Using a set of calipers, I am measuring the space between the lips on the r51 magazine.
Width, very back of magazine: .351
Width, middle of magazine, front of lips before they roll away to the sides: .338
I think this is revealing as to why the bullets have a tendency to nose dive.
Because the rear of the magazine lips is wider than the front, the rear of cartridge will set higher in the lips and flatter, in other words, more parallel to the slide and barrel.
Because the front of the lips pinch the approximate middle the cartridge, it causes a pivot point at the approximate middle of the cartridge.
The slide pushes the cartridge from the top rear of the casing. The pivot point is roughly the top center of the cartridge. This causes the front of the cartridge to dip down.
I have modified one of my magazines so that the numbers above are about reversed. With dummy cartridges, it loads perfectly almost every time.
I found the same on all six of my mags. Adjusted the front to make the lips parallel.
Agree with you 100% and also think the tapered lips increase friction even though everything is smooth and polished.
Instantly improved feed reliability. Also found it stopped the nose dives when unloading a mag too... Joe
Agreed.
I'm going to take some pic later today to help illustrate what we are talking about.
It is quite possible the measurements I made were reversed somewhere in Remington's process of drawing blueprints and manufacturing - because the way they come from the factory just doesn't make sense. A really stupid mistake on R's (or their subcontractor's) part.
Opening the front of the lips slightly wider than the back, perhaps a .010 difference, may reduce friction as the cartridge moves forward compared to parallel lips. It should also angle the front of the cartridge slightly up.
** Edited **
I have two types of IMI factory ammo that constantly nose dive or misfeed only in the R51.
R51 owners manual says to lightly oil everything including the mags.
So for troubleshooting I used an unmodified mag. Disassembled, cleaned, lightly oiled entire inside surface. Follower, lips, ridges... Everything.
Then lightly oiled seven rounds of the IMI ammo.
The oiled ammo loaded and unloaded from the mag by hand much easier than normal. Also fed and cycled flawless by hand though the R51. Everything worked perfect with reduced friction: brass to feed lips, brass to mag ridge, and brass to brass...
I did not live fire this setup. Lube can damage ammo and should not be necessary.
Then looking at the empty mag body I found the feed lips were not parallel. I don't drop or otherwise abuse the mags. The other five mags measured about the same so were made this way.
Next I found ammo did not fit freely between the ridges in the side of the mag. The ridges were slightly clamping the brass. Don't know if this is by design but is a source of friction and seems wrong to me. The outside of the body measured approx 0.585 to 0.590 on all of my mags. It was a struggle but spread the body sides approx 0.010 so the outside measured near 0.600 inch. That was enough to stop the brass interference fit and the mag body still not drag in the mag well. Only test fired once since these mods but all worked good.... This is turning into work :( - Joe
Quote from: FlatEarther on April 01, 2018, 02:48:19 PM
** Edited **
The oiled ammo loaded and unloaded from the mag by hand much easier than normal. Also fed and cycled flawless by hand though the R51. Everything worked perfect with reduced friction: brass to feed lips, brass to mag ridge, and brass to brass...
I did not live fire this setup. Lube can damage ammo and should not be necessary.
- Joe
Joe,
In relation to John Pedersen. This is after all a pistol he designed. It is interesting you mention lubing the ammo. During the late 20s and early 30s there was a push for the Defense Department to adopt a semi auto service rifle for our troops. The two contenders among others were John Pedersen and John Garand. Pedersen had designed a semi auto rifle in .276 which would be named .276 Pedersen in his honor. Garand had designed another rifle in the same caliber. Long story short, Pedersen's rifle required lubed ammo to function correctly, as without it, extractions and feeding problems became manifest. What made Garand's rifle so attractive (and ultimately wound up with him winning the contract to produce what would become the M1 Garand), was that his rifle did not need lubricated ammo to feed and extract correctly. He designed a rotating bolt to accomplish his purpose without any extra lubrication. Also of note is that Pedersen's rifle was also of the retarded blowback design, just like the model 51. I couldn't help drawing the parallel between lubed ammo, and a couple of Pedersen's most famous creations. Wonder if I should try lubing some ammo and see how it does. However, that should not be necessary in today's guns. Just saying.
Interesting history... I was told an old school way to safely dispose of unwanted ammo was to soak in oil. Kills the primer and probably not good for the powder either. Don't know if this applies to modern ammo... I have some Federal +P and Speer ammo that functions fine in unmodified mags. Some folks here say their R51 eats everything fed. Mine is picky. Seems to like hotter ammo... Joe
Joe,
The lubed ammo Pedersen originally used wasn't by any means dripping in oil. It was very lightly lubed. In fact, you could hardly tell by looking at it. But it was just enough to do its job.
Range report follow up to my previous post.
350 rds since the above mods and all six mags function perfect with a variety of ammo.
I have settled on these three mods for all six mags: open feed lips until parallel, open body until no drag on brass, and trim follower stop bend... I have not modified the follower or spring. Works fine with full mag, partial mag or 7+1... Yes 7+1 requires extra effort to seat the mag but that is not how I typically load this pistol.
I trimmed the bend about 45 degrees angle. This removes the place where most nose dives grab but leaves just enough bend to act as a follower stop. Can be done with a bench grinder then small files and emery cloth to clean up... I'll add that this mod may not be needed as I think one or both of the other mods are more likely to help with feed issues.
Pictures from before all mags were trimmed... Joe
Thanks Joe.
I do the same with the front of the magazine, trim and flatten. Followers do not come out even though I shorten the follower just enough to close the slide on a full magazine (not the ridiculous amount I cut away originally - those do pop out).
I think the most significant mod I did was open the front of the magazine lips and narrow the back, so the front is slightly wider than the back - which is completely reverse of how the mags were originally configured. This eliminates the pinch point that the cartridges pivoted on to nose dive. Its debatable if wider in the front of the lips is adventitious to parallel - I think what matters is eliminating the pinch the front of the lips.
I note you opened the body of the magazine by .010. What is your technique for doing that (I am envisioning compressing the front and back in a vice).
Quote from: David on April 16, 2018, 07:12:43 PM
I note you opened the body of the magazine by .010. What is your technique for doing that (I am envisioning compressing the front and back in a vice).
Yes! Good guess!... Tried prying and wedges etc inside. Very inconsistent. Careful compressing in a vise did it without any unwanted distortion.
Disassemble and the body fits perfect across a four inch jaw. Goes pretty quick once you figure out the "spring back"... Joe
Do you have a picture of how you did it in the vice? I'm imagining a few different ways but I don't understand how that opens up the front of the feed lips.
Two different operations...
Vise was used to slightly increase the width of the mag body.
Pliers used to adjust front of feed lips out until they are parallel... Joe
*Edited to add pics*
Bench vice is not a precision tool :) so your experience may vary... Protect mag body. I used aluminum in jaws.
Pressure from vice should cause sides to bulge out. Measure several places across body and adjust as required.
Used tooth of pliers to hook lip and leverage out... About .005-.010 per side as required.
Thanks - I'll give it a go when I have some time (and patience)...
Here's what I got on mine. One mag has been problematic, causing the last live round stovepipe issue. The other has never given me any trouble.
exactly what mine were - pinched in the front of the lips, causes the bullet to pivot and nosedive. Almost like someone read the specification backwards.
Good work on the pics.
Hey all,
I have found this post very enlightening...thanks to all that contributed! So...spec'd out the dimensions of my two factory mags that came with the purchase last June. After reading the various posts I expected weirdity...but this is amazing. Below are the dimensions I got
Mag dimensions
Mag 1. Mag 2
Lips (Rear) 0.361 0.359
(Front) 0.354 0.334
Width
(Top rear) 0.594 0.595
(Top front) 0.585 0.586 At follower groove
(Bottom rear) 0.590 0.590
(Bottom front) 0.584 0.585
Although the box dimensions are within a thou, the lip dimensions are radically different between these mags and of course the reverse taper y'all pointed out is there...extreme in Mag 2. The retainer tab is pronounced and is in need of some judicious grinding and polishing. No surprise, Mag 2 was a worse troublemaker than Mag 1...lots of nose diving and hang ups on the tab, especially with +P hollow points.
But, that's not the most remarkable find...the mag spring dare suffer to between the 2 mags. If this works an I can post a pic you can see the mag 2 spring is one coil less than Mag 1 and it was a really contorted profile. On top of that the Mag1 spring was in backwards not in line with the angle of the follower...was this what folks got with the gen 1 guns.
Ok that table looked like hell
Let's try this
Mag dimensions
Lips (Rear) Mag 1 0.361
Mag 2 0.359
(Front) Mag 1. 0.354
Mag 2 0.334
Width
(Top rear) Mag 1 0.594
Mag 2 0.595
(Top front) Mag 1 0.585
Mag 2. 0.586
At follower groove
(Bottom rear) Mag1 0.590
Mag 2 0.590
(Bottom front) Mag 1 0.584
Mag 2. 0.585
Got something for you...I saw on another thread (sorry couldn't find it again when I looked to quote it) y'all were talking about trying. Believe it was a SW spring in the mag... well that got me looking an I found the Glock 43 Mag spring is almost identical to the R51. See image
Got them from Ghost Inc
https://ghostinc.com/glock-43-plus-15-magazine-spring/
I picked up a 3 pack for $8. They are a plus 15% strength...has 14 coils
Only thing I did was trim a little bend from the bottom base coil that interfered with the magazine bottom. Fits fine, no problem loading 7 rounds and it seems to me that the rounds maintain the proper angle with the follower.
Loads fine cycling by hand...
So this might be an option...will try live once I get time to fix up the lips on the mags and can get to the range...will be a little while.
Hope this is of interest
John
Quote from: sawatis on May 31, 2018, 04:58:08 PM
Got something for you...I saw on another thread (sorry couldn't find it again when I looked to quote it) y'all were talking about trying. Believe it was a SW spring in the mag... well that got me looking an I found the Glock 43 Mag spring is almost identical to the R51. See image
Got them from Ghost Inc
https://ghostinc.com/glock-43-plus-15-magazine-spring/
I picked up a 3 pack for $8. They are a plus 15% strength...has 14 coils
Only thing I did was trim a little bend from the bottom base coil that interfered with the magazine bottom. Fits fine, no problem loading 7 rounds and it seems to me that the rounds maintain the proper angle with the follower.
Loads fine cycling by hand...
So this might be an option...will try live once I get time to fix up the lips on the mags and can get to the range...will be a little while.
Hope this is of interest
John
John,
Thanks for the info on the Glock spring. Also, thanks for the table with the dimensions as well. Very useful. I may have to try a Glock spring with my problem children.
John thanks for the post...
Given the spring situation, gotta wonder if either of those mags were "new" when you got them.
I was concerned only with the width of the mag at the ridge because that was the only dimension I wanted to adjust... Joe
Yeah Joe I really wonder about the mag 2...the setup was all boxed up and wrapped so I wouldn't gave given it any thought...until I took the mags apart!
How did you determine there was a friction fit of the shells on the ridge through the length of the mag. I ran an inside mic down the length but it stayed t though greater than cartridge width... couldn't detect any friction there? I'm gonna adjust the lips and retainer shape but not vice the thickness and see if it plays well...and of course swap out the springs in both. I got 2 "new "mags coming from grabagun...we'll see, onl6 realized when they charged me tax 5hey were 10 miles away...will go visit.
John
Oh, for 5hose interested... the Glock springs spec out 0,0433" dia stock and the rem springs are 0.0423...
J
John I agree. Adjusting feed lips is easy and I think the best thing you can do to reduce nose dive jams.
Install good springs and give them a try.
I found the issue with brass vs the ridges when investigating friction as I mentioned in a previous post.
You will notice on a loaded mag the individual rounds tend to twist left or right.
I decided that under spring tension they twist until the brass binds between the points of the ridges.
Bind = friction... Not good IMHO.
IIRC I either pinned the follower out of the way or disassembled to insert a round to determine if it stopped twisting when the base of the brass touched the side or did it bind between the ridges. When I slid a round between the ridges to check this issue is when I found no clearance. Again i'm thinking no clearance = friction, not good. I'm sure the ridges are there to center the stack of rounds. But instead of a point it seems to me a 3/8 inch flat on each side would keep the ammo centered without the binding.
As always I may just be overthinking all this :) ... Joe
Nope, that makes sense. I have noticed the rounds don't lay flat inside the mag too. I've jus been setting to the back and one side withe a smack and they seem to stay in line...whether they stay 5hay way in use...got me. We'll see how it goes.
Take care
John
Quote from: sawatis on June 02, 2018, 12:57:40 PM
Nope, that makes sense. I have noticed the rounds don't lay flat inside the mag too. I've jus been setting to the back and one side withe a smack and they seem to stay in line...whether they stay 5hay way in use...got me. We'll see how it goes.
Take care
John
I'm not BSing you here. Try inserting a .45 round into your mag. Fits like a glove! LOL! Click on the pic to make it bigger. Thing is, Remington was trying to cut back on expenses. So they designed a mag body which would work with 9mm and .40 S&W as they plan to release a .40 version in the future.
Interesting ... makes sense on their part...but if they want to go that route they need to lose the plastic base cap and follower...I've only put about 300 reds through mine and the drop surface of the follower shows scoring which I diligently polish off when cleaning. So the 45 makes a good go-no go gauge...nice!
Will use that approach. Thanks
John
Well gang...I just got 2 mags in from grabagun...in the Rem packaging. Of course I did a quick check of lip measurements
One is 0.53 at the rear and 0.340 at the front; the other 0.351 at rear and 0.345 at front...definitely closer to parallel than the ones that came with the gun last year. Just because, I popped it open and checked the spring... :o one has 12 coils...the other 13...what the hell!
Gonna leave em as is ant try em on the range before working on them...but why can't the get the springs to be the same...just don't get it...
John
Well here's an update.. Remingtonreplied to the emai I sent and asked me to call em...I had filled them in specifically on th different springs that were in my various mags. Fellow I talked to was nice enough, but didn't know much about guns...he couldn't answer me on how many coils should be in 5he magazine spring and said he would have to check with engineers...but he is sending me two new mags and said that they would be checked out ...will not be surprised to get two new bubbl e packed mags that no one looked at! Regardless, at least we know how to fix em.
Have a good weekend folks
John
Hey gang
So here is the latest.. Remington actually sent me two new mags...they weren't off the rack in blister packs...hand pulled. I checked the specs ..13 coils to the mag spring and what do you know...the lips are exactly 0.351. Front and back, perfectly parallel.
Went to the range on Tuesday and put a 100 rounds through each without a single hiccup...
So,maybe, just maybe they were listening when I was talking to them...
Also I did not modify the tab retaining the follower on these..shot all fmg that day, so I don't know if hp rounds will hang on them...next trip to the range I'll see.
Y'all take care and have a great 4th
John
swaits - Great report on the new mags - perfectly parallel!
I seriously thing that between REM and their contractor, the specifications on the magazine lips got reversed. Big Green has a history of screwing things like this up, they totally dorked up the chamber of the 6.8SPC too.
The good news is easy fix!. I'm going to try some of those glock springs. If they reduce the friction in the magazine while still having enough energy to force the last round into up into place, so much the better. We may have this thing solved.
Sorry about resurrecting a dead thread. Catching back up after some time away. Good work guys!
Quote from: sawatis on July 01, 2018, 05:29:43 PM
Hey gang
So here is the latest.. Remington actually sent me two new mags...they weren't off the rack in blister packs...hand pulled. I checked the specs ..13 coils to the mag spring and what do you know...the lips are exactly 0.351. Front and back, perfectly parallel.
Went to the range on Tuesday and put a 100 rounds through each without a single hiccup...
So,maybe, just maybe they were listening when I was talking to them...
Also I did not modify the tab retaining the follower on these..shot all fmg that day, so I don't know if hp rounds will hang on them...next trip to the range I'll see.
Y'all take care and have a great 4th
John
I'd be willing to bet that these are the correct specs for the mags and the 3rd party manufacturer of the mags really blew it when producing them.
This in the comments section of the hrfunk video on the R51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HUNEfr-j0&feature=youtu.be
by user Big10. Re-posted because what we have been hearing from Remington and others is to remove a coil from the spring. The following discussion seems to make sense and suggests the spring isn't strong enough.
----
cut/paste follows:
Big10
The problem is NOT that the mag springs are too strong. The symptoms your gun is showing is often too WEAK of a magazine spring. The round is escaping the control of the magazine under recoil (inertia of the round tries to keep the round in the same position -- an object at rest tends to stay at rest) while the gun and magazine are moving backwards. But the pressure of the spring is too WEAK to hold the round in the magazine. When the the round pops free of the mag, it will be IN FRONT of the extractor hook. The next round below comes up to the top of magazine, pushes the escaped round up into the path of the slide on return, causing the bind between slide, round, and barrel . This is true for both the "weird horizontal pinched round" and the "stove piped" round. if you remove a round or two from the mag, it won't have the problem since the spring has less weight of the rounds to push up, keeping sufficient pressure on the top round.
Three points: (1) were any of these jammed rounds UNDER the extractor when you looked? I'm guessing "no". And if so, then they were released from the magazine BEFORE the disconnector rail of the slide pushed the round out of the magazine. (2) If you download the magazine, does it ever jam like this? A downloaded magazine is often used to prevent jams when magazine springs are weak (think Viet Nam and M16 -- 18 rounds vs 20 rounds.) (3) The old axiom: first round or last round of a magazine that jams a gun is a weak magazine spring issue; the fix is to install a stronger spring! Want to reproduce the issue in another gun? Got a 1911? disassemble the mag and cut a couple of coils from the mag spring. Reassemble and watch the same jams magically appear. Quod Erat Demostrandum.
Someone mentioned recently they had better results using 124 gr. ammo. I just went through a box of 124, with no hang ups whatsoever. But, I had no issues in 300 rds. of standard 115 gr., either. My Huntsville seems to shoot reliably, except it hits so low I had to file the front sight down to raise the impact point. The mag springs are really firm; I need to remember to take the mag loading tool to the range! Looking to put more ammo downrange! Wish 124 gr. was easier to find! I like hardball, no sense in spending extra for fancy jacketed, etc., if all I'm doing is punching paper.
Quote from: David on July 11, 2018, 11:40:08 PM
This in the comments section of the hrfunk video on the R51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HUNEfr-j0&feature=youtu.be
by user Big10. Re-posted because what we have been hearing from Remington and others is to remove a coil from the spring. The following discussion seems to make sense and suggests the spring isn't strong enough.
----
cut/paste follows:
Big10
The problem is NOT that the mag springs are too strong. The symptoms your gun is showing is often too WEAK of a magazine spring. The round is escaping the control of the magazine under recoil (inertia of the round tries to keep the round in the same position -- an object at rest tends to stay at rest) while the gun and magazine are moving backwards. But the pressure of the spring is too WEAK to hold the round in the magazine. When the the round pops free of the mag, it will be IN FRONT of the extractor hook. The next round below comes up to the top of magazine, pushes the escaped round up into the path of the slide on return, causing the bind between slide, round, and barrel . This is true for both the "weird horizontal pinched round" and the "stove piped" round. if you remove a round or two from the mag, it won't have the problem since the spring has less weight of the rounds to push up, keeping sufficient pressure on the top round.
Three points: (1) were any of these jammed rounds UNDER the extractor when you looked? I'm guessing "no". And if so, then they were released from the magazine BEFORE the disconnector rail of the slide pushed the round out of the magazine. (2) If you download the magazine, does it ever jam like this? A downloaded magazine is often used to prevent jams when magazine springs are weak (think Viet Nam and M16 -- 18 rounds vs 20 rounds.) (3) The old axiom: first round or last round of a magazine that jams a gun is a weak magazine spring issue; the fix is to install a stronger spring! Want to reproduce the issue in another gun? Got a 1911? disassemble the mag and cut a couple of coils from the mag spring. Reassemble and watch the same jams magically appear. Quod Erat Demostrandum.
Has anyone tried a stronger mag spring to test this?
Well I had installed aftermarket Glock springs with a heavier wire...supposed to be a 15% or so increase... I lopped off one coil as the were way too tight and these work good. Now the new mags the folks at Remington sent me have 13 coils...and these have run without a hitch
John
Quote from: sawatis on July 25, 2018, 04:12:02 PM
Well I had installed aftermarket Glock springs with a heavier wire...supposed to be a 15% or so increase... I lopped off one coil as the were way too tight and these work good. Now the new mags the folks at Remington sent me have 13 coils...and these have run without a hitch
John
I was thinking of ordering a +5% Wolff spring designed to fit a 7 round Kahr 9mm mag. I don't know if the coils will fit in the R51 mag though.
Don't know about the karr mags, but the glock 43 springs I got from Ghost Inc. (3 for $7.95). Work very well. I clip off the bottom coil...it has a bit of a hook and is the 14th coil...the new factory ones Rem sent me had13. The new mags they sent me also had exactly parallel lips ....to the thousandth.
John
Just for comparison, I measured the width of the feed lips on my Ruger American 9mm mags. They measure 0.335 front and back. It looks like it fits the 9mm cartridge better than the R51 mags.
Quote from: sawatis on July 28, 2018, 08:12:55 PM
Don't know about the karr mags, but the glock 43 springs I got from Ghost Inc. (3 for $7.95). Work very well. I clip off the bottom coil...it has a bit of a hook and is the 14th coil...the new factory ones Rem sent me had13. The new mags they sent me also had exactly parallel lips ....to the thousandth.
John
Hello,
I'm trying your suggestion with the Ghost Inc. Glock 43 magazine springs. Much appreciated! Having difficulties with the Ghost Inc. online ordering system, but will straighten that out with them, unless you know the secret handshake and can share it with me, lol.
Like many others, my R51 is a gun I want to like. I own an original Remington 51 in .380, and hoped to make the new R51 my EDC pistol. Unfortunately, my 90-year-old pistol works better than my 1-year-old gun!
I've put 750+ rounds through the gun, and still suffer nosedivesand various feeding problems. For the first time in 50 years of shooting, I experienced a phenomenon I never even imagined: the fired round ejected, the top round in the mag ejected, and the next round fed correctly and fired! How is that even possible? And it happened twice in that same magazine of ammunition, no less.
Sent it in for warranty service with 5 mags, including the two new ones Remington sent me loose, wrapped, in a mailer envelope. #5 was a spare I'd purchased. Got everything back from their contracted repair shop in Huntsville, with the notation that the pistol and mags had been "adjusted" and now functioned as designed.
Well, it still doesn't, and unfortunately I have no idea what supposed adjustments were carried out.
The thing I really don't understand is this: it is axiomatic that the magazine or belt is the #1 cause of feeding problems in semi-automatic and automatic weapons. So...why on earth would Remington field a magazine with so many problems? Bad welds in mag body, weak floorplate, weak and poorly installed springs, incorrect stacking geometry of the springs within the mag body. incorrectly designed follower, the infamously problematic bent lip, improper taper of the feed lips.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this accounts for every single part of the magazine assembly, some more than once!!
Any more advice is welcome. I've got about 12-15 videos pulled up on YouTube for study and analysis. Yes, time I'd prefer to spend doing more productive things than struggling to overcome design and manufacturing flaws. As others have noted already, this pistol is not reliable enough to carry, nor to sell, so it sits "awaiting repair." By me. Remington had three tries already: manufacture, 2 new mags for free, and a trip to their repair center.
Final gripe: the gun surprised me with its bulky dimensions. A little online research seems to verify what my eyes tell me: apparently it was designed to accommodate eventual .40 and .45 versions.
Quote from: LouisianaMan on August 12, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
apparently it was designed to accommodate eventual .40 and .45 versions.
I can't wait for a .45 version! That would be awesome! Just as a side note to your original model 51, I saw one in person for the first time at a Gun Show yesterday. It was late 20s vintage, and was in near mint condition. The seller was asking $600 for it, should have gotten it. I just didn't have that kind of cash on me at the time. I told him that I had the updated version, the R51 and he laughed. He told me to buy his because it "worked" When I told him my R51 ran flawlessly, he seemed taken aback.
Quote from: David on April 17, 2018, 11:56:55 PM
exactly what mine were - pinched in the front of the lips, causes the bullet to pivot and nosedive. Almost like someone read the specification backwards.
Good work on the pics.
Interesting..
My mags are as follows (From rear of mag to front in inches)
Mag 1: .358 .339 .343
Mag 2: 353 545 338
Mag3 : .354 344 348
Mag 4: 368 354 340
They are consistent in inconsistency
Quote from: sawatis on July 28, 2018, 08:12:55 PM
Don't know about the karr mags, but the glock 43 springs I got from Ghost Inc. (3 for $7.95). Work very well. I clip off the bottom coil...it has a bit of a hook and is the 14th coil...the new factory ones Rem sent me had13. The new mags they sent me also had exactly parallel lips ....to the thousandth.
John
I just tried installing the same springs (+15% Glock 43 springs). So far so good running with 6 in the mag and 1 in the chamber. Still tries to double feed after firing the first round when I try 7 +1, but I've resigned to the R51 being a 6 + 1 gun until Remington redesigns the mags.
Quote from: Sirrus Rider on November 17, 2018, 11:20:23 PM
They are consistent in inconsistency
You have just summed up our experiences with this pistol in 5 words. It's a wonder of any of us have any hair left!
My new R51 is fairly recent (Huntsville H0073xxR51) so I just checked the magazine lips. The first was .340 at the rear and .336 at the front. The second was .337 rear and .332 front. They are very nearly parallel so I'm hoping to have good results. I haven't shot it yet but hope to tomorrow and will post my results. The tab on the front would scratch the bullet nose and cause the second round to hang up. I polished them without changing the shape and now they never hang up. I will be using Remington 115gr and 124gr ball ammo.
What did you use to polish the front of the magazine?
I used a small stone to break the edge and then polished it with a small felt Demel polishing tip and the polishing compound that came with the Demel kit. I only polished the lower edge of the tab at the front. Now the bullet tip slides right across the tab without snagging. I'll update when I try it.
Quote from: Zenshot on November 18, 2018, 06:12:12 PM
What did you use to polish the front of the magazine?
I shot my R51 for the first time today after polishing the tab at the front of the magazines. Four magazines of 115gr Remington ball and four magazines of 124gr Remington ball fired without a hiccup. Hardly a test but I didn't have any of the nose dives that most reported in the first few mags full.
Quote from: pfm41 on November 19, 2018, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: Zenshot on November 18, 2018, 06:12:12 PM
What did you use to polish the front of the magazine?
I shot my R51 for the first time today after polishing the tab at the front of the magazines. Four magazines of 115gr Remington ball and four magazines of 124gr Remington ball fired without a hiccup. Hardly a test but I didn't have any of the nose dives that most reported in the first few mags full.
Hey PFM,
Where you having feeding problems before?? I just got back from the range where my only change was ammunition. I went to using Remington Military/Leo 115 Gr which compared to the rounds I had been using is extremely short in OAL. (28.17 mm). My gun ran perfectly whereas when I shot Winchester white box or South African Surplus (the longest round 115gr rounds I had on hand) I was having all the classic feeding problems..
This was a new gun and first time shooting it. Weather was bad so while I waited I read about the various issues. The only thing I found were the burrs. So far so good.
Sirrus,
You may want to try polishing your lips (not yours, but your mags!! ;D) and see what happens.
PFM,
I would call 46 trouble free rounds a good thing. It may not have been an official test, but if it functions without hiccup, that is the main thing. Hope it continues to run well for you!
I think one of the purposes of the tab at the front is to move the rounds back into position when they come to the top. Recoil from the previous rounds will probably cause the waiting rounds to move forward; the shorter it is the farther it moves. A burr on the bottom edge will cause them to hang up instead of sliding across the edge and back into position. Both of my magazines would put a scratch on the bullet until I polished the tab.
Quote from: pfm41 on November 20, 2018, 07:09:52 AM
I think one of the purposes of the tab at the front is to move the rounds back into position when they come to the top. Recoil from the previous rounds will probably cause the waiting rounds to move forward; the shorter it is the farther it moves. A burr on the bottom edge will cause them to hang up instead of sliding across the edge and back into position. Both of my magazines would put a scratch on the bullet until I polished the tab.
You are probably right, but if Remington had designed the mag to work with 9mm only, they would never have had to put that lip in there. I am not sure if you have dug far enough back in time in old threads, but I started one a while back on how over-sized the R51 mags are. They are so big that they can hold a 45ACP no problem. Try it. They should have just designed a mag for 9mm only, instead of something like what we have now. Our closest estimation as to why the mag was made so big, is that Remington had put out there that they were planning on releasing a 40 S&W version in a few years. In an effort to save costs, they just made a "one size fits all" mag and put them out there.
It looks like the tab is very close to the leading edge of the feed ramp on the barrel. If you modify the tab, make sure the front of the bullet will not hang up on the underside of the feed ramp.
Quote from: pfm41 on November 20, 2018, 07:09:52 AM
I think one of the purposes of the tab at the front is to move the rounds back into position when they come to the top. Recoil from the previous rounds will probably cause the waiting rounds to move forward; the shorter it is the farther it moves. A burr on the bottom edge will cause them to hang up instead of sliding across the edge and back into position. Both of my magazines would put a scratch on the bullet until I polished the tab.
PFM- After shortening the legs about 1/8" on the followers, I noticed an interesting thing, when I would hold a fully loaded magazine in my hand and try to remove the first round with my thumb, the second round would nose dive at the bent tab. I took your advice and filed the inner edge of the tab then polished it with my Dremel. I also polished the feed lips for good measure. No more nose dives! The next cartridge pops right into place. Can't wait to see how it performs at the range. Thanks for the tip!