Remington RM380 and R51 Compact

[JeffG]

I was just looking at email and browsed over to Brownells and they showed a deal on Remington RM380, which I hadn't heard of yet so went to Remington's site and saw the R51 is back up on their site again. Anybody seen or purchased the RM380 or the re-released R51? Man I love the way the R51 looks, that could really be me.

:Fire:

[c1skout]

No input on either gun...... but Man, it seems like you can't be in the gun business without offering a version of Kel-Tec's P3at these days!

[9.3X62AL]

Wasn't aware of either handgun's status.......look interesting, I thought the 9mm/Rem 51 concept was a good one--but deeply flawed via shoddy execution by its manufacturer. I hope this is more than just new paint job by ad copy on a recycled clunker.

[JeffG]

I hear you. It would be nice to know what was done to address issues.

[jameslovesjammie]

It's a Rohrbaugh. Remington bought Rohrbaugh in 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wmGhmxh3HA

[Mk42gunner]

While I like the idea of the R51; I will wait until there are a bunch, that work, out in the hands of real world buyers before I spend my money on one.

The stench of glowing reviews of basically hand built prototypes versus production jamamatics still lingers.

Robert

[Grapeshot]

Do you remember the Colt 2000?

[rintinglen]

And the DS II?
Amazing how good the guns in the writers' hands are.

[Mk42gunner]

Yes sir, and the Double Eagle.

[9.3X62AL]

Once burned/twice shy. I will wait this out as well.

[JHeath]

It sounded like Remington was hinting at also producing the Pedersen-designed Model 53 .45 which the Navy and Marines preferred over the 1911. The thing worked -- apparently really well -- in 1918. Given the astonishing market for .45s and particularly 1911s, with prices way into four figures for some of them, reviving the original Model 53 would sound like a good investment.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/remington-m53/

I understand Rem could not resurrect the Model 51 verbatim, too expensive for a modern .380 in a field of pocket blow-backs.

But a production Model 53 .45 would be proven technology, with a huge potential market. Pre-tested to satisfaction by the Navy and Marines. Made even easier to produce by modern CNC and MIM.

Too bad Remington tripped over trying to make a 9mm+P sub-compact first, since that pressure level in that size pistol with the Pedersen design was new territory, requiring a complete new design which turned out not to be very manufacturable.

[Petrol & Powder]

I really want the Remington R51 to succeed and think the concept is sound. However, Remington needs to rebuild some trust before I will buy one.
The pistol has promise if they can turn out good examples.

[376Steyr]

FWIW: Davidson's Gallery of Guns has plenty of RM380's in stock, but has now dropped all mention of the R51 from its online catalog.

[9.3X62AL]

FWIW: Davidson's Gallery of Guns has plenty of RM380's in stock, but has now dropped all mention of the R51 from its online catalog.

Can't say I blame them. Realtors don't like disclosing sex offender parolee locations on their sales literature, either.

[Tackleberry41]

I think its going to take ALOT for most to put down any money on the R51. Has remington 'fixed' them? Or do they just think they can reintroduce the same gun without doing anything hoping everybody forgot? Few of us are willing to be the guinea pigs. So its unlikely if available they will fly off shelves, until after its proven they fixed them. And will take more than a few bribed gun mags with handpicked pistols to convince most of us.

[JeffG]

Interesting article, thanks.


It sounded like Remington was hinting at also producing the Pedersen-designed Model 53 .45 which the Navy and Marines preferred over the 1911. The thing worked -- apparently really well -- in 1918. Given the astonishing market for .45s and particularly 1911s, with prices way into four figures for some of them, reviving the original Model 53 would sound like a good investment.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/remington-m53/

I understand Rem could not resurrect the Model 51 verbatim, too expensive for a modern .380 in a field of pocket blow-backs.

But a production Model 53 .45 would be proven technology, with a huge potential market. Pre-tested to satisfaction by the Navy and Marines. Made even easier to produce by modern CNC and MIM.

Too bad Remington tripped over trying to make a 9mm+P sub-compact first, since that pressure level in that size pistol with the Pedersen design was new territory, requiring a complete new design which turned out not to be very manufacturable.

[JHeath]

Any gun -- even most new ones -- are a project to most of us. Many people buy new guns plan to spend another $200 or $2000 to make them "just what I wanted." 1911s, Ruger single actions, etc. New rifles these days are pretty well sorted, but most of us have bought rifles expecting to pay for trigger jobs after that, bed them, fire lap them etc etc.

Doug makes a trade in opening Ruger revolver throats to match the groove dia, after the gun left the factory. Does that make Blackhawks/ SBHs/ Redhawks etc. a bunch of lemons for which you won't be the guinea pig? Take them off the market, right? Why should you be the beta tester?

The early reviews of the R51 tell me that it can be made to work and might be a nifty and unique little pistol.

If Rem. sells me a $400 pistol with features I can't get anywhere else, and I spend 30 minutes on the bench with a needle file and $25 on aftermarket springs to get it working right, it may be bad QC but it doesn't bother me much, if I know how to deal with it.

How many forearm tuning kits have been sold to get Ruger No. 1s to shoot right? Would you have strangled that model in the crib?

Remington 700 safeties? Entire design invalidated?

How many Timney triggers have been sold for rifles that should have been "made right in the first place"?

I'm looking at my (original) Model 51 and realizing that the occasional cracked breechblocks I hear about probably result from what looks like an obvious and unecessary stress concentration on a corner that could be removed with a bit of filing/polishing. Almost like they weren't properly deburred or the edges "broken." The pistol left the factory in this condition about 93 years ago. I paid about $400 for it.

Why should I have to fix that? Remington should have done it 93 years ago. I could gripe about Remington using me as a guinea pig, and about being made to beta test a $400 handgun, and how QC committed an outrage against me. Or I could fix it and enjoy a unique pistol and stop whining.

[Tackleberry41]

Your talking apples and oranges. Yea we buy production guns and maybe they need some tuning up. But they are still operational and safe to use. They will work with slightly undersized throats, and will fire with non aftermarket springs in them. The R51 was pretty much junk. Rear sights that fell out being handled at the gun shop? Or some that you could not even pull the slide back on, out of the box? Or firing out of battery? Thats not something you should have to buy aftermarket springs and spend time fixing. Anymore than most of us would buy a new car that 'needed work' to be safe to drive. Yes people do put stereos in cars, but not because the factory one quit 2 days after it was bought, they simply wanted a better one. People put rims on cars, not because the original ones were unsafe, they wanted different. Remington put out an unsafe gun, and then recalled them. It really is not much to ask that one of the most dangerous things you can use, a gun, will at least work and be safe if used properly.

I know somebody whos kid was after one of those hover boards. You know the ones catching fire in use or burning homes down while being charged. Well Amazon has said send them back so they can be destroyed, and will not be selling them anymore. Now maybe they borrowed from the Remington book, build a really good prototype, then turn them into junk on the production line. But under your line of thinking, people should spend the money for a hover board, then go buy parts to fix it so it wont burn their house down, and not complain while doing it.

[JHeath]

No an unsafe product is no good, loose dovetails ditto.

But I see the gloating pigpile against this model from every wannabe Skeeter with their own blog or YouTube channel, and bet Rem Marketing dept says the product is dead when Rem tech dept says the tech problems are solvable. Because nobody will buy it until after 100,000 people have bought it, and it'll get nitpicked to death anyway. And the closed mindedness will prevent Rem from bringing out an R53, which is a shame because there's nothing interesting left to do with 1911s, they're everywhere.

[9.3X62AL]

I get your drift, J Heath. More often than not, I have found myself "finishing construction" or refining some element of a new firearm/loading tool/bullet mould. I generally don't mind these sorts of things, but will admit to being less patient with these necessities as the price of the item gets larger. I should not have to pay close to $1000/OTD for a 327 Magnum revolver and still need to change a sight before my friends see me with it, especially after waiting YEARS for the maker to get off their aspirations to make the thing in the first place. No, after 7+ years of difficult-to-find firearms. ammo, and reloading components........my patience with lazy, uninspired, and shoddy gunsport supply stream is close to expiration.

[376Steyr]

FWIW: The Remington website still proudly advertises the R51; it is the first product that is displayed when you click on the "Handguns" category.

[bedbugbilly]

When Remington first announced the R51, I got interested in it as I thought it might be a good 9mm to have. Then the reviews by the gun gurus showed up saying how their samples were so good as far as function and workmanship. OK . . . we all know how "reviews" are . . . especially by reviewers in a magazine that the mfg. advertised in. And then the production models hit the stores . . somewhat. I looked for one in a number of stores just because I wanted to handle it and see what it was all about . . . never was able to see one.

It's unfortunate when a mfg. runs into such a complete "flubbar" . . . sort of reminds you when the Edsel came out. I wish Remington no ill will whatsoever. I have shot a number of Remington products for 50 some years and they were always one of the well known companies just as Winchester, Browning, etc. were. But you can't live on "reputation" alone or your past history. Had the R51 actually been what it was touted to be and hyped up to be . . . I would have gladly purchased one even if it were a time before supply met up with the demand. But it didn't work that way.

Remington is not unlikd many manufacturers today . . . they are run by the bean counters and the bottom line is what is important . . . not producing a quality product at an affordable price and maintaining their past history and reputation. Ruger works hard at it . . . Henry works hard at it . . . and IMHO, they do an excellent job. But even Colt has had their problems and hopefully they can come out of it. Remington? Unless they make a concentrated effort in their advertising and PR to the gun buying market that they "screwed up" and have learned from it . . . there are too many other good options to turn to and purchase.

Personally . . . I got fed up with the whole R51 fiasco and went with a 9mm Shield. Is it the same design? Nope. But it functions well and goes bang with whatever I feed it and I know I can depend on it for a CC weapon. The R51? I would always have my doubts . . . .

[JHeath]

The one good thing to come out of this is maybe Remington will correct the styling as part of the re-launch. Because I want my guns to go boom, not do this:

[JeffG]

I'm definitely not counting myself out for one. I also don't mind tweeking, etc., within my abilities. Must be why I have milsurps around that all need effort in one way or another to get them to shoot well, I am learning something.:Fire:

[JHeath]

I discovered via the web that the Remington engineer who developed the R51 and was present at SHOT Show in launch 2014, by October of that year was at a different company. So if Rem has a team trying to make the design work, he's apparently not on it. Which is not encouraging (having been a technical project manager/ designer myself in a different industry). It suggests that either he or the company lacked faith in the other, which makes the R51 an orphan project already in technical and marketing trouble.