The All-American 2000 was Colt’s attempt to break into the polymer high-cap pistol market in the early 1990s, when Glock was dominating that field. Colt took what appears to have been a pretty good pistol designed by Eugene Stoner and Reed Knight and made some pretty terrible decisions when adapting it for mass production – and the result was a huge failure. The pistols were remarkably unreliable and inaccurate, and the debacle nearly ran Colt into bankruptcy.
An interesting side note to the All-American 2000 story is the lesson one can take on print gun publications. Because most gun magazines are (or were) heavily dependent on a small number of major advertisers, those companies could often coax out reviews of their new products that ranged from disingenuous to outright fraudulent (Mike Irwin has an interesting behind-the-scenes experience of the American Rifleman review of the gun). Print media treatment of the AA2000 is a particularly egregious example of this behavior. Fortunately for gun buyers, the internet has allowed us to bypass print media as the gatekeepers of information, and the truth gets out very quickly now – as with the much more recent example of the Remington R51.
Front sight on the barrel bushing, no steel rail inserts in polymer receiver; think I’ll pass on this one…
I bought one of these Colt All American 2000 pistols for an investment twenty years ago. I also bought a short barrel conversion kit, accessory no. CA10124 for it. I was not impressed with the reviews or the way the gun handled. Thus, it has not been shot. It is NIB and should be in one of those collections mentioned herein. It’s time has come as I am ready for another Glock.
I bet there aren’t many of those still in private hands. I remember at the time, the expected life span of an AA2000 was about 300 rounds before breakage.
They come up on GunBroker all the time for short money, in all their various permutations. One suspects there are collectors that specialize in them, as with Edsels.
I think the breakage was not the gun’s fault. It was due to the owners beating them with a hammer during a fit of blind rage.
Did Colt ever solve the issues with this gun, and re-release it? Speaking of such, has Remington restarted the R51 production yet given it’s nearly November. I think it could do with some modifications personally, like a steel insert for the bolt to lock against in the frame amongst other things.
The Walther Volkspistol rail arrangement might have been ok for this pistol, reinforced with Polymer. It has a Mauser Volkspistol type trigger doesn’t it, but with rollers.
The lauding by “paid for print media” became apparent with R51 seemingly, hence why I mention it.
Oh the author already mentioned it… I would stick a Steyr GB style barrel gas port block thing onto the end of the R51’s, and fit a sleeve to the slide which covers it. Put the ports in block thing facing backwards, and move the pedersen thing forward by inserting a steel plate in front the current locking ledge on the frame. Add a further 1/2″ of barrel in front of the block thing and hope gas blows the slide back.
You could fit a bayonet over the protruding barrel, which would lock into a section attached to the front of the trigger guard. A nice pointy bayonet should impress the unimpressed customers, you can just say sorry we wanted to do this all along that’s why we recalled them, whistle, hum dee dum, dah, look at the pointy’ness.
In other words it would be locked, properly locked, allowing the case to expand properly in the chamber.
And I don’t mean a rubbish wee bayonet, I mean an M16 bayonet, which you get FREE, yes, FREE, you like Remington again now don’t you.
I almost bought one of these when it came out, based mainly on the reviews. Then the reports from Gun Tests and others began coming in, and I stuck to my old reliable HP.
The locking system is obviously inspired by that of the Steyr Hahn M1912 Austrian service auto. The searage is similar in concept, if not necessarily mechanical layout, to the Manufrance “Le Francais” blowback autos in calibers ranging from .25 ACP to 9mm Browning Long (9x20SR).
As with most of Stoner’s work, the original concept works “as is”, but rarely survives much fiddling by others seeking to make it fit their preconceptions of how it should work.
But Colt was noted for a series of very bad management decisions in the 1980s and 90s. As in “Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss and Bald Uber-Boss”-level bad.
They never came up with a practical hi-capacity pistol.
Their DA full-bore auto, the Double Eagle, was a dog.
The Delta Elite 10mm required serious work to ensure reliability with hot 10mm ammo.
They turned the Peacemaker into a Custom Shop item, just as the Cowboy Action Shooting sport took off. Their Colt Cowboy was what the Peacemaker should have been for that market, but they never met production targets and were consistently undersold by Ruger and others, notably Uberti.
They decided to get out of the DA revolver business just as interest in compact DA .357s for CCW came along. (I have long lusted after a stainless Colt Magnum Carry, but try finding one.)
And oh yes, they marketed the Anaconda .44 Magnum with remarkably small combat-type grips more appropriate for a concealed-carry piece. Mine was actually painful to shoot, which was why I finally sold it. A set of the old Python square-butt grips with the wide shoulder would have done wonders for that one.
There was a recall on the Anaconda, too, for safety reasons; I sent mine back, and they did something to it that pretty much ruined the trigger pull. Another reason I disposed of it, which really hurt, because I liked the idea of a .44 Python.
Their biggest mistake? Ditching first the Trooper, and the Lawman, and then the King Cobra. (A 6″ King Cobra is another of my lusts.)
I’ve long suspected that Colt fell victim to the same theory as S&W; that is, “As long as we have government contracts, we don’t need the civilian market”.
S&W found out that sort of “deal” has consequences. Colt thought they had a lock on the military rifle market- then the U.S. DoD gave the M16 contracts to FN. It didn’t even help that FN failed to deliver on those contracts.
Colt needed engineers who knew when to leave well enough alone, as opposed to engaging in St.Etienne-style private empire-building. And they definitely needed management who understood their market, which they clearly did not. And probably still don’t.
You said the R51 wouldn’t work right because 9mm is a high pressure cartridge unlike say a .45acp are you sticking by your assertion old bean? Remington are in trouble if your right, two free magazines and a Pelican case aside.
I don’t recall saying anything about the R51 other than I thought it looked neat. And trying to shoehorn .45ACP into a platform that size rarely works. (See; Thomas .45, Star PD, etc.)
The R51 ought to work perfectly well with 9x19mm, assuming it’s engineered properly. (Example; Detonics Pocket Nine, that failed because of cost, not technical problems; they really couldn’t afford to make it for what they could expect to sell it for.)
The problems I’ve heard of with the R51 so far tend to make me think they rushed it a bit to get it to market before getting all the bugs out of it.
Once they go back and do that, they ought to have a good item. But there’s an old saying that once something’s had a problem, even after it’s fixed people will keep an eye on where the crack was plastered and painted over.
Well the promotional video,
was good, at least.
“The problems I’ve heard of with the R51 so far tend to make me think they rushed it”
“Remington’s own engineers objected to launching the R51, but Remington’s top brass decided to go into full production anyway.”
I’ve read that before Daweo, hmmm…somebody on here definitely mentioned 35,000 psi or something in regards a 9mm in relation to a .45acp because it’s not something I would have been aware of.
And to me, it made sense… In terms of the Pedersen locks functioning, it worked in .380 that’s a fact, but with a slide which was no lighter than a blowback version… But the .45acp slide was lighter than say a 1911’s, thus it must be something to do with that cartridge being less quick to exit the chamber and jolt into the locking recess… The bolt and slide move back together, so it’s there shared mass etc the momentum of the case initially must overcome as per a blowback.
But if a 9mm isn’t like a .45acp, that is were the problem is, if you follow me.
“You said the R51 wouldn’t work right because 9mm is a high pressure cartridge”
The SIG MKMO also works on hesitation lock principle and was produced in 9×19 and 9×25 Mauser Export cartridge variants. I am not aware of any technical flaws of this fire-arm however it was never popular due to its high-price.
This seems to be the fate of compact autos firing high-pressure rounds. Yes, they work, but no, they generally can’t be profitably marketed because it costs more to build them than they can reasonably be sold for.
Full-sized Magnum-caliber automatics seem to have the same problem. Witness the AutoMag, Grizzly, Wildey, and even the Desert Eagle. (I used to own one of the latter in .357, BTW.)
One reason Magnum revolvers are both successful and generally reasonably priced is that other than chambering and heat-treatment, they aren’t really appreciably different from non-Magnum wheelguns. And the “stopping power” of the individual round tends to make up for their low capacity.
Confession; My “Theory of Stopping Power” is that Foot-Pounds Delivered To Target=How Hard It Hits. Period. I consider the .45ACP, 9x19mm, and 7.62x25mm just about even in overall “terminal effect” because all three deliver about 325-375 FPE to the target at close range, depending on specific loading.
Of the three, the .45 is the least prone to overpenetration, and all benefit from expanding bullets, not so much for increased wounding effect than to ensure that they don’t overpenetrate and waste their foot-pounds on something other than the intended target.
The .357 125-grain JHP seems to be the best overall “stopper”, not because it is the “most powerful”, but because it rarely exits and thus dumps all of its 500 FPE or so in the target, as opposed to the .44 Magnum which tends to blow through and expend a good bit of its 750 FPE or so on the landscape behind the target.
Seen in this light, the reputation of the old .45 Colt 255-grain and .44-40 WCF as “manstoppers” was probably well justified. About 400-450 FPE each, and low enough velocity that they hit, went in, and stopped, delivering their full KE payload to whatever you were shooting at. Even the old cap-and-ball .44s like the Remington 1860 Army and Colt Dragoon qualified here, as their heavy powder charges (compared to the Colt 1860 Army with its ‘rebated’ cylinder to fit the 1851 frame) put their bullets downrange with about the same KE load as the .45 and .44-40.
What this has to do with the present subject is that as long as the round itself packs sufficient power and does not overpenetrate, its exact bullet diameter seems to be largely a non-issue. Which means that if you can live with 350 FPE or so as the power level, the 9x19mm makes excellent sense as a round for compact concealment pistols.
Just don’t expect a reliable one to be cheap, that’s all. As I said, the original Stoner/Knight “Model 2000” with a single-stack magazine, short butt, and short barrel (with a better bushing setup) in 9x19mm would probably make a very good replacement for the old Colt M1903 pocket auto on .32ACP or .380ACP.
But expect it to sell for about the price of a full-sized 1911 (adjusted for inflation, of course). It will not be an “economy” item.
And to be frank, a snub-nosed .357 DA revolver on a small to medium frame will probably always be less expensive, even if it’s made of stainless steel.
Facts are troublesome things. Economics is based on facts.
I wonder if the Swiss gun, being a SMG had a heavier bolt/spring, than the R51. Because that is what provides the initial hesitation surely, resistance to blowback.
A heavier etc arrangement being fine in an SMG because of it’s size, I have just thought about this now… In this “my” theory the slide weight for a 9mm Luger calibre Pedersen lock should by that of the Mauser Volks pistol a 9mm Luger blowback, in order to keep the case in the chamber long enough for it to sufficiently expand. Which when you think about it, negates the use of any mechanism other than the blowback if one is to use blowback no matter how momentarily i.e. The rear of the case could be subject to bulging otherwise – it not being surrounded be the chamber when pressure in the barrel would otherwise be described as “not being at a safe level” in regards the functioning of say this all Americans barrel locking set up.
I personally believe gas escapes via the hesitation lock, because the cases don’t expand properly in the chamber, it escapes almost in the manner of a fluted chamber, which reduces velocity.
Now, does anyone know the weight of the Swiss guns bolt, and it’s spring resistance measurements? In order for the weapon to have a purpose they must be “in my theory” lighter and thus more compact etc than otherwise would be required in say a Sten gun otherwise why bother. However maybe there’s a happy medium, if the Swiss gun worked well as stated, escaping gas aside… In which case, the R51 needs to replicate it in order to function reliably – it would be interesting to compare the respective weights and measures of the two designs in my opinion.
A 9x25mm case might provide a solution, if it’s bottom half was solid i.e. Giving the case the actual capacity of a 9mm Luger, therefore the expanding part of the case would still be chambered while being blown out of the chamber and so actuating the slide and thus the Pedersen lock.
“It would only be a happy medium in a pistol, if it could still weigh less than a Volks pistol i.e. A blowback design, and maybe it simply can’t”
I think a purpose built cartridge would be a good idea for the Pedersen system, Remington’s new pistol can’t be to expensive to produce because it’s fairly cheap to buy. So the mechanism might well be worth using, if the guns can be made cheaply by it.
.44 auto, .308 Winchester parent case basis only created from the factory with a 10mm thick bottom, 33mm long like a .50ae, .429 bullet stuck in.
10.9x23mm replicating a .45acp sort of, but optimized for the design.
The 9mm Mauser (made only, as far as I know, in the Broomhandle and a few 1930s Swiss subguns) was a 9×25. Neat round but I suspect that with a inside-the-grip magazine it would be a “large hands only” item, which would rule me out.
During the Great Chinese Yard sale of the early 90s I remember seeing a few 7.62×25 1911s that came out of the storerooms. As I recall they were re-barreled .38 Supers, as are a few conversions I’ve read about. Problem being that the Super magazine isn’t very reliable with 7.62; seem to remember reading “Well, it works if you don’t load more than 5 rounds….” But the 7.62×25 is a neat round and I’d love to see someone crank up a working run of mags and introduce a modern hollowpoint loading for a nice flat-shooting 1911.
Aye Jim, more .44 auto mag sized pistol grip… Not exactly a compact, still he he.
A couple of more bad moves Colt made was to keep cranking out 1911’s that were little more than kits for gunsmiths to fix. Kimber beat them to it, then everyone else joined in. That was after the 1994 “crime bill” somewhat negated the higher capacity advantages of the wonder nines. Suddenly an 8 shot 45 looked good. Colt could have had a lock on the market but blew it.
Colt also got out of the small pistol market just as CCW started spreading.
You have to think back to the politics going on then. Two gun bills passed in Congress and a whole lot of people thought that the writing was on the wall. Colt probably saw law enforcement as the only safe market and saw the AA as its future.
Amazing how the internet has changed the speed at which poorly executed gun designs are ferreted. The Colt 200 vs the Rem R51 is a good case example. The writers shilled for both but the R51 died quickly due to the internet unlike the 2000 which took a while for word to spread on the travesty that it is/was.
Your right I’m British, and even I know all about it.
I think the expanded cases shown in some videos aren’t out of battery firing, I think it’s the design itself, high pressure gas is blowing the cases out before they have had chance to expand properly inside the chamber.
i bought one at a huge discount, it broke almost instantly @ NIB just from handling it…
i returned it to colt,and received it back with a huge ‘idiot mark’ on the slide and a nasty note from the dept head to read the !@#$%^&* instructions…
i have not bought a colt product since…*
What were the exact Colt changes that ruined the thing?
From watching the video, the notable changes and failures are:
– Extended barrel and barrel bushing (leading to loss of accuracy and reliability with wear)
– Mounting of front sight to barrel (additional loss of accuracy with wear)
– Increased spring weight for trigger (degradation of trigger pull)
The polymer rails, which are one of the larger reliability problem sources, might have been in the original design.
Anything other than that isn’t well explained in the video.
does anybody have the relevant patients ?
Patents, not patients, no offense intended.
That trigger pull looks long enough to cock a hammer, could have a P7 type lark, have the long trigger pull cock the hammer, then reset, or set rather for single action, it could double as a de-cocker when you remove the magazine say.
Quote : heavily dependent on a small number of major advertisers, ”
Yep the only motorcycle mag ever to do major independent helmet test lost load of cash after the advertisers bailed . Guess the same holds true for all mags
Given a choice, I would rather have a Type 94 Nambu pistol. If a crazed WW2 Japanese hold-out armed with a Type 94 and a katana came across some opium smuggler who was dumb enough to get a Colt All-American 2000 and who was willing to kill anyone who saw what he was doing, who would win in a close-quarters struggle?
This pistol gets deserved attention, at least on FW. If Beretta is successful with similar design, why not Colt? It could be revisited, but now seem to be kind of late.
looking at the trigger and its travel I tend to think that it is not that unusual. Where lies the difference, is its initial position. Just look at many DA-SA pistols, how ridiculously forward are their triggers. As for travel length, the partial pre-cocking would be cure.
If Colt were smart (yes, that’s a stretch) they’d relaunch it in the original Stoner/Knight form. Short butt, single-stack magazine (about 7-round capacity), short barrel (and use a 1911, or better yet Star Super-A type bushing inside a full-length slide), hammerless, and reduce that trigger “haul” to about 8 or 9 pounds.
Don’t change it to a pre-cock like a Glock, though. A “full” double-action-only has the same advantage as a conventional Walther-type DA on a P.38, M9, etc., that being that in event of a dud, you can pull the trigger to hit it again, which often sets it off. That’s just a bit faster than a Tap-Rack-BANG in an IA.
Do it that way, and market it as the modern version of the Colt Model 1903 Pocket Model. Colt hasn’t had a serious pocket automatic in thirty years. This one could be the answer to that.
That would make sense would it. There are corporate interests in front of smartness to be sure. Colt was couple times ‘inventive’ and almost lost its shirt.
The pre-cocking idea does not need to be irreversible. As matter of fact I entertained myself with that thought. Result is longer travel without and shorter travel with pre-cock. In addition, in state of pre-cock there is not enough energy in striker to cause initiation in case of skip. Got it patented? Yeah, for sure! 🙂
DAO triggers are for safety with same trigger pull and weight from first to last shot. DA/SA triggers are for safety and precise shooting with two different trigger pull and weights. Both enabling repeating strikes over an unfired round. Glock type semicocked triggers are for safety and reasonable precise shooting with same trigger pull and weight for all rounds but having no repeatable strikes on a dud round. On pistols having DA/SA trigger, the second strike capability is performed through a DA pull and usually with weaker force than the first one that should be on SA mode carrying more impact force, therefore giving a weaker chance for detonation. If the gun goes “Bang”, it is by the cause that the breechbolt was not on foremost position on the first blow and the
striking energy carried it to the correct location, but staying at the weaker side for a proper ignition. Framed within those thoughts, it might be stated that, a good pistol design should have repeated strike capability with a “Short Reset” trigger for safety, precise shooting and rapid follow up purposes. A DA trigger with short reset may seem hard to achieve through usual mechanisms but, there is a Montenegrin pistol carrying these features branded “Tara” designed by Vladimir Georgiev Peev. If the designers of All American 2000 had thought the same action before Mr. Vladimir, it might be a powerfull chance for that pistol on the trigger work section.
That’s in line with my thinking. It does not sound so ‘miraculous’, just common sense. Good write-up!
Slightly lengtening pull distance of Glock trigger and providing a lever to offset the trigger bar from the path out of striker underlug for take down. This is the
all what Mr. Vladimir did. A “Colombus Egg” protected various patents.
I would like to see the R51 in slow motion, I will pay fifty bucks but it would have to be by western union as I still haven’t sorted my banking arrangements out, if anything they are more complicated.
And not till next month, as I’m skint.
I am wondering if the bullet has left the barrel before the rear of the case exits the chamber, I don’t think it does.
I’ll admit falling for the hype back then and buying one of the “Limited Editions” with the wooden grip panels and aluminum frames, and even ordered a bunch of extra magazines at a then outrageous cost because I allowed the boys at G&A and the reputation of Eugene Stoner to sell me what I thought would be the ultimate sidearm (it even made the cover, dang it). I was young and just getting started in life an liked a lot more guns than I could afford at the time, so this was a major purchase for me that would allow me to retire (i.e. sell) my Glock and my Beretta and go with an American made pistol (cue fireworks and Sousa march) that was superior to both. Suffice it to say, I paid a premium for a problem child in fancy dress, and saw my dreams jam up and scatter projectiles with shotgun-like “precision.” But I learned a valuable lesson…gun rags became porn…I just looked at the pictures and basically ignored anything but the technical data in the articles (sort of like the Playmate of the month’s measurements). I also decided that maybe being a Beta tester for the “latest and the greatest” wasn’t such a good idea when it came to anything mechanical (or electronic). Still, I had almost forgotten about my ill-fated experience with the Colt All American 2000 until Ian mentioned it and brought back all of those memories. 🙁 Colt lost all of my business for a couple of decades due to that incident (the LE 6920 redeemed them, slightly). On a positive note, the old Glock 17L and Beretta 92 are still going bang after all these years.
I heard many years ago from insiders at Colt’s that Reed Knight got a substantial portion of the machine guns from the Colt archives as payment for the AA2000 design. At the time Colt was strapped for cash and was willing to trade off assets for the potential revenue a new pistol product could generate.
The AA2000 as designed by Knight and Stoner I believe had a machined aluminum frame. I don’t believe it was a single stack though. Colt wanted a polymer pistol at the time and redesigned the gun into a plastic wonder nine. Didn’t turn out too well. Reportedly there were about 1000 aluminum frame pistols made. I’m not sure if any were sold commercially, but years ago the aluminum frame guns were highly regarded at Colt’s compared to the plastic version.
Colt’s had a recall on the AA2000 to replace the trigger mechanism and also changed the mag followers to fix feeding problems. There were probably other issues as well.
Oftentimes it’s not a “design” problem per say that causes a gun to be a flop. Execution of the design in mass production is the real hurdle. Lots of people are smart enough to gunsmith a single gun to work well. Engineering a pistol to work in mass production is a much more difficult task as exemplified by Colt and more recently Remington.
The aluminum-framed pistols were sold as “Limited Editions.” Had one and sold it, but probably should have kept it as a novelty (I just couldn’t really afford the novelty in those days). The pistol was still a dog, complete with the extended bushing and balky trigger. It was probably a good idea in theory, but like so many “good ideas,” something was lost in the translation to production, especially considering Colt’s labor issues during those days. I think Remington’s new management and the problems with other designs, such as the trigger issues with the M-700 and the quality degradation as a result of their recent purchase of the Marlin brand is evidence of a systemic problem in the corporation, of which the aborted R 51 is simply the most glaring example. It seems like the rot dribbles down from the front office to the production floor. It’s a shame, really, to see the old and venerable gunmakers going down the tubes, but technology has enabled a lot of smaller and newer companies to produce exceptional firearms. All in all, the game has changed for the industry, but I think the new marketplace for firearms innovation is all for the benefit of shooters and collectors.
I recall reading in a book on Sterling firearms that when they got a licence to produce AR18s, their engineers thought they could improve the design in a few areas. Gene Stoner killed that idea. He said his designs worked as he designed them, but they were not to be tweaked around. A few years later Royal Ordnance took the basic AR18 design, turned it into a bullpup and called it the SA80. That turned out to be quite the canine. The moral of the story must be that if you have a gun designed by Gene Stoner, what makes you think you know better than him how to make his guns?
I quite like the look of the R51 incidentally, you could make the Pedersen action smoother perhaps by having cut outs in the slide which correspond with those in the bolt then fit rollers ie. Two wee circular cylinders into the slide cut outs which engage those in the bolt. Some fellow said getting your thumb in the way of the slide doesn’t help, a redesigned grip panel with a thumb rest off set somewhat could help with that. And the grip safety could have a more prominent rubber protruding part on it, shaped to fit the hand appropriately for a more positive engagement. Nobody likes to see guns fail, if you like guns.
You could always have the barrel move back, straight back slightly in conjunction with bringing the lock forward if required. Put a cut out in the frame forward of the chamber, for a U shaped “washer” this would fit around the barrel and sit in said cut out. Fit a short separate spring forward of it around the barrel, which is stopped by the barrel being made wider from that point. The mainspring for the slide would be guided by this section of barrel, and it would pass over the barrel return spring below stopping against the U shaped washer aforesaid. The front of the barrel would widen further slightly, and the slide would stop behind this widest point. Barrel moves back upon firing engaging slide, Pedersen bolt moves rearward also, barrel stops via a lug on the chambers front underside, slide continues actuating the bolt, barrel returns independently via it’s spring. The size of the pistol increases, put you could use a more conventional .44 auto cartridge to “explain” this, based on a shortened .44 auto mag round – .44 special type power say.
The slide return spring, stops against the rear of the slides front, this being flush with the barrel at that point with the widest point of the barrel in front of it, being wider than that hole. Disassembly, scratch… Sounds like a Cz52 type design would probably be useful. The barrel would stop via it’s lug engaging a cut out in the frame, might work.
Heel grip magazine release catch, given the mag is flush, and the overall layout kind of merits one. Could be relatively prominent, for easy engagement.
Oh wait… The locking ledge, hmmm… Tut, er… How about a wee extension on top of the barrel coming back off the chamber which sits in a grove inside the bolts upper, preventing it from moving initially until the barrel returns, it could be a flat plate like machined from the barrel. That locks it, I think…
Remington want to make a M53 in my opinion anyway, that’s what Pedersen originally was after really I think.
My diatribe is Pedersen inspired, he he.
So you lose the locking ledge on the frame entirely, and it locks by the extension preventing the downward or upward whatever it is movement of the bolt initially… While traveling backwards together, thus preventing the bolt from moving independently type thing until the extension is free of the bolt which it would be due to it’s length when the barrel returns.
Drat, you need the ledge… Here’s a video,
confusing myself now 🙂
Think I am trying to say… It functions as now, but the barrel moves back keeping the cartridge in the chamber, currently the bolt only engages the ledge after moving back a bit doesn’t it, which would allow the bolt to be flush with the barrel if it moved also for this distance.
That’s a link to my photobucket album, containing a picture of what I was trying to say, which is an interpretation of the Pedersen idea with a moving barrel, barrel extension, a ledge etc.
Hmmm, I can see an issue… The slide moving before the barrel. Have to tweak it he he, chamber ring delay possibly… Not sure.
I’m going to lose that moving barrel, go back to a fixed one. Something that has struck me though after drawing it and staring at it for awhile “after noticing, you can’t extract vertically” if you split the bolt diagonally, it might function as a sort of horizontal toggle in conjunction with the wheel thing affixed to the slide and a static barrel with a shorter extension, which ideally would solve the extraction lark. I will draw another picture and put it in the same folder if anyone is interested 🙂 I am! He he…
Well I have drawn one again, took awhile, think it’s more what might be termed “lever delay” the extension now just acts to return the wheel via it actuating the delay piece thing is it a delay mechanism?
Done it, Pedersen action, actuated by a wheel “not the best picture” but I reckon it works, not sure what the point of it would be, might be smoother.
Cycling through pictures top to bottom, Pedersen type action one.
1. Action is shown ready to fire slide fully forward, thus the rising block is down via the wheel being rotated horizontally, therefore the bolt lug is in position behind the magazine forward of it’s stop in the frame by a short distance.
2. Fires, cartridge pushes against the bolt which moves the slide rearward initially from position one via the rotating wheel being fixed inside the slide with the bolt/block pushing against it. The bolts travel however is arrested by its lug contacting the frame stop a short distance from it’s original position behind the magazine. The slide continues rearward independently of the bolt, the block riding along the bolts lug section underneath the barrel extension.
3. The wheels cam, contacts it’s lug on the frame which causes the wheel to rotate as the side is pushing it rearward. This forces the rising block upwards, it rises as it is free of the barrel extension. When the wheels cam is vertical instead of horizontal, the firing pin which is resting inside the cut out within the block lifts up, from it’s original position, this lifts the bolt within it’s slide cut outs, and thus it’s lug from behind the frame stop, the bolt now runs directly under the barrel extension.
4. The cartridge pushes the bolt into the “risen” block as it exits the chamber, and the slide continues rearward, cartridge ejects when it’s rearward motion is complete.
5. The slide returns, with the pieces within it positioned as above, the “risen” blocks angled edge runs into a corresponding one on the barrel extension, forcing it down as the slide continues forward.
6. This forces the wheel to rotate in so doing the firing pin lowers the bolt into it’s original position, when the wheel is horizontal the bolt will be in it’s original position, with it’s lug forward of it’s stop on the frame.
It is 3d obviously some of the parts are hollow etc.
Sky blue = Slide
Dark blue = Barrel
Red = Frame
Orange = Recoil spring
Pale blue = Illustrative of internal cut outs, for parts shown.
Green = Rising block
Purple = Bolt
Black = Rotating wheel
Blue/grey = firing pin
I think it might work, the drawing makes it look “tighter” than it need be, even though I think it should function fairly precisely, for example the bolts lug could fall into a slot within the frame, with the distance between the bolts upper and barrel extension altered accordingly in conjunction with its cut outs within the slide.
Think I will put a “toggle” of a sort, two sets of linked arms forming a kind of V shape, two arms which can swivel on each, running from the bolt to the wheel, which engages via the ^ upside down, part of the V a cut out in the frame, mine isn’t a compact it sports, large bayonet so there.
Thor .484 , .416 Rigby case cut and necked down to .484 toggle version, who won WW1.
The link above is defunct, my final version and corresponding blurb is to be found in the link below he he.
Apparently Remmington are going to replace the existing R51 with a “new” design and will exchange existing pistols for it. They claimed the prototype wepons were excellent but it did not translate to production; the implication is the “new” design will be closer to the prototypes.
Given the miserable on-line reviews and horrible failiure to feed, reliably function or extract the only way Remmington could persuade people to use it as a CCW is if they provided each customer with an ex-SF bodyguard carrying an M16 and a couple of frags.
Shame, as I thought the R51 looked quite neat.
Aye they do have that problem I suppose, given it’s target market might be carrying it ready to draw like a Cowboy type thing, in which case you’d want to pretty sure it worked.
I bought one new “on sale” in 1993. Hare better..but my Colt still travels with me in my RV ave put over 5000 rounds through it over the years..and faced down two burglars with it. No complaints. I have added a few Glocks to my collection over the years..and yes, they are superior, but my Colt still travels with me in my RV. It does the job.
I bought one new “on sale” in 1993. Hare better..but my Colt still travels with me in my RV ave put over 5000 rounds through it over the years..and faced down two burglars with it. No complaints. I have added a few Glocks to my collection over the years..and yes, they are superior, but my Colt still travels with me in my RV. It does the job.
I bought one in 9mm used in 1991. I can place all 12 rounds in a 8 inch circle at 20 feet, that said now that my trigger finger has no cartilage in the joints the 12 lb pull is too much and I have to fire using the 2nd finger. I now carry a Beretta Compact PX4 in 9mm with my CX4 Carbine 17 round mag, trigger pull is way less and the 17 rounds land in a 2 inch circle at 20 feet. I never received the recall, so mine is as manufactured.
I own one, I am the 2nd owner, I never received the safety recall. I understand that if one has a round in the tube and drop it on the breach it might fire. I have fired over 150 rounds and maintained a 25 yard grouping of 2 inches goo enough to stop an intruder.
The aluminum-frame version of Colt 2000 is an exquisite gun. The workmanship and finish are second to none. It is an aesthetically-pleasing gun. The two main of its glitches are: the trigger pull (14 lb) that I assume was Colt’s attorneys’ contribution to the design, and the return-spring assembly whose polymer core is not meant for a long life – probably an idea of “cost-reduction” mentality of some the Colt’s smart a**es.
The accuracy of Colt 2000 is excellent, although it presupposes a well-trained user able to squeeze smoothly the heavy long-pull trigger. Unfortunately, many gun owners seem to not be very good at that, and then they are quick to blame the gun for lacking “accuracy”.
The (supposedly) lawyerly decision to increase the trigger pull from 7 to 14 lbs was a killer in itself. Doubling the forces and moments that the cleverly-designed trigger assembly and the part of the frame that housed it would have to endure let to trigger malfunctions after even smallest wear of the rollers and the frame surface they they rolled on. I suppose that the layer or lawyers who (I also suppose) convinced Colt to make such a change to the original design were not knowledgeable enough of mechanical engineering or even simple physics – one more reason to keep the lawyers away from production of complicated mechanisms.
Overly harsh criticism that Colt 2000 faced was another reason of a lack of success with its sales. Beginning with the criticism of the originality of its design (mainly focused on the rotating – as opposed to dropping – barrel that greatly contributed to pistols excellent accuracy and low recoil), and ending with calling it ugly (by Massad Ayoob) despite its pleasing aesthetic appearance (compare it to Glock to see for yourself how absurd M. Ayoob’s assessment was), they delivered the last nail into coffin of this remarkable project. One of the recurring claims was a claim that Colt 2000’s locking mechanism was similar to Steyr’s design of 1912 – hardly a proof of a lack of originality taking into account that virtually all components (trigger, magazine barrel, slide, striker, extractor, etc.) of modern semi-autos were invented quite some time ago; e.g., one could criticize Glock’s use of polymer as nothing new because polymer was widely used for decades in toy guns; or one could criticize Sig as not being original for using a dropping barrel locking mechanism that Browning invented more than 100 years ago; etc.
When one looks at some most recent pistol designs, for instance, Walther P99 and its derivative PPQ, there is a striking similarity between them and Colt 2000 layout (including the revolver-like shape of its butt), except that Colt 2000 had a dramatically better finish and a much stronger barrel locking system that contributed to accuracy since the barrel never flipped up relative to the slide while shooting. In a sense, one can see some of these new designs as cheap versions of Colt’s,
Usually, free market reliably separates good products from bad ones, but sometimes it is not the case, particularly, if (prospective) buyers are influenced by some of those who ascribed to themselves the right to authoritatively trash the items that they don’t like. And this appears to be the case with Colt 2000 – and excellent design with a few removable production flaws was totally wasted by – I hypothesize – five or so individuals who due to their lack of expertise and objectivity should have been kept away from it.
The only thing that remains unclear is this: was a derailment of Colt 2000 costly project an orchestrated action that targeted its maker, an old American company that served this nation and its armed forces well for over 100 years? We may never know for sure.