June 20, 2019, 10:48:03 AM
* *


  • Total Posts: 4599
  • Total Topics: 643
  • Online Today: 47
  • Online Ever: 73
  • (April 26, 2015, 12:58:20 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 29
Total: 30
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 20, 2019, 10:48:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Addressing reliability issues  (Read 1802 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Addressing reliability issues
« on: December 21, 2016, 03:42:22 AM »
I haven't seem this article posted yet.  The author is, apparently, a gunsmith and engineer.

Remington, reliability, and the R51

I thought I'd write a bit about the Remington R51, because a lot of friends really like the look of it (and the original Remington model 51 it was based on) when they brought it out a few years ago, and they were very disappointed when it proved so unreliable that Remington had to discontinue production and recall all the shipped pistols.

Recently, Remington brought out a revised version of the R51, and it has come back to mixed reviews; some stating it had fine reliability, and some that it had better than the first production run, but still poor reliability.

TFB-TV, the video production side of the Firearms Blog, ran a full test of the weapon (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/17/remington-r51-gen-2-review/), on video, with 600 rounds of 8 different kinds of ammo... and really, the quote speaks for itself:

    "After 600 rounds of testing, the [second gen.] Remington R51 is looking like the kind of gun I'd want my enemy to have in a gunfight" -- TFB TV

Watching the testing, I think I have a pretty good idea of what's wrong... and I thought I'd break it down here.

Basically, the only ammo it would run cleanly with, was the hot German 124gr NATO round nose FMJ stuff. It had just one total failure in about 200 rounds of that ammo.

That's very good ammo by the way, and my favorite factory load for breaking in difficult 9mm pistols, and for shooting through subguns and 9mm carbines. You used to be able to get it pretty cheap by the "battlepack", but I haven't seen any available lately.

The remainder of 8 ammo types tested were averaging one malfunction per every other mag of brass ammo, and the weapon wouldn't run any steel cased ammo at all, with one or more malfunctions per magazine.

Essentially all the malfunctions with brass cased ammo were nosedives, most of which the slide overrode. This normally suggests that the magazines are the primary issue... as is generally the case with MOST self loading firearm malfunctions.

Given the 124gr nato ran very well, and all of the other ammo did not... most of it was lighter, and if it wasn't lighter it was hollowpoint... It seems the weapon is extremely sensitive to cartridge OAL and nose profile.

The German 124gr nato ammo has a long ogive nose profile, making it a couple millimeters longer over all, than either a 124gr JHP, or lighter FMJ or JHP loads (its also longer than 124gr winchester white box, which has a shorter ogive and a rounder more spherical nose profile).

That NATO spec ammo is also hotter than most ammunition... in between an American +P and +P+... It will result in higher slide speeds and energy, even with the "Pedersen Hesitation Lock" blowback action, because it's a modified blowback system that locks the barrel and breech block together until pressure drops, but it still has much more energy hitting the slide earlier in the timing cycle, than a Browning or Walther style locked breech operation (and because it pressure dependent, it is much more sensitive to ammunition variability).

What this suggests to me (as an engineer, a gunsmith, and a shooter) is a combination of timing, and magazine issues.

Hesitation lock weapons are almost always going to run better with hotter ammunition, and may be unreliable with lighter loads. Also, cartridges that obturate differently, or that have different lubricity and stiction (such as steel cases vs. brass), may dramatically alter the timing of the weapon compared to brass test loads.

If  you tune an action to run reliably with lighter pressure ammunition, with hotter ammunition it's more likely to unlock too early, and possibly malfunction, accelerate wear, or even have a catastrophic failure.

If you tune it to run reliably with hotter ammunition, though it will be less likely to have safety and durability issues, and will wear less; it may be unreliable with lower pressure loads.

It's a delicate balancing act that's difficult to manage even with all other factors being perfect. Adding steel cases which obturate in the chamber very differently, and which have dramatically different friction characteristics, just adds another set of issues to the tolerance stack.

That's the timing issue. But, while the other +P ammunition also ran better than the standard pressure, it still had problems... thus the magazine issues.

Its likely that the magazine lips and follower are presenting the cartridge too far back, and too low, at too shallow an angle, and with too much friction on the cartridge.

This combination would cause the feeding cartridge to tilt nose downward too far... without moving forward, or at least before it moves far enough forward... thus a cartridge with too short an OAL may fail to engage the feed ramp, and instead slam into the front of the magazine.

Since the slide is overriding the cartridges instead of jamming on the rims, it also means it's pushing the cartridge stack down far enough, with little enough effort, to continue its stroke.

The failures with steel cased ammo were mostly nosedives as well, but there were also FTI failures, from light primer strikes.

They had nosedive failures every few rounds with steel, which doesn't surprise me, because steel is going to have higher feeding friction, against the mag lips, mag follower, and the rounds under it. Thus the nosedive problem would be exacerbated.

The light primer strikes are lightly due to inadequate force exerted on the firing pin, rather than any more complicated issue.

Both of these issues indicate to me that they used springs that are either too light by spec, or too soft by QC, both for the internal hammer, and for the magazine.

These spring issues are common failures in quality control for any manufacturer, and common problems with any self loading pistol... and frankly, are not surprising given the state of Remingtons manufacturing and quality control issues over the past few years.

When the geometry and timing of a design are just barely on the edge of being reliable, a slightly soft spring can easily make the difference between a weapon that runs, and one that doesn't.

So... what do you do to fix it?

As a manufacturer or a gunsmith, there some relatively simple changes that might help.

First, I would try a slight revision in the mags and mag catches, to make the magazine sit just a little bit higher could improve feeding function; as could a slight easing of the feed lips, reducing friction on the feeding cartridge, and presenting it in a slightly more nose up attitude, allowing it to move further forward with less pressure; thus making it easier for the cartridge to engage the feed ramp and jump up under the extractor, rather than nosediving (particularly for shorter OAL or steel cased cartridges).

If one has an R51 that is overly load sensitive, and has similar issues, and changing to a stronger mag spring doesn't resolve them, then one could try easing the feed lips slightly themselves, as well as polishing them with emery cloth, to reduce feeding friction.

Other than that... There's not much you can do, except to internally blueprint the gun... polish metal mating surfaces, deburr anything that would be in a feed path etc...; and make sure that your springs are good.

Self loading firearms are all going to be sensitive to timing, ammunition variability, magazine geometry, quality control in springs and mags, and quality control in general; and pistols doubly so over rifles, since you've got much less energy and much shorter distances and time windows to deal with.

Honestly, it's pretty easy to make one unreliable, and pretty difficult to make one reliable.

Using a locked breech design helps reduce the variables, and make them less sensitive, which is why you don't see many full power centerfire pistols that don't have a locked breech mechanism.

Even the original Remington model 51 was only available in .32acp and .380acp. There's good reason why blowback pistols... even modified blowback pistols such as the R51... above .380acp in power are rare.

You're already cutting your tolerances close and stacking them high... when you add questionable quality control on top of it... well... the results are... predictably unpredictable shall we say?

Peace favor your sword,


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Addressing reliability issues
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2018, 05:13:03 AM »
Old, but excellent evaluation of the R51 that I can relate too.

I try to load the lightest load I can run reliably in all my firearms in that caliber.

The R51 forced me to bump my loads up a couple of grains to prevent my getting light primer strikes which I assume was from the slide not fully cocking the hammer or leaving the gun out of battery.

After a few range sessions of no, light primer strikes using the hotter loads, it started happening again.

I dissasembled the Pedersen device so I could check the firing pin and firing pin channel.

The channel and firing pin were very dirty so I cleaned them up and reinstalled them without any lubricant.

I also started using grease on the Pedersen device to eliminate oil migration.

The modification is still in my test schedule.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Addressing reliability issues
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2018, 06:40:51 AM »
Actually a pretty well written article with some real solutions. a nice change from "firearm X doesn't run 110% on anything under the sun in all my imaginary scenarios, regardless of plausibility therefore is junk and the mfr is incompetent". I like the reasoning and conclusions and will probably try some on mine (tweaking the feed lips for example). I would add to the bit about mag springs that the shorter and higher capacity the mag, the harder it is to gen the springs to a happy place because you have such a difference in full and empty (vs uncompressed) length. could put a page on that but I'll leave it alone for now.

Matt: you can't "not fully cock the hammer" because the hammer cocks before the slide picks up the fresh round. also, either it catches on the sear or it doesn't. Your gun either has something affecting the operation of the hammer (dirty firing pin channel as you noticed) or just has too light of a hammer spring for the primers you use (whether by design, wear, or variation due to poor QC).


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Addressing reliability issues
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2018, 09:33:43 AM »

Good theory about the primer because I bought some Rooski Wolf primers and if they are harder than my normal CCIs,
 then that is a viable cause.

I just received 4K of Remington No 5 1/2s which corrected my P232 light primer strikes so I'll try some of those.

Thanks for the Suggestion.



  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Addressing reliability issues - Light Primer Strikes
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2018, 06:24:14 AM »
RE: Cleaned the R51 firing pin channel to eliminate light primer strike tests.

Loaded up 100, Wolf primer primed rounds and brought 6 light primer strikes that I had from last week.

The R51 fired five of the six light primer strikes and fired the sixth one on the 2nd attempt.

Then she ate the 100, new reloads without any light primer strikes.

I'll need to check it again after another 500 rounds to see if changing to grease for the Pedersen device and reinstalling the firing pin dry, keeps the goop out of the firing pin channel.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Addressing reliability issues
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2018, 12:17:32 PM »
Matt... I had to clean the firing pin channel after about 2000 rounds total. I had oiled it a few times after light cleaning.
It had become jammed with carbon... I too decided at that time to leave it dry.

About this time I switched to white lithium grease for the breech block and rails.
The pistol seems to function about twice as long between cleanings vs gun oil so I think it is worth a try... Joe



Bookmark and Share

The NRA is fighting for your 2nd amendment rights - You can help make a difference - your voice can be heard
Join the NRA

Recent Forum Post