performance issues. We immediately ceased production to re-test the product. While we determined the pistols were safe, certain units did not meet Remington’s performance criteria. The performance problems resulted from complications during our transition from prototype to mass production. These problems have been identified and solutions are being implemented, with an expected production restart in October.

Anyone who purchased an R51 may return it and receive a new R51 pistol, along with two additional magazines and a custom Pelican case, by calling Remington at (800) 243-9700.

The new R51 will be of the same exceptional quality as our test pistols, which performed flawlessly.

We appreciate your patience and support.

Looks like manufacturing changes during the move to mass-production was the primary cause of the function problems, and Remington's trying to do right by their customers.

[mercman]

I highly doubt it was Remington's intention for the R51 to be a "public beta". The reviews for the pre-production R51s were very favorable, and Remington obviously would have performed a lot of testing & development in-house using those prototypes. The major function & quality issues only started to show up when the production guns hit the market. So while the R51 obviously had some kinks and weak points to work out - which is to be expected with such an unprecedented design - it seems to be poor QC on the production line that really turned them into problems. I don't recall reading any articles on 'extensive' in house testing of Remington's R51 offering. I guess it has to be decided as to what's a poorer business model, to half test a design of a new product and release it to the shooting public with numerous defects OR to have such sloppy quality control so as to throw some obviously flawed product onto the market place for the consumer to find out for themselves that the offering has serious defects.


For example, perhaps the biggest issue with the production R51s was the trouble many had returning to battery after cycling. One gunwriter who attended the initial announcement and test-firing session reported minor issues with some of the demonstration prototypes, but said that cleaning and lubrication solved the problems. Since those pre-production guns had been going through hundreds of rounds at the event, this understandably wouldn't raise a lot red flags, as it's a phenomena also seen in small Browning-action pistols after a lot of rounds. I've read tests done by objective gun writers who would disagree with the assertion that the problems are 'minor' or could be solved by 'cleaning and lubrication'.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... ngton-r51/

In particular follow the link to the test performed by this author and see the overall ratings of the Remington R51. Too many One Stars out of Five for this design to have been 'thoroughly tested by the manufacturer. Please note the problem found by this writer and supported by another tester in where a R51 could be disassembled and then reassembled, pass a function check but still not be ready to fire a round.


But then the production guns - which often showed signs of poor internal machining - started to have frequent issues returning to battery, even resulting in out-of-battery discharges in some cases. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it's not tough to see how the Pederson action with its separately-moving locking block and relatively soft recoil spring could be sensitive to rough machining in this way, but it's also not hard to understand how this potential problem could have gone unnoticed in the small-batch prototypes. Again, why would a serious manufacturer seeking to present a 'finished product' produce 'small batch prototypes' instead of producing and testing several PRODUCTION pistols before dumping them on consumers to find out for themselves that the product just doesn't work? Sloppy? Poor QC? Very sad regardless of what the reason is. As a result the consumer ends up being the beta tester either by purpose or by incompetence. Again, which is worse?

So while Remington's QC people definitely dropped the ball when this pistol was launched, I don't think it's fair to assume that the company intentionally released an unfinished design, or one with serious known problems. While some bugs are to be expected when a new, unfamiliar device like this is released to the public, Remington would have had no reason or motivation to release the R51 if they thought it could have had the issues it did. Also, remember that a lot of folks didn't experience major issues with their production R51s. I don't know if they were the majority or minority, but we all know that folks who have bad experiences with a product are always more vocal, and the internet loves to repeat and spread negativity. In this instance the end users finding the major problems with Remington's R51 offering are not random Joes on the street but noted gun writers. Will Remington pull this one out of the trash heap? I hope so as I'd like to see this one succeed as it is a full power caliber in a .380 pistol sized package. Unfortunately Remington has a lot of ground to make up be it either from 'sloppy QC', incompetence or willfully letting the consumer be the end use tester. However its sliced this is a black eye for Remington!

Hopefully Remington will come through on the Model R51! Of course, as a business Remington must put a positive spin on this fiasco and I applaud their willingness to step up to the plate and make this right to consumers. Only time will tell if they get it right, but then they are postponing further production until October and I imagine that they will be working overtime to 'get it right' before offering this pistol to consumers again. If they'd only taken the time to test their 'production' models extensively they would not be behind the eight ball now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kqdWbDp ... e=youtu.be

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... ngton-r51/

Read the comments section where one poster states to 'Never be a beta tester'. Obviously an opinion held by more than a few......

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... stols-yet/

[Synchronizor]

I think you're still mixing up reviews and impressions of pre-production prototype R51s with those written about production guns (and also the mountain of words written by those who have never even held an R51). That TTAG "review" is especially bad about establishing which version exhibited each problem. And once again, it's impossible to know exactly how common these function problems really were with the first batch of production R51s. Obviously the issues were prevalent enough to give the pistol a bad reputation and prompt a recall, but we all know how little it takes to trigger the former on the internet, and the latter with modern business practices.

Again, I'm not trying to excuse Remington for releasing an obviously problematic product. Clearly someone dropped the ball on confirming that the function and quality of the production R51s matched that of the design specs and prototypes. I'm just contesting the assertion that Remington's designers didn't test the R51 when developing it, and/or that their management knowingly released a flawed or incomplete design with the intent that their customers would be "beta testers". Those are both very naive claims that make absolutely no sense from a business or design standpoint.