Remington's failed R51

[tahunua001]

not to turn this into a remington bashfest but I could not like the ACR at all, I was always fumbling for controls which seem like they were strategically placed in areas that no other manufacturer would ever put them. the accuracy on the model I was shooting was terrible, between the three shooters that were trying it out, we averaged about 4 inches at 25 yards. the sights were a pain to adjust and the whole design just felt poorly weighted and balanced. I could care less about chrome lined barrels because I don't shoot 1000 rounds every weekend and I don't live underdasea.

 

[TunnelRat]

"As opposed to what? Allowing a potentially unsafe product to exist in the marketplace and open themselves to potential litigation?"

You mean like Chevrolet's ignition switch issue?

Or the Takata airbags (which they apparently knew were a problem about 8 years ago).

Indeed, and those companies are now facing serious penalties in the form of costly litigation and settlements. I'd also point out that the percentage of R51s with problems seemed dramatically higher than Chevys with ignition problems and faulty airbags. Not to mention that Generous Motors is a company of an order of magnitude larger than Remington/Freedom Group and more able to weather a storm and Takata airbags seems to have a monopoly when it comes to certain manufacturers.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Crucial difference, though...

Upwards 30 or so people are now confirmed dead because of a defect that was actively hidden by the company.

In the case of the Takata airbags, a number of people have been injured, but I don't believe there have been any deaths.

I sincerely doubt if the R51, even had Remington chosen not to recall all of the first run, would have ever come close to being a fiasco of that magnitude, and certainly would never have exposed Remingon to the hundreds of millions in potential penalties and lawsuits.

The only way in which the situations can truly be considered to be similar is to say that all three companies make something.

 

[HKFan9]

not to turn this into a remington bashfest but I could not like the ACR at all, I was always fumbling for controls which seem like they were strategically placed in areas that no other manufacturer would ever put them. the accuracy on the model I was shooting was terrible, between the three shooters that were trying it out, we averaged about 4 inches at 25 yards. the sights were a pain to adjust and the whole design just felt poorly weighted and balanced. I could care less about chrome lined barrels because I don't shoot 1000 rounds every weekend and I don't live underdasea.

I only shot a handful of them messing around plinking, no real accuracy tests, but I don't doubt it.

Chrome lining to me is good if its there... not needed in some builds or rifles... but for the purpose build / design to be a combat firearm, and the price tag of the ACR.... I'd expect it to be there. As for the weight and balance... it never stood out to me one way or another. The controls I have to agree with, but the controls on a lot of good guns I hate... (HK93/91 comes to mind)

 

[Sevens]

The only way in which the situations can truly be considered to be similar is to say that all three companies make something.

Agreed. Makes you wonder why someone brought 2 of the 3 up in a gun forum?!

I've only held & handled an R51 and I was horrified at all of it except for it's decent looks and the design of the grip safety which seems positive. Every other thing about it is either not enticing (the sights) or genuinely disturbing (the way the pistol feels when the slide is manipulated and the pull weight/feel of the trigger.)

I couldn't believe that a well-established and historic American gun manufacturer had enough people in power that actually agreed "YES! This pistol should be shipped out for the public to see, feel, and attempt to shoot!"

For exactly, precisely THAT, I personally think that a number of executives who are in a position of responsibility... should be in a position of unemployment.

If the company/corporation/brand were mine, I would want BUTTS of the executive(s) who allowed THAT gun to get in to the hands of the buying public. Or even the hands of the early journalists/media that got to test & shoot them.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Agreed. Makes you wonder why someone brought 2 of the 3 up in a gun forum?!"

Why?

Because the initial observation to which I responded seemed to be that Remington, by releasing these guns in an inferior status, somehow opened itself up to multigazillion dollar lawsuits and claims for wrongful everything.

Even had they stalled on taking charge of the reliability issues and send hundreds of thousands of them into the market place their potential exposure for any liability would be exceptionally limited, unlike, say, GM's or Takata's, for the reasons I stated.

Litigants would have to show a pattern of injuries or deaths directly caused by malfunctions, something that would, I think, be highly unlikely given the kind of issues the gun had.

Had they started grenading and blowing the slide right back into the shooter's forehead, that would be another matter.

But when you can't get the thing to operate at all?

Unlikely.

 

[TunnelRat]

Crucial difference, though...

Upwards 30 or so people are now confirmed dead because of a defect that was actively hidden by the company.

In the case of the Takata airbags, a number of people have been injured, but I don't believe there have been any deaths.

I sincerely doubt if the R51, even had Remington chosen not to recall all of the first run, would have ever come close to being a fiasco of that magnitude, and certainly would never have exposed Remingon to the hundreds of millions in potential penalties and lawsuits.

The only way in which the situations can truly be considered to be similar is to say that all three companies make something.

Boy am I confused. First you bring up the comparison, and then you proceed to explain how that comparison isn't valid at all. Then why did you bring up the comparison in the first place? No one besides you claimed it was on the order of that big of a legal issue, merely that it was a potential legal issue.

Because the initial observation to which I responded seemed to be that Remington, by releasing these guns in an inferior status, somehow opened itself up to multigazillion dollar lawsuits and claims for wrongful everything.

Even had they stalled on taking charge of the reliability issues and send hundreds of thousands of them into the market place their potential exposure for any liability would be exceptionally limited, unlike, say, GM's or Takata's, for the reasons I stated.

Litigants would have to show a pattern of injuries or deaths directly caused by malfunctions, something that would, I think, be highly unlikely given the kind of issues the gun had.

Had they started grenading and blowing the slide right back into the shooter's forehead, that would be another matter.

But when you can't get the thing to operate at all?

Unlikely.

I fail to see where anyone said anything remotely close to multigazillion dollar lawsuit, you're just exaggerating.

Had an injury resulted from a failure of the pistol Remington would have been liable. Are you denying that the pistols were pulled from market for the purpose of legal protection? As you stated, GM and Remington aren't even comparable and yet you use that comparison once more. The cars in question were in production over years and only a small percentage of tens of millions of vehicles sold developed the issue. Remington neither produced anything remotely close to the quantity or for the duration of time to have seen whether these issues may have resulted in a failure that caused injury to an operator. However evidence of such poor manufacturing means we can't rule out that such an event was possible.

Remington's course of action was to remove the product from circulation in an effort to prevent such a tragedy from occurring and to protect their reputation. Their decision was based on legal prudence, I fail to see anything that conflicts with that.