How many rounds does it take to "break in" a semi?


PDA






Hokkmike
September 8, 2009, 11:14 AM
I have heard (or read) where guys have said that they don't trust their semi to be fully trustworthy until after firing 200, 500, or even 1,000 rounds.

How many rounds do you consider that a gun should have digested before it is considered to be "broken in"?

If you enjoyed reading about "How many rounds does it take to "break in" a semi?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
20nickels
September 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
300 rds was the magic # on my Glock 23. The trigger did not return, but functioned flawlessly after that.

Jim Watson
September 8, 2009, 12:28 PM
Gee, can you imagine all the people Colt and Remington-Rand employed in 1944 and all the ammo consumed "breaking in" those thousands of GI pistols? Or did they give everybody issued a sidearm a case of ammo to shoot up before he deployed?

Mags
September 8, 2009, 12:35 PM
Depends some guns state in their manual a required break in and some guns don't have the requirement. It really depends on how tight the tolerance is of the gun that needs break in. Glocks don't have a break in period but some 1911s such as Kimber do.

Hokkmike
September 8, 2009, 12:42 PM
Good point Jim!

ByAnyMeans
September 8, 2009, 12:56 PM
I don't have a break in period for a gun unless specified by the manufacturer.
I do shoot at least 200 rounds of the defensive ammo it will be loaded with if used for that purpose. This is to check the function of the ammo in that gun and get used to it's poi. This is not intended as a break in period for the gun.

possum
September 8, 2009, 01:09 PM
i personally have never had to "break in" a handgun however i don't consider them reliable until they have went through 1000rds minimum, and if possible been through a training course or 2. that is with just fmj ammo, and then of course i test the handgun with a good defense load at some length before i carry it.

usp9
September 8, 2009, 01:17 PM
One, if it's a HK. :D http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i186/ripley16/Pistols/Heckler%20Koch/HecklerKoch1.jpg

cchris
September 8, 2009, 02:31 PM
^provided you don't break it in with the ammo inserted backwards :D

Hokkmike
September 8, 2009, 02:34 PM
i personally have never had to "break in" a handgun however i don't consider them reliable until they have went through 1000rds minimum

Same thing. Right?

jfdavis58
September 8, 2009, 02:54 PM
I've answered this question before, but I've re-thunk a thing or two.

I like to run about 500 FMJ rounds through any new auto pistol to take the stiffness out of the magazine springs and start some wear patterns on the slide 'rails'. I also note some wear marks on internal parts in a little book I keep for each gun (those little moleskin notebooks).

I make notes about everything I notice: dings, dents, scratches and wear marks. When I move from FMJ rounds to handloads or defensive ammo, more notes and chronograph results too. Once or twice a year I update my notes on each gun-not all at once, more like when I think about it; usually I decide it needs some exercise so it goes on the next trip to the range.

Sounds Like a lot of effort but I know most of my guns like the palm of my hand. There is no magic number of rounds to break it in, it's a 'feels right' sort of thing. One good thing is all the new-one-fired brass. Two hundred rounds is the start number for most all my rifles if'n you're interested.

Gunfighter123
September 8, 2009, 03:08 PM
I think about 200 rds. before I'd trust my life to it.

Gee, can you imagine all the people Colt and Remington-Rand employed in 1944 and all the ammo consumed "breaking in" those thousands of GI pistols? Or did they give everybody issued a sidearm a case of ammo to shoot up before he deployed?

VERY TRUE --- BUT -- a WW2 GI 1911 is not the same as todays guns -- most all the higher end 1911s are much tighter and far more accurate then those built for the Wars.

zhyla
September 8, 2009, 05:19 PM
One, if it's a HK. :D

Yes, yes, yes.

I think it's more important to verify an auto feeds the defensive ammo you intend to run through it. I'd rather have 50 rounds of than than 500 rounds of target ammo.

dairycreek
September 8, 2009, 06:32 PM
My personal standard is 200 consecutive rounds without any problems at all. If there is a problem I try to fix it. Then 200 consecutive rounds until the no problem at all standard is reached.

wally
September 8, 2009, 07:30 PM
Ideally none, but I've run into a lot of new magazines lately that won't feed the first couple of times out, and a few that are just plain no good, so I like to get at least a box of ammo through things before I fully trust them.

So you may actually be "breaking in" the magazine as much as the gun.

--wally.

smithmax
September 8, 2009, 08:00 PM
I shoot 100rds, clean the gun and the contact/wear points really well and then do another 50 and call it good.

ChCx2744
September 8, 2009, 10:48 PM
NONE. Just get a mag full of snap caps, rack, squeeze, rack, squeeze, rack, squeeze...Repeat 9,999 times. :D

searcher451
September 8, 2009, 10:55 PM
If the gun in quesion isn't any good right out of the box, would you consider carrying it for self-defense even if you put 500 rounds through it, or a thoudand, or more than that? If I'm going to carry a new handgun, I generally won't put it in the hoilster unless and until it's had at least 500 flawless rounds through it. But if it fails in the first hundred rounds or so, for any reason other than bad ammo, I'm not likely to carry it anyway; I've got plenty of other stand-bys to call on.

Kor
September 9, 2009, 03:55 AM
IMO "breaking-in" and reliability testing are two different things:

- "Breaking-in" means the process of getting the different moving metal parts of the gun to wear against each other in such a manner as to burnish smooth or mate their engagement surfaces together. IMO this does not constitute reliability testing per se, but rather a final "work-fitting" of assembled parts; IIRC, the ultra-high-end Les Baer 1911's are assembled to such tight tolerances(ostensibly in order to maintain a high degree of mechanical accuracy over the service life of the gun) that the manufacturer specifically instructs their customers to fire 200-300 rds through the gun before cleaning off the factory lube - otherwise, the slide/barrel/frame fit will be so tight that manually operating the gun will be very difficult.

- Reliability testing, OTOH, is simply the process of proving that your gun will function with your chosen ammunition to your satisfaction. Whether that process takes one box of your chosen carry JHP ammo, or over a thousand rounds of mixed brands/bullet types, is immaterial - so long as YOU, the person who will be carrying said gun to protect yourself and/or your loved ones, are satisfied that your gun/ammo combination will work. Having said that, if your gun/ammo combo works perfectly for a minimum of 200 rds, you have empirical proof that said combo has a reliability rating between 99.5%-to-100%, which is mathematically close enough to perfect that you needn't test beyond 200 rds unless our peace of mind(or OCD) requires it.

- No matter how good the manufacturer's reputation/gun-magazine reviews/on-line range reports/gun-store recommendations are, it is up to YOU to test-fire YOUR gun to make sure it works - your gun may have been the last one made on a Friday, or the first one made on a Monday, by the least-experienced trainee on the production floor, from parts supplied by a vendor with out-of-date specs, etc. If you don't, yes, your family might have a heck of a lawsuit - BUT YOU'LL BE IN THE HOSPITAL OR THE CEMETERY. Even then, they might not win; IIRC a pizza-store manager lost a lawsuit against Glock several years ago because he admitted that he had not cleaned or test-fired the gun nor taken any formal training before he fired one round in self-defense - and then limp-wrist-jammed the gun.

- I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC Duane Thomas' article in the Aug/06 S.W.A.T. Magazine, "Replacement Guns: A Backup for Training and More" makes an interesting point in that if a gun is going to fail due to defective parts or sub-assemblies, it will do so within the first 1000 rds; once the construction/assembly/fitting of the gun has been thus "proved," then the gun can be expected to work reliably for thousands more rounds, until certain parts(springs, extractors, pins, etc.) reach the end of their service life - at that point, if the gun happens to malfunction, the root cause will not be a manufacturing defect, but rather a failure on the user's part to properly maintain the gun by replacing parts worn by thousands of rounds of use.

Evela
September 9, 2009, 05:38 PM
... I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC Duane Thomas' article in the Aug/06 S.W.A.T. Magazine, "Replacement Guns: A Backup for Training and More" makes an interesting point in that if a gun is going to fail due to defective parts or sub-assemblies, it will do so within the first 1000 rds...

Excellent citation, thank you. It is well to also remember that certain manufacturer's, over time, build reputations for being, or not being reliable. For me, Glock has earned an enviable reputation for reliability, probably the main reason I own several of them for real life application.

chiselchst
September 9, 2009, 05:39 PM
After several Para-Jams failed to run smoothly, the Factory told me they needed to be broken in more...

Later I pratically ran out of ammo, time and money. And it didn't even help! So much for that theory (concerning Para's).

Now my (new) Sigs, a few mags to prove reliability and I'm good.

Rock
September 9, 2009, 05:47 PM
Gee, can you imagine all the people Colt and Remington-Rand employed in 1944 and all the ammo consumed "breaking in" those thousands of GI pistols? Or did they give everybody issued a sidearm a case of ammo to shoot up before he deployed?

Gee, I guess maybe because they where put together so sloppy and loose a cat could crawl between the slide and frame.

wditto
September 9, 2009, 05:50 PM
with my SIGs, each magazine filled and shot - with the 1911s, a box thru each magazine - with the Beretta, one mag

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 04:32 PM
300 rds was the magic # on my Glock 23. The trigger did not return, but functioned flawlessly after that.

You fired a GLOCK, of all things, 300 times without the trigger returning properly? Did you even stop to wonder/evaluate why or did you just keep shooting hoping it would "go away"? :rolleyes:

swampshooter
September 10, 2009, 04:54 PM
Original GI 45's were not loose enough for a cat to crawl between the frame and slide, but the mice used to hide there for safety.

Art Eatman
September 10, 2009, 05:39 PM
Back before sticker shock got me out of the NIB deal, it seemed to take maybe around 200 rounds for the various mating surfaces to get burnished. Wasn't so much a reliability thing as smoothness. No big deal. I could tell a little difference after maybe four boxes of ammo, but they always went Bang okay. Maybeso a bit more lube, early on, and okay when a bit drier, later. Nothing I ever worried about...

TXHORNS
September 10, 2009, 05:51 PM
I prefer to call it a "grace period." I dont like or have a use for guns that act up past a few hundred rounds. Depending on the gun, I may give it more or less time to get its act together. A gun like an HK gets a few mags - if it aint 100% after that something is probably wrong. Other guns such as tight 1911s may get more time to "break-in," especially if the factory says they need it. If I have problems after my grace period, i either send it back to the factory for repair or sell it, based on how much I liked shooting it.

Keep in mind this grace period just decides if I plan on keeping it for a while. If the gun is meant for home defense or carry, it must be able to shoot defense loads no problem too. By the time I put enough defense loads through it to be happy carrying it, it probably has 750 to 1000 total rounds through it with 100% reliability. But I shoot alot so this comes quick and I love every second of it.

1911Tuner
September 10, 2009, 06:00 PM
Gee, I guess maybe because they where put together so sloppy and loose a cat could crawl between the slide and frame.

Original GI 45's were not loose enough for a cat to crawl between the frame and slide, but the mice used to hide there for safety.

Sheepdip.

Apparently neither one of ya have had your hands on one that wasn't worn completely out.

They weren't sloppy loose and they weren't inaccurate. While the WW2-era pistols built after 1941 were a bit looser than their WW1-era counterparts...they weren't rattle-trap loose by any definition of the term.

If you enjoyed reading about "How many rounds does it take to "break in" a semi?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!