Now we know. Let's let it ride as is.

TD

Copy that...!!

I certainly did not appreciate the fact the my R51 came to me completely non-functional. I don't believe even the great Jeff Copper would appreciate the R51 and say this is just a misunderstood pistol!

I certainly appreciate the R51 for what it is and it is a POS poorly manufactured with inferior parts and unsafe. The first day I have 2-3 hours to spare on the phone I will call the once great Remington firearm company and initiate a refund of my hard earned money. Almost 3 months and counting since they received it . Do you think I have buyers remorse ABSOLUTELY.

445r51 wrote:I have to say (IMHO) that even if virtually none of the present issues with the R51 existed, the gun still requires a level of intelligence and perspective few possess these days - and therefore is probably doomed to fail for this reason.....
I just don’t think most today are equipped to appreciate the R51.

I almost completely disagree with your post/rant.

The R51 requires intelligence and perspective that few possess? Let's see. Load magazine. Insert magazine. Rack slide. Point and shoot. Really?

Accuracy is the primary trait a firearm should be measured by? Really? I mean, REALLY?!?

"Todays “combat” handguns are essentially the AK-47 of the pistol world and most using them are the dumb, illiterate, mechanically inept peasants, who just happen to possess an over inflated opinion of themselves." Wow. Once again. REALLY?

"...supposed combat “experts” and “instructors” whining about R51 slide bite..." Hmm. Isn't that the same whine that turned the 1911 into the 1911-A1? You may have heard of the 1911. They were built loose to ensure function in combat and were designed to put a bullet into, what, 4" at 25 yards?

I think your assertions are ludicrous.

Hi John,

My opinions are my opinions and you are certainly free to disagree with them. I stand by what I said, aside from any implied praise for the R51 I may have originally made. For the record, I believe the R51 is a great design that delivers what it said it would (low felt recoil, accuracy, pointability, and fast shot to shot recovery), but also is an unreliable, ill-made, piece of crap, produced by a incompetent manufacturer, and promoted by feckless gun writers beholden to the their corporate handlers.

Regarding your comments specifically, I would offer these responses:

Tater wrote:

445r51 wrote:I have to say (IMHO) that even if virtually none of the present issues with the R51 existed, the gun still requires a level of intelligence and perspective few possess these days - and therefore is probably doomed to fail for this reason.....
I just don’t think most today are equipped to appreciate the R51.

I almost completely disagree with your post/rant.

The R51 requires intelligence and perspective that few possess? Let's see. Load magazine. Insert magazine. Rack slide. Point and shoot. Really?

Again, I stand by what I said - but maybe it would help to understand what I was speaking to. The chief objective/subjective concern I've heard of about the R51 (I’m NOT referring to all of the technical issues) is the fact that it is so "hard" to assemble/disassemble. I've seen this criticism repeated over and over again in the court of public opinion. I don't personally agree with the position, but is has been repeated way too many times to be ignored.

Tater wrote:

445r51 wrote:Accuracy is the primary trait a firearm should be measured by? Really? I mean, REALLY?!?

]

Yes, really. Let me suggest this to help frame this for you, reliability is assumed. You car is expected to get you from point A to point B, not to simply start in the morning. You gun is expected to hit what you am it at - assuming you do you part. If your primary expectation of your car is to ONLY start in the morning, and it does that reliably, that doesn't mean it will get you back and forth to work. Starting is a function of getting you from point A to point B, as reliable function in a firearm is a requirement of accuracy. If your gun doesn't load, you can't hit what you're aiming at, which presumably is what you're truly seeking to achieve. Reliable function is a requirement of firearm. Accuracy is more or less present depending on a number of factors - but the presence of it, improves the possibility of the achieving of your goal. We should all seek the more accurate firearm, and we must not ever consider unreliable firearms.

If we are not considering unreliable firearms, then what would you propose we should make our *primary* consideration of a firearm? Looks? Brand? Ergonomics? Weight? Are any of these more important than hitting what you're aiming at?

Tater wrote:"Todays “combat” handguns are essentially the AK-47 of the pistol world and most using them are the dumb, illiterate, mechanically inept peasants, who just happen to possess an over inflated opinion of themselves." Wow. Once again. REALLY?

"...supposed combat “experts” and “instructors” whining about R51 slide bite..." Hmm. Isn't that the same whine that turned the 1911 into the 1911-A1? You may have heard of the 1911. They were built loose to ensure function in combat and were designed to put a bullet into, what, 4" at 25 yards?

I think your assertions are ludicrous.

I have heard of the 1911. We're talking about the same gun that people pay hundreds of dollars extra for 1.5" accuracy guarantees on, even on combat iterations, correct? (Check our Baer, Wilson, Brown and others for further details)

The 1911, the gun that is infinitely more capable of accuracy potential (using methods proven over decades) than modern, polymer pistols - which, aside from "drop-in" components, are virtually incapable of ever being made *mechanically* more accurate than they are the day the roll off the assembly line floor?

The main difference I am aware of in the change from the 1911 to the 1911A1 was the move from a flat (1911) to an arched main spring housing (where it remained for what, the next 5 decades or so?) The main spring housing change having nothing to do with slide bite, rather the change being made to make the grip circumference larger.

I think what you might (incorrectly) be thinking of is the modern construct referred to as a "beaver-tail" grip safety. I personally enjoy them, but the suggestion that they help with "slide bite" is a marketing myth. I own 1911s with both. Tell me, how is a grip safety that allows your hand to grip *much* higher on the pistol, therefore closer to the slide, really an effective remedy to slide bite? For the record, I know people who get slide bite with either. For your education, it stands to reason that if you get slide bit with the GI style, which positions your hand LOWER on the frame, you would certainly get it with a beaver-tail as well.

Now, if we were talking hammers, that would be a another story, but you should be aware - neither the beaver-tail grip safety or the commander style hammer was a "combat," military, or factory improvement. These were innovations that started on custom target guns, way before combat style target shooting (or even training) was a wet dream. Until the early 80s there was a single form of handgun target shooting that involved the 1911 and it had existed for what, more than 50 years? It involved shooting one handed, at 25 and 50 years at bulls-eye targets.

Just because the "features" (beaver-tail and commander hammer) are the norm these days, doesn’t mean they have anything to do with the A1, or effective combat use. The 1911 (including in A1 configuration) has seen more combat than any other American produced handgun ever (WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, yada, yada), maybe even more combat than any other American produced *firearm* ever. For the most part, during that entire time, it did not have any of the very modern enhancements of the beaver-tail, the commander hammer, or the revision BACK to the flat main spring housing. Guess what? The worked just fine I would even submit that an argument could be made AGAINST the commander style hammer, which necessitates a beaver-tail style safety. A spur style hammer, such as was standard on the 1911 for about, oh, almost 100 years is a LOT safer to lower if necessary.

Also, I would love to see a reference to an Army, Colt or Browning document that states that the 1911 was built “loose.” The fact is was built to hold the standard of accuracy contracted for – which was roughly 6 inches at 50 yards. The difference is that, changing no parts at all the gun can be made to shoot under 3 inches at 50 yards. No amount of work on a modern pistol (ala Glock) will result in 3 inch accuracy at 50 yards (heck 3 inches at 25 would be stretch) and ANY work on newer firearms would require new parts.

My one jab at you (you started it with the ludicrous comment) is to grow up. I don't know how old you are, but regardless of physical age, you haven't been around 1911s very long or you would know that the 1911s you find in the gun store today are not “A1s” or anything close. They also haven’t looked the way that they do now for more than 10-15 years. Granted the enhancements have been around a while longer than that, but NOT on mid-range production guns, not even close. To my recollection, Kimber was the fist to roll all of the custom (and/high end) features into a standard model. Arguably, until Taurus, Springfield, (then later) Remington, Ruger, etc. followed suit, only high end iterations had these features. Also, I’m not saying that the features are not useful, necessary, or worth it. I'm simply pointing out the gun ran just fine for the better part of a century without them and is still considered "the" modern combat handgun all others are measured against. This is despite the fact that the "enhancements" came about (and were readily available) only during the last, small part of the iconic run which is still in progress.

Back to the issue at hand, I have 2 R51s in my household. How many do you own? Slide bite is not an issue with the R51, not any more than any other gun. There are some people out there who, because of their anatomy, are going to be prone to it.

So regarding reports of slide bite. Aside from TTAG complaining about it (and I don’t feel the pics posted in the review even show true slide bite), and then that complaint being parroted by MAC and Tactical Existence (who I don’t believe even stated that THEY actually experienced slide bite), I have seen only one credible report of slide bite with the R51. The owner also reported that he experiences the issue with other guns and that he is over weight.

Regarding the "experts" (and I'm assuming anyone with a Youtube channel and BLOG who "reviews" guns thinks themselves an expert), who whine about the possibility of slide bite with a firearm designed as a sub/compact, I would submit that the only thing that they're "expert" at is bitching.

-Calvin

.........so much typing and time spent in front of a screen...... I for one would rather be outside shooting than ranting paragraphs on end about R51 issues that's already been addressed over and over and over. But I guess if that's your one gun and its been back to the factory for months maybe you don't have that option?

remmy wrote:.........so much typing and time spent in front of a screen...... I for one would rather be outside shooting than ranting paragraphs on end about R51 issues that's already been addressed over and over and over. But I guess if that's your one gun and its been back to the factory for months maybe you don't have that option?

Unfortunately!

Again...please keep the conversations civil.

No name calling or baiting of people who disagree with your opinion...

We can agree to disagree without resorting to school yard tatics.

I understand the frustration levels are high, but we all want a forum that is cordial.

Thank you for your cooperation...

I apologize if any feelings were hurt.