[Lightsped]

Why do alot of 1911s require a "break-in" while some other guns such as Glock will fire right out of the box with no "break-in" required? For the most part, guns are all made out of the same basic metals. Is it a design issue or what?

No bashing please.

[Boats]

Personally speaking, on a 1911 without a screwed up Schwartz safety, the break-in is really to make sure that the pistol feeds and extracts well. The 1911 is not an "in-line" feeding auto-pistol so one has to ensure that the ammo feeds up into the chamber correctly. For the same reason, magazines are a crapshoot on a 1911 and so require testing. Finally, an internal extractor needs to be evaluated for performance before being relied upon.

I have owned 1911s that worked out of the box, therefore didn't need a breaking-in. I have also owned other pistols such as Berettas or HKs that never needed such a check-up, but still needed to be tested for accuracy with selected loads. I view a 1911 with "teething" problems to not be a serious problem until after they haven't been resolved with a few hundred rounds through them. Since I have to see what load the pistol likes best anyways, if the extractor tension isn't up to snuff or the factory mags prove to suck, I take care of it during the same amount of time and ammo I'd be testing a non-1911 for accuracy anyways.

Glock, Beretta and others enjoy the "advantage" of sprung extractors and dedicated magazine designs that are not usually farmed out to the lowest bidder. The 1911 has a finicky extractor set-up, that once properly set-up will run a long, long time, and it needs quality mags if the maker has gone cheap. No biggie. Usually.

Now these "new-fangled" firing pin safety failures I will not defend. I will not buy a 1911 with one of these "lawyer parts" involved in the firing system of a 1911 unless it is Series 80, which has never, to my knowledge, rendered a pistol inoperable, like Kimber and S&W have witnessed.

[45auto]

I wish I could say I bought a lot of new 1911's in last several years, but I only bought one. That one and the two other new ones I tried didn't need a break-in either.

I doubt most do, but as Boats mentioned above, extractor and mags will most likely be the problem. I have read the tendancy towards tight chambers does not help either.

S&W was supposed to solve that production problem with an external extractor and wilson mags, but as mentioned above, the firing pin safety(grip activated) did them in- so to speak. :rolleyes:

[Old Fuff]

Several decades ago Colt was the only one that made commercial Government Model pistols. In those days you could take a gun out of the box, check to see that the bore was clear, load it and go shoot. Breaking in was unheard of except for some very tightly fitted custom target guns.

Also other then target loads the only available ammunition was 230 grain/FMJ hardball. Making an automatic pistol that will reliably feed cartridges with different overall lengths and bullet shapes is not an easy thing too do, and a whole lot depends on the magazine and its components such as the spring and follower, and how the lips are formed.

Today it seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry is turning out clones of John Browning’s big blaster. Some do good jobs while others make crap. Many have the absolute minimum in machining and fitting. Browning didn’t intended that this particular gun be made this way.

If you look at an older Colt you will see numerous single-digit numbers and alphabetical letters all over it in hidden places. These are inspectors or assembler’s marks. They were assigned to particular individuals, and if defective guns were returned to the factory somebody would hear about it. Now there is no such accountability with most makers.

If a pistol is a bit rough around the edges and not precisely fitted at certain points it may fail to feed or to extract & eject. Shooting it a bit may burnish or wear-in the gun to the point where thereafter it works fine. Or shooting it extensively may make no difference at all. It all depends on what is causing the problem.

The need to “break in” pistols has come about as manufacturers do less and less handwork - which is obviously expensive. Today almost any change made to an existing model is because the new way is more “cost effective,” not necessarily because it will make the product better.

Most, if not all of the current European automatics are designed with generous tolerances to insure reliable feeding - at least with hardball. This tends to adversely effect accuracy but many owners don’t notice. The term “practical accuracy” or “combat accuracy” covers any perceived deficiency, and indeed they may be accurate enough.

Some makers - Colt comes too mind - have started paying more attention to the reliability issue. Others apparently haven’t. Hopefully the market place will eventually force some improvement by rewarding those makers who do it right.

[Dave T]

Can't think of a thing to add to Old Fuffs post except "Ditto"!

[BigG]

OF: You took the words right outa my mouf! :cool:

[MikeJ]

I own two 1911's, both of them Colt Enhanced models purchased in the early 90's. One is a blued Officers and the other is a stainless Combat Commander. I have had no trouble with either one and they didn't require a break-in period. Both, so far, have shot fine right from the box. I have to add that all of my other guns, except a KelTec P32, worked fine from the get go as well.

[C.R.Sam]

Old Fuff covered it.

To add....
Work ethic
Pride
Accountability
RIP

Sam

[happy old sailor]

when i get another gun, rifle/pistol/revolver/shotgun new/used, it gets the break in treatment. how else can i depend on it?

i dont know if a gun needs breaking in until i have finished breaking it in. does that make sense?

[Sean Smith]

ANY mechanical device is going to "break in" to a certain extent. Guns... car motors... whatever. At 1,000 miles a car is going to run better than it did at 0 miles. At 1,000 rounds a properly made gun will run better than it did at 0 rounds. However, that does NOT mean that it should not work from the first round. Having to shoot several hundred rounds out of a gun to make it reliable is just an indication that its assembly was borderline-incompetent, or the gun was made over-tight as a sales gimmick.

[10-Ring]

For me, the initial break in period is more for me to get more acquainted w/ my new pistol, to become more confident w/ it, to make sure the ammo I use is reliable through it, to make sure the firearms starts wearing in properly and to just shoot my new gun ;)