Browning & Remington pocket pistols

[hardknocks]

Hello all
I picked up a Browning 380 and a Remington 32
Recently. Two very clean examples. Been lucky locally for VG condition guns lately.
I have a 7.65 barrel coming for the Browning I will see how that works out.
Have not shot either on, I know the Remington parts are not available, I hope I don't turn it into a paper weight.
Thanks for looking.
Mike

[sigp220.45]

Very cool guns!

Where did you find a .32 barrel for the Browning? I have the same gun.

[hardknocks]

Found on ebay.

[Walter Rego]

That's a very clean Remington PA51. They are actually more scarce in .32 ACP than in .380, the opposite of production numbers from Colt and Savage for their pocket autos of the period from about 1903-1930. If you haven't had the pleasure of taking one apart before there are several good YouTube videos showing how. Don't try and remove the grip panels or take apart the frame.

[hardknocks]

Originally Posted by Walter Rego

That's a very clean Remington PA51. They are actually more scarce in .32 ACP than in .380, the opposite of production numbers from Colt and Savage for their pocket autos of the period from about 1903-1930. If you haven't had the pleasure of taking one apart before there are several good YouTube videos showing how. Don't try and remove the grip panels or take apart the frame.

I watched some videos on takedown, haven't did that yet.
Thanks

[LVSteve]

I have the modern 9mm Remington R51. Disassembly is "interesting".

[DWalt]

The new Remington 51 operates much the same as the original Model 51. If anything, it is more difficult to disassemble and reassemble. The new 51 never caught on, and I think the early production new models were recalled for some reason I don't remember. I had a friend who owned a new Model 51, and I am very familiar with it. I have one each of the original 51s (.32 and .380). There are two variants of each. General Patton owned a Model 51 in .380. An interesting fact is that during WWI, the U.S. Navy considered adopting a Remington pistol of the exact same unique design chambered in .45 ACP which was called the Model 53. But that did not happen. A few of those Model 53 .45 pistols do exist.

[dsf]

Browning's attempt to turn the Model 1955 in to a "target pistol" and meet GCA68 requirements -

IMG_0989.jpg

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by DWalt

The new Remington 51 operates much the same as the original Model 51. If anything, it is more difficult to disassemble and reassemble. The new 51 never caught on, and I think the early production new models were recalled for some reason I don't remember. I had a friend who owned a new Model 51, and I am very familiar with it. I have one each of the original 51s (.32 and .380). There are two variants of each. General Patton owned a Model 51 in .380. An interesting fact is that during WWI, the U.S. Navy considered adopting a Remington pistol of the exact same unique design chambered in .45 ACP which was called the Model 53. But that did not happen. A few of those Model 53 .45 pistols do exist.

The first R51s were jammomatics. The hesitation lock system requires close attention to geometry to work with a relatively high pressure cartridge like 9x19. As a result Big Green pulled them from the market.

There was a later release of R51s that worked a LOT better. I own one. However, the damage to sales was already done, and when the RP9 fullsize pistol also got vilified online by certain reviewers, Big Green couldn't give its pistols away. Bankruptcy followed.

The newer R51s still had an issue if you tried to load them +1. When fully loaded, the stack of rounds in the mag is tighter than on most pistols. You can barely push down the stack at all, where most other pistol mags give you some play, usually 25-50% of the cartridge diameter. Shortening the legs on the mag followers has worked for many people, though some still report issues. I suspect the strange recoil impulse creates cycling issues for some people due to their grip.

I plan to shorten the follower legs on my mags just to see if it will +1 reliably. I warn those with hand issues that the recoil impulse is harsh with 124 gr ammo and almost straight back into your bones because of the action type and the very low bore axis.

[DWalt]

The R51 I mentioned that belonged to a friend was one of the later versions and seemed to fire and function OK. But it was almost a two person job to re-assemble it. Once was enough for me. I nearly bought a used R51 but after negotiating on a price with the seller, he decided he wanted more so I walked away.

[BC38]

I have a modern R51 chambered in 9mm.

I bought it just because it was pretty much NIB, it was fairly cheap, and it is somewhat of an oddity that was only produced for a relatively short time before Remington went bankrupt.

I've only taken it to the range once, and it had some jamming issues.
One of these days I'll spend some more time with it and try to sort it out.

[desi2358]

Originally Posted by dsf

Browning's attempt to turn the Model 1955 in to a "target pistol" and meet GCA68 requirements -

Attachment 677344

I had one of those. Actually, a nice handling gun, easy to shoot with those big sights........... Kind of defeated the whole idea of being a concealed carry gun though! Considered replacing the thumb rest grips with smooth ones but since I had other guns to carry sold it to a guy who was starting a collection of Browning and FN models.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by DWalt

The R51 I mentioned that belonged to a friend was one of the later versions and seemed to fire and function OK. But it was almost a two person job to re-assemble it. Once was enough for me. I nearly bought a used R51 but after negotiating on a price with the seller, he decided he wanted more so I walked away.

I got mine when Bud's were letting them go for under $200. I have a fascination for weapons with unusual operating systems. The "hesitation lock" definitely qualifies.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by BC38

I have a modern R51 chambered in 9mm.

I bought it just because it was pretty much NIB, it was fairly cheap, and it is somewhat of an oddity that was only produced for a relatively short time before Remington went bankrupt.

I've only taken it to the range once, and it had some jamming issues.
One of these days I'll spend some more time with it and try to sort it out.

I was braced for multiple jams when I took mine to the range. I had one stoppage in about 80 rounds. No more range trips with it until I shorten the the follower legs. I also need to see if I have any 115 gr ammo in my stash. Recoil is quite stout with S&B 124 gr.

[H Richard]

Never had the opportunity to have a Remington. I always thought they looked like they would fit your hand very well.
I've had a couple of the Browning .380's and really liked them, (also the .25's).

[4T5GUY]

Originally Posted by hardknocks

I have a 7.65 barrel coming for the Browning I will see how that works out.

Be advised that the .32 barrel may need to be fit. I got a .32 barrel for my first 1910/55 and it did not just drop in. I didn’t mess with it and traded all off, (explaining the barrel fitment or lack of.)

A few years ago I got a complete package w/a .32 barrel. Sweet. Get a piece of 3/4” ID garden hose, 4-6”s long to press against the barrel bushing. It makes it easy to turn the bushing the 1/4 turn.

Don’t let you wife or significant hold the PA51. Unfortunately I showed my wife my 1922 .32 when I first got it. She decided it was hers because it fit her hand perfectly. Of course it did since hand studies were done before it was ever designed and developed.

Jim

[hardknocks]

Originally Posted by 4T5GUY

Be advised that the .32 barrel may need to be fit. I got a .32 barrel for my first 1910/55 and it did not just drop in. I didn’t mess with it and traded all off, (explaining the barrel fitment or lack of.)

A few years ago I got a complete package w/a .32 barrel. Sweet. Get a piece of 3/4” ID garden hose, 4-6”s long to press against the barrel bushing. It makes it easy to turn the bushing the 1/4 turn.

Don’t let you wife or significant hold the PA51. Unfortunately I showed my wife my 1922 .32 when I first got it. She decided it was hers because it fit her hand perfectly. Of course it did since hand studies were done before it was ever designed and developed.

Jim

I'm confident I can get the 32 barrel to fit.
If not I will have fun trying.
Thanks