TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.