Too many things to list here. Im not going to turn this into a 1911 thread, and I have no interest in converting a 1911 lover, its pointless. All I can tell you is that if you stick me in the middle of the desert for an unkown amount of time with no gun smithing tools and the possibility of shooting hundreds if not thousands of rounds in hostile conditions between detailed stripping and cleaning and give me an option between a modern combat pistol like HK or a 1911, I would choose HK.
Breaking in a new Usp
- Thread starter judaspriest
- Start date
- Status
That is absolutely not so 100% of the time, I know from experience as a firearms instructor on my job. Any pistol, from any manufacturer can be flawed. I have seen every make of semi-automatic pistol, and rifle, and pump action shotguns, issued or personally owned by my coworkers, fail within the 500 round test (note not every gun, but every make). This includes HK. I have seen both HK pistols and HK submachine guns fail during the 500 round break-in test. The MP5 due to parts breakage, if I had the parts list I could name the part - small rollers in the bolt assembly. The pistol failure was due to a bad ejector, if I recall correctly.
So please do not tell me they are perfect out of the box. They are not prone to problems, but certainly can have, and do have, them now and again. This is why I stress the 500 round break in shoot for any self defense firearm. As I said though, if any of you want to feel that confident about an untried particular firearm right out of the box, okay by me. I just offer the 500round break-in as free advice - take it or leave it.
All the best,
Glenn B
I think what Glenn Bartley is calling a break-in period is different than what most people think of a break-in period being.
I agree with Glenn that no gun should be put in to service until proven - that is some great advise that he's giving us all. I like to get 1,000 rounds with no failure before I trust my life to any weapon. I think of this as a trial period - not a break-in - but what ever....
When I hear break-in I think of the guys who talk about mostly 1911s smoothing out and having fewer malfunctions after some regular use. There are a lot of guys that buy high-end or reputable 1911s ( and other weapons ) only to have several malfunctions out of the box. People often tell them that they need to break the gun in to get it performing correctly ( which I think is bunk ). An HK or any "good" weapon should be reliable and service ready out of the box - but until you get 500 to 1,000 malfunction free rounds through it, you may not want to trust it completely.... I know I sure wouldn't.
Any weapon that requires a break-in period to perform right is bogus IMO - and never to be trusted. This is why I'm so happy with the HK. Forget the fluff - HK is a great weapon that has EARNED a reputation for being one of the absolute best.
I agree with Glenn that no gun should be put in to service until proven - that is some great advise that he's giving us all. I like to get 1,000 rounds with no failure before I trust my life to any weapon. I think of this as a trial period - not a break-in - but what ever....
When I hear break-in I think of the guys who talk about mostly 1911s smoothing out and having fewer malfunctions after some regular use. There are a lot of guys that buy high-end or reputable 1911s ( and other weapons ) only to have several malfunctions out of the box. People often tell them that they need to break the gun in to get it performing correctly ( which I think is bunk ). An HK or any "good" weapon should be reliable and service ready out of the box - but until you get 500 to 1,000 malfunction free rounds through it, you may not want to trust it completely.... I know I sure wouldn't.
Any weapon that requires a break-in period to perform right is bogus IMO - and never to be trusted. This is why I'm so happy with the HK. Forget the fluff - HK is a great weapon that has EARNED a reputation for being one of the absolute best.
There is a difference between breaking in a gun and testing it before it is suitable for duty or carry, a HUGE difference. Anyone who doesnt thoroughly test a gun with both regular range ammo and carry ammo is not doing their due diligence, I usually go 1000 - 1500 rounds of range ammo and 100 rounds of my carry ammo. Any gun can have issues due to factory defects, after all QC is only human and failures happen, even if its an extremely low percentage any percentage greater than 0 is enough to make me test.
Breaking in refers to running a number of rounds through the gun to help "mold" or refine the fit of the components to each other for a better function whether its through heat, force, or simply shearing the metal until the components function more reliability. The HK does not need to be broken in because its made for combat and has different tolerances required for superb function, which are met out of the box. I have had one failure in the 2 HK's I own and it was a failure to fire to due a bad primer or perhaps a light primer strike in CCI brass ammunition (I find CCI brass extremely reliable for the most part). I easily have 6000 rounds between the two of them, not sure about total round count since one is relatively new. The point is, if break in was needed, you would know it during your first 500 rounds because failures would happen more consistently than my average which is I guess is 1/6000th of the time overall, strangely many will say that this is a higher than average number. I would say in the past with other non-combat pistol types I have shot that needed a break in the average failure rate within the first 500 rounds was a consistent 3% - 5% of the rounds at most, which isnt a huge number but its 300% - 500% more than zero.
Breaking in refers to running a number of rounds through the gun to help "mold" or refine the fit of the components to each other for a better function whether its through heat, force, or simply shearing the metal until the components function more reliability. The HK does not need to be broken in because its made for combat and has different tolerances required for superb function, which are met out of the box. I have had one failure in the 2 HK's I own and it was a failure to fire to due a bad primer or perhaps a light primer strike in CCI brass ammunition (I find CCI brass extremely reliable for the most part). I easily have 6000 rounds between the two of them, not sure about total round count since one is relatively new. The point is, if break in was needed, you would know it during your first 500 rounds because failures would happen more consistently than my average which is I guess is 1/6000th of the time overall, strangely many will say that this is a higher than average number. I would say in the past with other non-combat pistol types I have shot that needed a break in the average failure rate within the first 500 rounds was a consistent 3% - 5% of the rounds at most, which isnt a huge number but its 300% - 500% more than zero.
HM2PAC
Member
I love my HK for all the reasons everyone has listed above.
The break-in period, in my estimation, is for the shooter not the weapon.
Know your gear.
As far as USP reliability in combat......I don't know of a single military that has ever carried one into a campaign.
The break-in period, in my estimation, is for the shooter not the weapon.
Know your gear.
As far as USP reliability in combat......I don't know of a single military that has ever carried one into a campaign.
Last edited:
I don't know of a single military that could afford to outfit their entire force with USPs.
In truth however, the following forces use the USP as their official side arm.
The Danish Police
The Estonian Defense Forces
The German Armed Forces
The Greek Armed Forces
The Irish Defense Forces
The Japanese Special Assault Team
The Malaysian Armed Forces and Royal Malaysian Police
The South Korean National Police SWAT and Coast Guard Special Assault units
The Spanish National Police
The Royal Thai Navy SEALs
The US Department of Homeland Security
And countless government and police departments across the US in its USP and P2000 variations.
And as far as "combat reliability" goes... The Beretta M9 has been carried into several campaigns and I wouldn't necessarily consider it a forerunner when it comes to reliability.
HM2PAC
Member
Not to mention the multitude of American Police Forces that either issue or allow the HK pistols.
The HK design should do well under combat, it just hasn't had the trial the others such as the 1911 and the M9 have had.
Speaking of budget constraints, the Savage design actually beat out the 1911 , but the cost made the decision.
The HK design should do well under combat, it just hasn't had the trial the others such as the 1911 and the M9 have had.
Speaking of budget constraints, the Savage design actually beat out the 1911 , but the cost made the decision.
I wouldnt carry a 1911 in a desert. They are pretty and accurate as hell, but I dont think the manufacturers design them sand and mud in mind, nor other hostile conditions...just my opinion...Im sure a 1911 guy will jump in here and tell me how wrong I am and how inferior anything other than a 1911 is for every possible task, but I'll still stick by my opinion 
Warlokke
Member
I own both a USPf and USPc in .40. The USPf I bought in 1994 and have put over 20,000 rounds thru (USPSA shooting, range time, etc.). It has never had one FTF, FTE, or any other malfunction, regardless of frequency of cleaning or type of ammo. My USPc I bought a year ago as a CCW and have put over 1500 rounds thru, also without any malfunctions.
Having said all that, and despite being an ardent HK fan/supporter, I always dissassemble, lube, functions check and run about 500 rounds of various type ammo thru any weapon, new or used, that I have purchased prior to feeling comfortable with it. That is the prudent, common sense, and responsible thing for any firearms owner to do, since without doing that you are accepting responsibility as the firearm operator without checking your equipment prior to use - would you want a bus driver, airline pilot, etc. doing that? As a still serving Army Jumpmaster and combat veteran (and very anal about the details of things), I would not, and as long as HK firearms are built by human beings, then the old saying, to err is human applies - even if only rarely as is the case with HK firearms.
BTW, the US border patrol now carries USPc in .40...as do some of our SOF folks..
Having said all that, and despite being an ardent HK fan/supporter, I always dissassemble, lube, functions check and run about 500 rounds of various type ammo thru any weapon, new or used, that I have purchased prior to feeling comfortable with it. That is the prudent, common sense, and responsible thing for any firearms owner to do, since without doing that you are accepting responsibility as the firearm operator without checking your equipment prior to use - would you want a bus driver, airline pilot, etc. doing that? As a still serving Army Jumpmaster and combat veteran (and very anal about the details of things), I would not, and as long as HK firearms are built by human beings, then the old saying, to err is human applies - even if only rarely as is the case with HK firearms.
BTW, the US border patrol now carries USPc in .40...as do some of our SOF folks..
To each his own, no matter how one terms it "Break In" or "Weapons Familiarization" one should spend time on the range with a new weapon.
One can not simply load it and forget it, at first. The manual of arms for each weapon varies to some degree, and in the case of the USP the mag release is different although second nature to me. Between a fullsize USP and Compact I have over 45K through the weapons system. No failures so far that were not induced by practice rounds.
One can not simply load it and forget it, at first. The manual of arms for each weapon varies to some degree, and in the case of the USP the mag release is different although second nature to me. Between a fullsize USP and Compact I have over 45K through the weapons system. No failures so far that were not induced by practice rounds.
I have a USPc .357sig that I have never had any kind of failure with and I do not "break my weapons in". I expect my guns to be ready to shoot and to work when I buy them. When I get a new weapon home I take it out of the box, load it and shoot it. I do not break it down, clean it, relube it, or anything until AFTER I have fired it.
Now, before I'll carry one for self-defense I fire it until I am comfortable with the way it functions and how/where it shoots. For me that is usually 200-300 rds, generally fewer for a revolver.
Now, before I'll carry one for self-defense I fire it until I am comfortable with the way it functions and how/where it shoots. For me that is usually 200-300 rds, generally fewer for a revolver.
- Status