We weren’t in on the big R51 announcement from Remington for some reason. Go figure. It’s too bad, too, because Remmy’s new 7+1 single stack looks like an awfully compelling carry gun. Especially with an MSRP of only $389. In fact, it’s pretty much what you’d hope the new GLOCK 42 (if there really is such a thing) will be. We’ll get our hands on one somehow. Don’t you worry . . .

Post Views: 43

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

201 COMMENTS

    • Remington doesn’t have to worry about restrictive import regulations. And before you get into the US plant, they were buys filling foreign orders.

      • What I’m unsure of from what I’ve read so far, is the carry mode. It’s a single action with a grip safety but no slide lock. So does that mean that you carry it with a round in the chamber “Cocked and Un-locked?

        I’ve never seen the need for a slide lock on any DAO or striker fired pistol but on a single action that’s cocked when a round is chambered, I dunno, I sure wouldn’t carry my 1911 that way….

        As far as looks, I would have preferred to have seen them stay closer to the original design without trying to “Jazz it Up” so much as if they were designing a new Basketball shoe, but rather giving it a more business-like appearance instead. That said, overall it’s a nice size and shape and I wouldn’t mind having one.

        • So you can please those people who think its irresponsible to carry without one chambered. But seriously I don’t see in the article where it says single action. It says single stack…

        • Not to please ANY g*ddamned-body. The poster acted as if that were not an option. CLEARLY, IT IS.

        • Why wouldn’t you carry a round in the chamber without the safety? Because everyone has always said not to? I’d argue that this pistol and any other single action pistol (1911 included) needs no thumb safety. First off, let me start by saying that John Browning’s original design of what became the 1911 had no thumb safety.  Seriously, why you need something to keep the pistol from firing when the trigger is pulled?!? And if you believe this is truly necessary, then what makes a striker fired pistol exempt from this need? It surely isn’t the trigger! A thumb safety will only make the gun more “safe” if the trigger is accidentally pulled, which begs the question of why a finger was on the trigger in the first place if the person wasn’t ready to fire. Maybe I’m just crazy, but I find it much more useful to just practice the rules of firearm safety.

        • Americans have more than a century’s experience with this general type of pistol — a single-action semiautos without an exposed hammer or other means of decocking the pistol. The consensus of that experience was they weren’t safe to carry unless the chamber was empty, even if they had pretty good safeties. But any gun which requires two hands to get into action is less useful, to carry for self-defense, than a gun which can be operated with only one hand. One hand already be injured, or may be busy pushing away an attacker, or the attacker may have seized one arm, or one arm may be doing something equally important like trying to open a door so the person being attacked can escape through it. Although single-action hammerless semi-autos like the pocket Colts were often high quality and very popular in their day, they fell from popularity about the same time other pistols became readily available which were easily concealable and also could be put into action with only one hand — pistols like the S&W J frame revolvers and the single-and-double semi-autos like the PPK and its imitators. They fell from popularity when there were only one or two options that were better for defensive carry, so I doubt a new design with the same old shortcoming is going to fare better in a market now offering dozens of competitors which can do the same job better.

  2. I can easily see myself adding one of those to the collection. Good looks (to me, anyway). Minimal manual controls. Unique locking mechanism. The slide section south of the ejection port seems a little thin, but if the gun runs (as recent reports seem to indicate), then I agree it could be a real CCW winner for Remington.

  3. Looks like an illegitimate love child between a PPK and LC9.

    Remington is listening to the market for sure. I’ll be interested to read the official TTAG review.

  4. I like it.
    I find I might just be taking a look at this gun as soon as its in my local stores.
    I have had no use for a 9mm.
    But this one has peeked my interests.

  5. Sweet-looking — the American James Bond gun. I have absolutely no need for a single-stack 9mm the size of a G19, and yet…

    • I do like the look of this pistol. Very pretty. But what is this fascination with single stack 7+1 pistols? Aside from the low capacity I suspect that handle would be too small for my hand to grasp comfortably. (Conjecture) Even with a spare mag on your belt you get only 15 rounds.

      My SR9c with the short double-stack mag holds 10+1. The standard mag is 17 rounds. If (when) I carry both mags I have almost double the ammo that the Remington would provide. All that just to get s skinny grip? Seems like a potentially expensive trade-off.

      JMHO.

      • Too small? Perhaps. You get to try before you buy! Or, you could carry two. They weigh but 20 ounces!

        A western gunfighter with two little nines!

      • I’m skinny as a rail and concealing a handgun is real difficult if I don’t want to look like a white gangster wannabe. I find a single stack design like the 1911 conceals better than my M&P 9c. The only problem is that I have a full size grip on my 1911 and its about an inch too long. I live in nh and have long since given up on worrying about if I’m printing. And by the way this gun is just downright pretty.

        • A number thought it downright ugly; I guess they’d think the same about Art Deco. The Chrysler Building!

  6. It looks like a Phaser from Star Trek. I like the looks and if the quality is good I wouldn’t mind one for carry in heavier clothes. Then use the LCP for shorts and t-shirt carry.

  9. Nice looking gat, especially at that price point. Remington is making a name for themselves in the handgun market these days. (For some reason when I think “Remington” and “handgun” I always picture an XP-100.)

    Their corporate overlords are doing a good job of leveraging a historic name in today’s market. Hopefully the quality is there to back it up.

    (And I’m not quite sure if I’m being intentionally ironic with the use of the word “gat” above.)

  10. This looks beautiful. Simple controls, good looks, I want one already! Providing that the internals are as good as the external looks.

  11. Probably going to buy this, not gonna lie. It is just slick looking IMO, and at that price I won’t feel bad picking it up. The SCCY CPX is lower price but the operation and design have me believing this will be a much more popular ‘budget’ CC piece. It will find a market, it won’t upset the shields/938/XDs much. This>G42

    • The sccy is not pleasant to shoot at all, and in fact I’m selling mine. Going to use the funds to purchase a glock 26 generation4 to match my g17g4.

      The sccy is nice and all, and has always gone bang, but it’s too light.

  14. Nice design, indeed. Like the spawn of the PPK and the Makarov, sorta. I’m not a fan of nines, either, but DAY-UMM… lookin’ FINE, Remington!

  15. It sure seems like the rear sight needs to be reversed.
    It may look a bit more blended with the design as is but an extra inch of sight radius would help accuracy,

  17. I’ve been waiting for this pistol all my life. I just didn’t know it.

    Gorgeous. It doesn’t hurt that it looks like its grandaddy Model 51, either. That was a beauty too.

    Can’t wait to buy it in two years after the beta testing, recalls and massive demand are over.

    • Agreed…
      All you gotta do is be on the bleeding edge of buyin’ a new design one time and you’ll never do it again. It oughta take about two years to work out the kinks and then I’ll think seriously about buyin’ one.

    • I can see two areas that could give trouble over time, based on this gun’s predecessor and on somewhat similar guns.

      The first issue is that Pedersen needed to use specially lubricated cartridge cases, to avoid the first part of the recoil tearing them from moving while still under pressure. The later H&K G3 and FAMAS had the same issue with their delayed blowback actions; they got round it by fluting the chamber to let some of the gas bleed around the cartridge cases and reduce the friction. But that was often not enough, so the cartridge cases in the FAMAS often had to be made of steel rather than brass to hold up, and that still left them unfit for reloading. I don’t know what the R51 is doing to cope with this; it may be that fluting the chamber is enough with the R51’s lower powered ammunition, but if Remington has used a low friction lining for the chamber, say made of Teflon or a modern boron based ceramic, we don’t yet know how that will hold up over time.

      The other issue is that Pedersen’s original hesitation locked pistol often developed splits in its locking surfaces from metal fatigue. We don’t know what Remington has done to head that off this time, say by using modern, fatigue resistant alloys like phosphor bronze, but if they have tried that there could still be problems from mismatched materials in those tight tolerances, say from differential thermal expansion. Whatever is being done for this, it’s something else to look out for that could take time to show up.

        • That’s missing the point. I myself mentioned that Remington could have tried using linings like that. But the point wasn’t whether there are now linings like that, it’s that we don’t know how well they will hold up over time and with use, in this gun – so we don’t know if the problem really is solved or not.

        • Is Boron in the Halide group? I could look it up, but I’m hoping you will come up with something more informative than a Wikipedia entry!

        • WB, boron is not a halogen. That row of the periodic table goes lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon (if I remember rightly about neon – it could be that that starts the next row, and helium starts this one).

          That makes boron nitride work much like carbon, with one form a good lubricant but too soft to resist wear, and another form very hard and wear resistant in itself but not such a good lubricant, and quite possibly unable to mate well with the lining over time, what with the stresses and temperature cycling.

          There are other ceramics that are both hard and good lubricants, like magnesium aluminium boride, but those also raise the issue of how well they would hold up over time in that working environment, which is where I came in on the matter.

      • I guess a 9 mm Luger, 35000 psi, 19 mm long tapered rimless cartridge is a bit easier to float to unlock and then extract than a 7.62 NATO, 60000 psi, 51 mm long rimless bottleneck cartridge with less taper to length ratio.

        • It is easier with that ammunition – but the original Remington 51 showed that it’s not good enough and it still needed tricks to do it (there, special lubricated ammunition). That’s why it’s worth looking into what worked with the heavier weapons; what works on those should be good enough for the R51. So, no, I’m not saying that the heavier weapons show that the R51 needs their tricks, I’m saying we already know quite separately that it needs something, so it’s worth looking at them for a comparison that works within an even tighter constraint. If it turns out that fluting the chamber is enough by itself for ordinary ammunition in the R51, all well and good, but if it turns out that Remington used a fix involving low friction linings, we still have the issue of how well that will hold up in use over time.

        • This question is to both Murray and P.M. Lawrence:

          Do you know whether Remington manufactured special lubricated-case cartridges for the Model 51?

          I am not aware of them.

        • Ed, I got that information from the internet a while back, but now I can’t find it again for all the links to the new R51. It was definitely material that spelled out how Pedersen had to experiment to get a lubricant that would work and wouldn’t leak or otherwise get in the way of other things. The wikipedia article on the original gun only mentions that the special lubrication was used on a rifle Pedersen modified to be semi-automatic (or was it fully automatic?). I don’t know whether Remington itself made the cartridges, though that seems pretty certain.

        • Thanks for the feedback. A friend had a Model 51 at one point and never said anything about needing special cartridges; I was surprised to read here of the necessity. I was aware of the difficulties with the rifle, however.

        • If I had to guess, I’d say either Pedersen was being ultra-cautious after past experience and taking what hindsight showed was an unnecessary precaution with the ammunition, or that it’s one of those things that mostly don’t matter until suddenly they do (which is where I came in, wondering about the behaviour over time of both the cartridge extraction and the fatigue driven splits in the locking shoulders), or the information I originally found was itself confusing the ammunition requirements of the two different guns. Mmm… maybe googling on the locking shoulder problems might find out more on these matters.

      • I have an original M51 in .380 and shoot standard ammo in it (FMJ and HP) with no problems, so it certainly does not need special lubricated ammo to work.

    • It doesn’t look ANYTHING like a Vektor! I’m looking at ’em side by side. Sorry, nein. The Vektor is damn ugly, although I think the rifle is beautiful; it looks like a dolphin jumping out of the water!

  19. First reation is on the looks, and it didn’t strike me as good looking. But it’s not so bad it won’t grow on me.

    Looks like it’s a lower end firearm without being cheap.

    I see a pivoting trigger and possibly a blowback design.

      • Not blowback (not entirely anyway), there’s a bolt separate from the slide (you can’t tell in the pics). So it’s recoil operated. Supposed to be light recoiling because of this. It’s an action unique to the original and this redesign supposedly.

        • Dang, that video could have been about 2 minutes shorter. Oh look, some dude shooting unrelated guns while a banjo plays. this isn’t a TV show, we don’t need the lengthy intro/outro.

      • The Pedersen M51 pistol design isn’t blowback, it isn’t strictly “recoil” operated, it’s sort of a delayed blowback.

        John Pedersen was a very clever fellow and an excellent gun designer in his day. Perhaps the most accomplished gun designer in US history, John Browning, pronounced Pedersen as “the best gun designer” in the US at that time (around WWI). Pedersen was no slouch in the gun business at all. All you need to do is read the writings of Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher (Hatcher’s Notebook and The Book of the Garand) to see evidence of how prolific Pedersen was in that day.

        The Remington 51 was a well made, sharp-handling gun in its day, and to see someone pick up this ball and run with it today is rather nice. The action is simple and elegant, much the same way the 1911 has an elegance through simplicity.

        Now, what I want is a Model 53: A Rem 51 up-sized a little bit to take the .45 ACP cartridge. The Remington 53 was entered into bid for the War Department’s request for more handguns in WWI. Remington up-sized the M51, let the hammer go external and submitted it for review. The Army was wishy-washy on the issue, and instead gave Remington a contract for 10’s of thousands of 1911’s. Remington shelved the proposal for the M53. The Navy reviewed the M53, found it a very capable pistol, was going to get a bunch of them for more extensive testing, but WWI ended, bringing to an end the military desire for more hardware. The M53 slipped away into the mists of time, but those of us who have handled a M51 think it’s a pretty slick design.

        What I like most about the M51 is how positive the grip safety is on the gun. The grip safety acts as a cocked weapon indicator (the grip safety won’t stick up unless the pistol is cocked), the trigger is pretty nice for a pocket pistol and it is smooth, slim, easy handling in the extreme. It’s like what a PPK wants to be when it grows up.

    • Trigger is straight back like a 1911. And read up on the Pederson system to understand the blowback. The new Remington can take 9mm +P and they’ve talked about a .40 S&W coming later on.

    • Trigger slides straight back like on a 1911. It isn’t blowback, it uses the same action as the old Remington model 51.

    • Its a locked breach delayed blowback pistol, on firing the case and slide (breach) block recoil a very short distance and then lock against the frame until barrel pressure falls to a safe level, then unlocks. extracts ejects and reloads back into battery for the next shot, Clever design and inherently more accurate with less recoil and muzzle flip than tilting barrel pistols, apparently better than the 1911 when originally trialled against each.

      Dont all shout at once!

      • The accuracy is definitely the sizzle that sold me on this little pork chop. Forget the Makarov, I’m getting two of these!

  20. Remington may have a winner here. An all metal single stack not lawyered up with extra safeties, a 1911 style trigger with a light pull, what’s not to like?

    I do like the Buck Rogers/art deco vibe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the style of the R51 but it’s nice to see a new design that isn’t the same blocky no aesthetics ala Glock, S&W Shield Springfield, Berretta Nano/Pico, Sig 290 etc.

  21. Looks like a Hi-Point pistol had sex with the Remington Apache .22 rifle and this is the sorry-looking offspring.

    Well, give them props for not copying someone else’s gun.

    Hey Remington, stick to rifles and ammo, will ya?

    John

    • You do realize that this model is more or less just being reintroduced in 9mm….right???!?

      They made basically the same thing decades ago.

      • “And another caliber, to be named later.” Right in the video. I can’t imagine it won’t be .40.

        I’m getting one. As soon as my daughter pays me back the money she borrowed. I might get one for her, too. She owes me a pile, and I might get an AR also. Before it’s too late.

  23. I never, never, never buy a handgun in its first year of production. Did I say never? I meant never ever.

    Once the early adopters have beta tested the new gun and all its defects have come to light, then I’ll be interested.

    • Read you loud and clear. Thanks also Dyspeptic. This is on my CCW pistol list after I read Nicks take after a thousand rounds or so.

    • Totally agree. Gotta get through the first year or two with the recalls and updates and gun forum reports and complaints.

  27. I’m with Ralph. I’ve had my fill of running Beta. Let it run through it’s paces with the trailblazers and I’ll sit back and watch and learn. Especially with a ‘new’ (old, revised) design such as this, especially what appears to be a blowback 9, and especially from Remington

    It looks cool, but seems a bit on the heavy side for a single stack 9, which would only be a dedicated CCW for me. Love the grip safety… but again, I’ll see how it does in Beta and who knows, maybe it’ll be another addition some day…

  29. I already have a pocket pistol made by company that stands up for gun rights — Beretta. I won’t be running out to spend my money on the hot shiny new toy from Remington.

    • They did a lot of bluffing in MD. If they really stood for your rights they would have moved out of MD like they threatened to do once the unconstitutional laws hit the books.

      • You just don’t close down before you have an alternative in place. You need to establish a new location unless you just think Beretta should cease production for the time being. They are in the process of site selection now. They will phase out their Maryland plant when they have some place else to produce product. With the election of Terry McAuliffe they have scratched Virginia off the list even though the legislature remains in the hands of pro Second Amendments forces. Actually, I think Remington is doing the same thing. They are expanding production elsewhere and when they have sufficient capacity I bet they move their operations out of New York State.

        • They won’t. New York gives them too many kickbacks to keep in their state. Add to that their pride at the Ilion NY plant being the oldest still operating gun mfg plant in the US, I’ll bet they’ll take a lot of abuse before they ever actually pack up and move.

        • Sure wish they’d move to northwest Florida. We have a lot of space and a lot of people with strong work ethic, but would need to be trained.

        • If you have an inside source, then this information is good to hear. However, I have not seen any good faith to make due on their threat. A company like Magpul has shown much good faith and made their moving process very public. Baretta was given a manufacturer carve out in the new law and I think they are going to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it.

        • You do realize that Magpul is still making things and managing the business out of Colorado? They just didn’t shut down until they move to their new facilities. If they did that they would go out of business. Beretta is doing the same thing. It’s harder moving a gun manufacturing plant than one they makes small plastic objects.

  31. While I’ll withhold comments on quality, fit and finish until I’ve held/shot one, I’ll say this:

    Someone at Remington is doing their homework on the market. A slim, trim, single-stack 9 that is rated for +P ammo? OK, we’re now getting somewhere. Look at how high the grip hand will be to the bore axis, and how slim the grip is. This could become quite the winning choice for women who want an easily concealed pistol with serious punch.

    • Awww, man…it’s a chick gun?

      Darn it all. I was thinking it looked sorta interesting (and I mean that in a positive way).

      • Where did I say it was a “chick gun?” It isn’t pink and covered with peonies.

        It just has ergonomics that would be attractive to women, that’s all.

        • I kid.

          Unless they have a bad first year, I assume I’ll get one at some point, to have an example of the action, if nothing else.

  33. It looks like the plastic phaser gun that fired flat plastic dime sized discs that were sold
    though the back of comic books in the 1970s.

    I will buy one if only as a collectors piece.

    • I had a chance to grab the old Model 51 at a gun show for $300, and I still regret not picking it up. This will make a nice consolation prize, with the bonus that I can use it as another CC gun, where I would have just kept the 51 under glass.

  34. Yes, I’ll certainly be interested in this model if it proves to be reliable and if they can keep quality control up.

    Judging by the last couple 870s I’ve handled it looks like they are trying to get the QC back up to standard.

  37. 9MM now, supposedly a .40 to follow shortly. Sounds interesting, looks pretty good, the price is right so I’ll wait a year or two so everyone who wants one yesterday gets theirs and the bugs are worked out. Happy New Year ya’ll.

    • What on earth are you talking about? Please stop contributing to the nonsensical gibberish on the internet. There’s plenty already.

  39. BTW the G&A issue I downloaded on my iPad last night has a full review of the Glock 42 .380 so not sure whey the comment about it really existing? Glocks are ugly and so is this thing IMHO.

  40. The delayed Pedersen action apparently reduces felt recoil, and the low barrel reduces muzzle kick. The video on GunBlast of people firing the R51 shows rapid fire with little in the way of muzzle rise. A fixed barrel should make it accurate.

    There is a similarity to the H & K P7 to this design (apart from the cost) – it looks simple and effective. There are some swage lines that give it a retro art deco look.

    The advertising (by Bat Masterton) of the Savage semi auto emphasized how the high trigger (compared to the contemporary revolver) made point shooting more natural, and curbed the tendency to shoot high and left in a revolver. The R51 has this feature even more emphasized.

    General Patton often wore his Remington 51. This seems a good recommendation. The only remaining concern would be a light (4 -5 lb) single action trigger in what could be a pocket pistol (in a coat). It is reported to be easy to operate, and suitable for women shooters. For lovers of metal guns, this looks to be a bargain.

    • What most people here don’t realize is that, in the post-WWI economy (which was pretty rough), the original Model 51 was considered a premium pocket pistol. It was superior to all the other alternatives, including things like the Colt Hammerless.

      From handling exactly one specimen, I fell in love with the ergonomics of the pistol. It points like few other guns I’ve handled (the Luger comes close), and the safety mechanisms were ahead of their time. The way the grip safety worked on the original Model 51 made me think “‘perfect carry gun…” but for the fact that they were available in only .32 and .380.

      The new Model 51 (above) is clearly intended for CCW. Look at how the rear of the rear sight is rounded off. How nothing much sticks out from the gun. The Pedersen design was for pocket carry without a holster 90 years ago, and the updated design is “de-horned” from even that smooth profile.

      • The down side to the Colt hammerless 1903 was that it wasn’t hammerless. As you know it had a hammer that was covered. Chambering a round left the hammer at full cock.

        I really like the 1903. But I don’t think I would routinely carry one. It’s just one of those guns that’s right. Looking and feeling.

    • Oooh, H&K P7. Have a PSP and love it. Unfortunately, the wife loves it too and I’m desirous of wooing her away from the German steel with a new R51…

  43. Why a concealed hammer and not a striker? Why go backward technologically? There does not appear to be a reason for that other than a retro look. Is this gun just a fashion statement?

    • I recommend reading the article on TFB, and TTAG will likely have more information to come. It’s not necessarily going backward technologically as it is using a different technology that offers several benefits. To quote Wikipedia, “this system is lighter than a blowback, simpler than any conventional locking mechanism, and has less recoil than either of the other systems”.

      In addition, it’s basically the same size as an S&W Shield, but word is (from one person, for now) the slide is super easy to rack on the Remington R-51 even for a female, whereas I’ve read of many people, including the TTAG reviewer, who say the Shield’s slide is difficult.

      I also wonder if all of this, including the non-polymer frame, will translate into a lower susceptibility to limp wristing?

      • From the way you phrased that, it sounds like it’s easier to get a good trigger pull from a hammer fired gun. Why is that?

        • The easiest way I can explain this is to take apart a striker-fired pistol on one side of the bench, and then a hammer/sear pistol apart on the other side of the bench, and then I’d walk you through what is happening inside of both pistols as you put pressure on the trigger.

          Basically, it comes down to this: Most striker-fired pistols are releasing a spring-loaded striker (hence the name) by pushing a pin, detent, plunger or other retention device out of the way of a shoulder on the striker, allowing the cocked spring to thrust the striker/firing pin forward into the primer.

          Hammer/sear pistols use a pair of matched, flat engagement surfaces. The sear slides out from under the “shelf” on the hammer, and the hammer has a spring pressure on it ready to flip the hammer forward, which will strike the back of the firing pin, driving it into the primer.

          OK, that’s what’s happening in your pistols. Now, there are several things required to get a really crisp, clean trigger pull, but chief among them is that the sliding surfaces (i.e., both sides of the metal surfaces sliding past each other, whether it is a catch sliding past the collar on a striker, or a sear sliding out from under a hammer ledge) be really smooth. Mirror smooth. The only way those surfaces get that way is to be hardened (not difficult and done in both types of mechanisms) and then polished.

          With a hammer/sear setup, I can get at both sides of the sliding engagement and polish them up very nicely.

          With a striker-fired setup, I might be able to polish the sliding catch/pin, I might be able to polish the corresponding collar on the striker, but there’s nothing I can do about the hole in which the release pin/plunger/catch is sliding without making that hole too large for the specified pin. Then in the striker situation, there’s other sliding/camming surfaces involved to push the ping/catch/plunger up into the slide, etc. Basically, there’s no way to make a striker-fired pistol have a really crisp trigger, as an artifact of the design.

  44. It’s basically a Makarov, only in a slightly hotter caliber. Pass. Especially considering those Soviet workhorses can still be found for about the same price and are tough as hell, break down to less than 20 parts and use ammo you can still find on the shelves (in most places). And even the Warsaw Pact at the height of the Cold War could churn out firearms with better quality control than anything made by Freedom Group these days.

    • It is amazing to me the folk on here that post as if they know anything without reading about it first. It IS NOT POLYMER.

    • The Makarovs I’ve checked out – lots of ’em – generally start around $400 these days, so this is a littler lower price-point.

      • The Russian examples start there and go up pretty fast, but other members of the Makarov “family” (PA-63, P-64, CZ 83 etc.) tend to be cheaper and no less reliable than the PM.

        • I’ve seen a number of Polish and Bulgarian ones for over $400. The funny thing about Makarovs is that the condition of the gun seems to bear little or no relation to the asking price.

    • If this is truly an upgrade on the Makarov I’d want to give it a close look. I love a mak, mine is flawless. But, the mak has a couple of drawbacks. Caliber, for a starter. 9×18 is a solid round and available at a decent price. For steel cased fmj. Which some ranges won’t allow. And it’s basically a hot .380. without the variety of quality SD loads.

      Second drawback is spare mags. Only 1 company I know of is making new ones and the 2 I bought had 1 go completely wonky after my first use and the other has never locked the slide back. Which leaves me scrounging for originol issue mags and usually not finding them. Hopefully Remington would have a supply of new mags.

      Back to caliber. A makarov styled and reliable pistol in 9×19 would be a winner.

      But alas, Freedom Group runs Remington. I won’t be holding my breath awaiting miracles.

      • “For steel cased fmj. Which some ranges won’t allow.”

        Why would a range not allow steel case ammo? I’ve heard of ranges not allowing steel CORE, because of penetration. But steel case?

        • Some ranges sell the spent brass to commercial reloaders. They don’t want nasty steel cases defiling their beautiful virgin brass cases.

        • It jams their clean up equipment and the brass recycle thing is more difficult with steel mixed in. That’s what they tell me at the ranges that ban steel. The range that’s closest to my house and cheapest inspects your ammo when they sign you in.

        • Why would a range not allow steel case ammo? I’ve heard of ranges not allowing steel CORE, because of penetration. But steel case?

          I used to wonder that, too. For a long time, I thought it was a simple money-grubbing rule, in order to collect more brass cases to use.

          But steel-cased ammo often uses a bi-metal jacket with some steel, instead of a copper jacket. So the bullets do cause more damage to the backstop. Probably not a lot, but it adds up over time, and back stops aren’t getting any cheaper.

          Now a rule would be to simply ban bi-metal jackets, but a blanket ban on steel-cased ammo is easier to check and enforce. Most indoor ranges that I’ve seen simply check to see if there is any attraction between a round and a magnet; without determining whether the magnetic reaction is caused by bullet or the case. Is it 100% fair? No. But it’s a quick and easy test and inexpensive test, and a way to avoid arguments with potentially argumentative customers.

  46. I’m always amazed how a person’s mind associates a new gun/car/person etc with their existing catalog of memories. My mind pulled up Whitney Wolverine on my first sighting of the R51. Its now a day and a half later and I’m reminded more of an LC9 and SR9C. Upon googling the Whitney, I realize the Wolverine and the R51 are quite different. Best part is we have a new gun capturing our interest and generating opinions pro and con. This gun is best described as ZOOMY and I think my mind’s initial reaction was at least tangentially correct. This is the Zoomiest gun I’ve seen since the Wolverine.

    Heck, some one make a toy version that makes PEW PEW PEW Phaser sounds and I’ll buy it.

  47. I’ve been thinking about getting my wife an LC380 for a few months, but now I’m not so sure. She’s VERY recoil sensitive, so the Ruger seemed like a good compromise: it’s the perfect size for her, it’s a huge step up from her SR22 in terms of self defense, and it doesn’t kick nearly as hard as a 9mm. Unfortunately, that trigger is god-awful… This new Remington looks to be a better choice across the board: good price, good size, good weight, good caliber, low recoil, and grip safety (soooo much better than the tiny thumb safety on the Ruger). Too bad it’s made by Remington…

    • In my experience, in similar-sized pistols, the felt recoil is HIGHER on a .380 than a 9mm.

      And there’s no reason to believe Remingtons will always be bad, QC-wise.

    • My wife is also recoil sensitive and prone to limp-wristing so she recently picked up a Ruger LC9 w/ Crimson Trace (and I finally got my H&K P7 back). She tried the LC380 at a LGS/range and found it no different than their rental LC9 so we went with the 9mm. So far so good. She can run the slide well, shoot good controlled pairs at 5-7 yards and loves the laser on it. While the trigger is a bit long, she likes that as it’s (sort of) a built-in safety and she doesn’t seem to shoot off the mark with the longer travel. I love single stack 9’s though, so I might pick one up to see if she might be interested…

  48. The grip safety is a turn-off for me. I really hate those things. Otherwise it looks promising. Give it a year or two and then think about it.

  50. Remington listens glock does not ! Combining old technology with new . Genius ! General patton would be proud to holster this weapon. Cant wait to get my hand on one. L.T.

  51. Remington 51 works in a different delay system called “Hesitating Blowback”.
    The barrel does not move as locked with slide and recoiling mass is lesser
    than true “Recoil Locked Breech” and therefore, it is impossible giving less
    felt recoil than that. From the mass value standpoint, the felt recoil should be
    in a par with usual “Simple Blowback”.

    In “Hesitating Blowback”, at instant of highest pressure within chamber, the
    shell case recoils unsupportedly, approximatelly, 3mm as propped against
    with very light breechbolt to the stop shoulder on the receiver. This distance
    is equal to the distance needed for the projectile to go off out of the barrel,
    therefore, continueing movement thought to delay the slide opening for same
    purpose is useless and only creates to slow the slide speed as cushoning
    the strike of the same to the receiver at end of recoiling action which is
    acceptable as a help for recoil spring.

    According to the Chinn’s ” Machinegun” which accepted as a masterpiece,
    4 meter/second slide speed for all calibers is needed for a safe opening of
    back of chamber and calculations are made to assign the suitable mass of
    breechbolt for only 2 milimeters backward travel to permit the projectile’s
    way out of barrel. For 9mm Parabellum round, the necessary weight is near
    to 750 grams and this is roughly equal to the twice of common value which
    is ın need of twice of backward travel which should be 4 milimeters. But, Chinn’s
    9mm round initial velocity is over of 400 meter per second and 3 milimeters
    backward unlocked breechblock travel can roughly be accepted as equal to
    the needed time for projectile’s way out of barrel. This means, on the time at
    starting the semi locked travel of slide and breechblock begins after the
    unsupported shell case and breechbolt travel ends, the bullet has gone off
    out of the barrel and all the intriqued mechanism consisting “Hesitating Lock”
    is useless.

    • All that is true if, and only if, the breech block really is free to move far enough back for the bullet to leave the muzzle before the breech block locks against its locking shoulder. But the figures cited for the H&K G3 are that its roller delay locking only moves 1 mm. back during the delayed part of the movement, because it can’t tolerate any more of the cartridge case coming out while there is a high pressure behind it. If the R51’s breech block comes out freely under high pressure while the bullet is still in the barrel, and the cartridge case doesn’t suffer from it, that would mean that this calibre never would suffer from just being a simple blowback with this light a breech block, and so nobody would ever have bothered making their simple blowback breech blocks heavier. But they do.

      So, all in all, while I don’t doubt your reasoning in general, I suspect that either 3mm. isn’t enough for it to work like that (which it looks like to me, with a light breech block not much heavier than the bullet), or the R51 uses a shorter lock distance the way the H&K G3 does, or both (if 3 mm. is enough to harm an unsupported cartridge case from the high pressure early on).

      • The G3 is firing a high-powered rifle cartridge, with a chamber pressure of, oh, 50K psi (7.62×51) or 62K psi (.308 SAAMI MAP).

        The 9×19 Luger has a MAP of 35K PSI.

        • That’s true enough, but it doesn’t make it a non-issue. The thing is, those rifles can only afford a movement of about 1 mm. until the pressure drops. That gives us a basis for assessment, even if the comparison isn’t a simple direct equivalence. Yes, the R51 has lower pressures, but the rifle tolerance shows us roughly the safe order of magnitude; even if we stipulate that its cartridge case can tolerate emerging 3 mm. before being locked, which I doubt because the unsupported leverage isn’t a linear function of the emergence, there’s still the other part of my concern, i.e. that without locking it would actually emerge far more while the pressure was still high.

      • Thanks for your interest. The comment is for the case if new R51 is made
        in same working principle with old R51 had.

        G3 delay system is based upon ” Momentum share at partially accerelated
        mass” and is very different from “Hesitating Delay” of old R51’s.

        On Roller Delay system which is a detailed application of Newton’s number 3
        Formula, an amount of momentum is transmitted to the two part breechbolt
        group and the heavier part of it is accerelated by a roller or a lever, and since
        the accerelated part gains more speed than its actual mass deserves, the
        excess amount of momentum is added to the ligther part of group that is the
        part actually closing the back of chamber and since it bears more momentum
        than its actual mass deserves its recoiling speed decreases. This is the delay
        action of G3 and FAMARS uses. The chamber for these kinds must be inside
        fluted for the empty cases not to stick inside the chamber since opening action
        begins when the chamber pressure is on highest level.

        Old R51 Hesitating delay is very different than the system above, and in fact
        it was designed to use a different level of construction than unitary kind which
        patented by Browning at that time. The initial stage of recoiling action begins
        with seperate breechblock propped against to the slide, freely, unlocked and
        unsupported for a distance roughly 3mm same as with a simple blowback
        firearm and semilocked hesitating begins actually at the time when its need
        ends, but since the round is in the limit of safe blowback system, it works.

        In case of new R1 working on the same principle, powerfull 9mm round will
        behave different than innocent .380″ and, Remington staffs should get some
        measures to counter this, like;

        – The breechbolt may be made with zero free blowback, but a cammed
        vertical delay using “Blish Lock” like old Thompsons used,

        – The chamber depth may be ascended with case back being flush with the
        breechface, therefore with a free recoil distance supported by chamber wall,

        – The chamber inside may be fluted like G3 or at least a gas vent hole may
        be provided for leaked gas at beginning of recoil action since konical shape
        of case permits. This also is helpfull for decreasing the chamber pressure
        of powerfull 9mm round to a level some little higher than .380″. The different
        kind of this weakening had been used in HK 70 with over deepened rifling.

        • I know those rifles have a different operating principle. I never made out that they were the same, I was simply bringing out the size of emergence that their designers needed to lock down to before releasing, just to get a rough idea of the amount that the R51 would need to lock down to before releasing. See my reply to DG for more.

          I’m not saying you’re wrong, precisely, just that for you to be right the pressure really would have to drop a lot just during 3 mm., and even 3 mm. might be overdoing it. All that just doesn’t seem likely, for other reasons, but I don’t know for sure one way or the other. I don’t have the test results, so all I can do is frame the sort of questions that tests should be designed to answer.

  53. This design was scaled up to .45 ACP and was offered for consideration for the US service pistol. The start of WWI and its rampup requirements precluded a change from the 1911 or the P53 as it known would have been the .45 ACP that was used in WWI.

    Therefore, there is a basis that this design can be scaled up to a full size .45 ACP pistol.

  55. The R-51 will be difficult to find for some time, as it will probably sell as soon as it hits your local display cases, if not before. Whether you like the Euro-styling or not, it’s a Remington, has plenty of options available, such as a laser and wood grips, and the MSRP is thought to be $389. Doubt that it will go lower, and in some locales it will be higher. It’s low-capacity and SA, so it’s hot and always ready to go, plus it has a back-strap safety. Once I figure out where I can prepay, I plan to get in line.

  57. March Guns and Ammo has a detailed review. Seems like a nice enough gun but I’ll stay with my Walter PPQ M2. It hides under a t-shirt in a TTgunleather holster. Or a G36 in a Brommeland IWB. Never understood what a gun looks like has to do with anything. I’ll carry a gun that looks like a pumpkin as long as it goes bang when I need it to.

    • How about cars? Do you care what a car looks like? All it has to do is get you from A to B and back again, right?

      How about women?

  58. A Remington Model 51 chambered in .32 ACP has been in my family ever since I was a boy. I have it still, and it is without a doubt the most egonomic pistol I have ever held. I used to fantasize about how this might be revived in 9mm, but had to sigh and pass on to other thoughts. The fact that it has finally happened is almost beyond belief. I am looking forward to a good report, and am anxious to learn what other calibers are in store. A chambering in .40 S&W would be impressive, but I have a sneaking hope for something in .38 Super (a man’s 9mm).

    Please get all comparisons to Walther PP/PPKs and Makarovs out of the discussion. The Model 51 design predated them.

    And for those who think a pure blowback 9mm would be no big deal to shoot, I have to laugh out of pity. I have a Detonics Pocket 9, which is exactly that, all stainless steel and a heavy slide. Brutal to shoot. I was glad it only had 6 rounds before reload; my hand couldn’t take any more without a rest. Not an issue if your life is at stake, but let’s get real.

    • Yeah, I find nines, especially of the compact variety, too brutal to shoot, also. That’s why I love the .45 ACP.

      But I welcome the R51, and those who want to wait a year are welcome to do so. I intend to buy one within the next 4-6 weeks.

      I think it’s an absolutely beautiful gun.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here