TexasCHLforum.com

Wait a year before buying any new model. Let someone else be the unpaid beta tester.

MoJo wrote:Wait a year before buying any new model. Let someone else be the unpaid beta tester.

MoJo wrote:Wait a year before buying any new model. Let someone else be the unpaid beta tester.

Most newly released guns don't have massive issues throughout the entire inventory. The Glock 42/41 have performed well since their launch. The Remington was just a flat out disaster, though.

Glock 41/42 was based on already succesful models. The R51 was totally unique in design and should have spent more time in R&D.

jh9821 wrote:Glock 41/42 was based on already succesful models. The R51 was totally unique in design and should have spent more time in R&D.

So was the gen 4 Glock 19, and that had a plethora of problems.

A replacement gun, 2 extra magazines and a Pelican gun case.
I don't call that unpaid.
In fact, if anyone has a R51 they don't want to hassle with, I'll buy it from you for what you paid and I'll send it back to Remington.

Chemist45 wrote:A replacement gun, 2 extra magazines and a Pelican gun case.
I don't call that unpaid.
In fact, if anyone has a R51 they don't want to hassle with, I'll buy it from you for what you paid and I'll send it back to Remington.

I call it bribery to get you out of the inevitable class action lawsuit.

MoJo wrote:

Chemist45 wrote:A replacement gun, 2 extra magazines and a Pelican gun case.
I don't call that unpaid.
In fact, if anyone has a R51 they don't want to hassle with, I'll buy it from you for what you paid and I'll send it back to Remington.

I call it bribery to get you out of the inevitable class action lawsuit.

I figure protecting customer loyalty and preserving the company's reputation are more important considerations here, although the legal angle is always present.

If a company quickly acts to fix a big mistake and offers what most will see as fair compensation, customers will forgive and there's no reason to sue.

Springfield's handling of the XDS recall is a case in point. They acted quickly, got off to a rocky start, but got the act together soon after that and got an awful lot of guns fixed in a very short period of time. People are still happy to buy their products. That's what keeps companies in business.

Gun-Test's August issue has a comparison of the new R51 to the old prewar .380 version of it. They actually gave it an A grade. They also made it very clear that if you use anything other than the exactly 3 or 4 loads that Remington recommends for the gun, it not only won't work, but it creates very dangerous situations with case bulging, etc. Additionally, using other than the sanctioned ammo will cause the gun to jam up making it almost impossible to disassemble.

Mojo wrote:

Chemist45 wrote:A replacement gun, 2 extra magazines and a Pelican gun case.
I don't call that unpaid.
In fact, if anyone has a R51 they don't want to hassle with, I'll buy it from you for what you paid and I'll send it back to Remington.



I call it bribery to get you out of the inevitable class action lawsuit.

Call it that if you like. I'll take the bribe.
Come to think of it, that's more than I ever got out of any class action lawsuit. If memory serves, I got a coupon and the lawyers got millions.

My offer stands.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Gun-Test's August issue has a comparison of the new R51 to the old prewar .380 version of it. They actually gave it an A grade. They also made it very clear that if you use anything other than the exactly 3 or 4 loads that Remington recommends for the gun, it not only won't work, but it creates very dangerous situations with case bulging, etc. Additionally, using other than the sanctioned ammo will cause the gun to jam up making it almost impossible to disassemble.

I read that article too.

IMHO, any gun that won't safely and properly digest SAAMI specification compliant ammo from all the major manufacturers isn't ready for prime time, although I would make exceptions for some specialty niche guns like the tiny Seecamps.

Chemist45 wrote:Mojo wrote:

Chemist45 wrote:A replacement gun, 2 extra magazines and a Pelican gun case.
I don't call that unpaid.
In fact, if anyone has a R51 they don't want to hassle with, I'll buy it from you for what you paid and I'll send it back to Remington.



I call it bribery to get you out of the inevitable class action lawsuit.

Call it that if you like. I'll take the bribe.
Come to think of it, that's more than I ever got out of any class action lawsuit. If memory serves, I got a coupon and the lawyers got millions.

My offer stands.

So for your trouble you get two mags back and maybe a pistol that works? I'd want a refund instead.
I had high hopes for the R51, and am used to new pistols often having issues. but this is both design and manufacturing defects. er...no.

Excaliber wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Gun-Test's August issue has a comparison of the new R51 to the old prewar .380 version of it. They actually gave it an A grade. They also made it very clear that if you use anything other than the exactly 3 or 4 loads that Remington recommends for the gun, it not only won't work, but it creates very dangerous situations with case bulging, etc. Additionally, using other than the sanctioned ammo will cause the gun to jam up making it almost impossible to disassemble.

I read that article too.

IMHO, any gun that won't safely and properly digest SAAMI specification compliant ammo from all the major manufacturers isn't ready for prime time, although I would make exceptions for some specialty niche guns like the tiny Seecamps.

The Kimber Solo started out similarly did it not? Of course I wouldn't buy one of those either. I agree. If a regular non-target pistol (aka something you have to hang your life on) doesn't run with any compliant ammo, then there's something wrong.