Does a gun take 600 rounds to break in?

[the_skunk]

You wouldn't but any other product that doesn't work when brand new, why settle for it with your guns.

Most guns are 1930 designs. My Sig p232 was based off a Walther ppk made in 1928 - since then the Makarov, the CZ, the FEG, Bersa Thunder, and countless ahve just copied it.

Just the PPK made 2 million, and the Makarov was 5 million ..... Sigs 232 is the most unreliable in the bunch

 

[AK103K]

My Sig p232 was based off a Walther ppk made in 1928 -

Maybe in very general fashion.

My P230's dont take down like my Walthers. They dont have the same safeties. They dont have the lousy, heavy DA triggers, They handle recoil much better. They dont draw blood every time you shoot them. And unlike my US assembled Walthers, they work reliably.

Sigs 232 is the most unreliable in the bunch

"Your" SIG maybe. Some of us, and probably more like, most of us that do have them, have had a totally different experience than you.

I could cry about how bad my US Walther was, and I had to send it back three times, and they never did get it right. Does that mean all US Walthers are junk? I kind of doubt it. I replaced my Walthers, German and US, with P230's, after I shot my first one. Ive never regretted the choice either.

Since you feel the SIG's are so horrible, maybe you should try the Walthers. That way you have an "original", and not an inferior "copy".

We'll wait for the "B" side.

 

[the_skunk]

Your right AK that safeties and such are different..... But the whole group is the general design ... the German makarov is the real dependable one of the bunch

 

[withdrawn34]

Agreed. Things should not require a break-in to become reliable. Break-in happens with pretty much all new machines, but should be reliable from the beginning (although it may get "smoother" as it breaks in).

Imagine a car engine that stalls and stutters occasionally, and fails to start at other times when new. Would that be acceptable? No, of course not.

What about if your brand new fridge stopped working once in a while, causing your prized steaks to spoil, and the manufacturer told you to wait at least several months before calling them again, causing you to lose thousands of dollars in food - not to mention having a hungry family? Unacceptable.

It seems that the more expensive, higher-end pistols tend to need this "break-in" to become so-called reliable. That makes no sense. Cheaper pistols skip a lot of the personal attention to reduce cost, yet unreliability in them, even three or four non-ammo related malfunctions when new, is considered to be quite unacceptable. I don't understand why we should accept such things in a four figure pistol that is almost completely hand-built and fitted. What exactly are they doing with all those labor hours? Plus, with modern computer-aided design and machining, what excuse do they have anymore? They should be able to fit it precisely the first time.

I'd love to get a nice, pretty custom pistol one day, but this sort of stuff always concerns me. I'd hate to have an unreliable pistol that I have to lie to myself to convince it is still a great pistol. I think several 1911 manufacturers, plus the "original" GI 1911 have shown that the 1911 doesn't have to be inherently unreliable. It is this strange obsession with super accuracy that has led to manufacturers to tighten everything up to the point where the darned thing doesn't even work anymore. Even then, it is implemented seemingly unevenly during manufacturing. Does not make sense.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Glock recently suggested firing 200 rounds of heavier ammo through the gen 4 9mms to break them in. It worked the springs. My Kel-Tec sub 2000 needed it also and probably for the same reason. Triggers also seem to benefit from rounds fired through them. I believe in a 200 round break in. Its been in the literature at least since the 70s when I first read it. Its not as prevalent today because I think they make guns better than they used to for the most part.

 

[Ala Dan]

If a firearm takes 600 rounds to break it in; then I DO NOT want it, especially
a handgun~!

 

[EddieNFL]

It seems that the more expensive, higher-end pistols tend to need this "break-in" to become so-called reliable.

What is your definition of higher-end? What do you mean by "so-called" reliable?

 

[gathert]

Nobody ever needed to break in a shotgun...

 

[the_skunk]

Agreed. Things should not require a break-in to become reliable. Break-in happens with pretty much all new machines, but should be reliable from the beginning .

Break-in is just an excuse. The Sig P232 has a design fault in the 'Breech face'. There is no recess to hold the empty casing during recoil .... so it all depends on the ejector claw to 'flip' the shell out.

I checked the Sig 230, the makarov, CZ-83, PPK, and they all had the shell recess. The deal is when you deal with CNC machine centers there can be a 100 tools .... I imagine the breech tool kept breaking ... which shuts dow the entire line




Without this recess a shell flops and never hits the ejector

 

[Ironclad]

Nobody ever needed to break in a shotgun...

I did. My Remington 870 Express had a rough chamber that would stick cheap shell every once and awhile. The more I used it, the less it happened.

 

[AK103K]

Break-in is just an excuse. The Sig P232 has a design fault in the 'Breech face'. There is no recess to hold the empty casing during recoil .... so it all depends on the ejector claw to 'flip' the shell out.

I checked the Sig 230, the makarov, CZ-83, PPK, and they all had the shell recess. The deal is when you deal with CNC machine centers there can be a 100 tools .... I imagine the breech tool kept breaking ... which shuts dow the entire line




Without this recess a shell flops and never hits the ejector

Youre really starting to sound like a broken record now, and posting the same old pic of something else isnt helping make it better. If you would post a pic of "your" actual gun, and its problem and actually answered direct questions instead of evading them, you'd have a little more credibility, which at this point, between here and TFL, as well as a number of others, I think is wearing very thin.

As has already been explained to you, many handguns dont have the recess, and function fine. My P230's with the recess, will not hold the case on the breech face by the extractor alone either, so I think "your" assessment of the problem might be flawed.

And for the $64 question, for the umpteenth unanswered time, have you ever let someone else (who has some experience) shoot your gun, and did they have the same problems?

 

[SSN Vet]

And people are OK with this???

not I....

 

[the_skunk]

Youre really starting to sound like a broken record now, and posting the same old pic of something else isnt helping make it better. , I think is wearing very thin.

Just replying to other posters. If the posts bother you, than block them

 

[AK103K]

You left out the important parts in the quote.

If the posts bother you, than block them

I would, but everywhere you go on the web (literally too), there you are, same exact thing, over and over.

Besides, with all the drama, there might be a new pic of another different gun.

 

[gathert]

Ironclad, I tried with the shotgun thing. I use mostly competition shotguns so they are of better quality. Though my 870 always rocks, and I Ieven used it in a national trap shooting competition one time to break 193/200 targets, beating many people with several thousand dollar guns

 

[rajb123]

...Bought a new CZ 22 rimfire and the bolt was VERY ruff to cycle out of the box. There were some tool marks around the bolt pieces and action. During the first 100 rounds a couple of rounds of quality Federal ammo would not load.

I have since dry cycled the rifle with some grease several hundred times and the action is a tad better.

With CNC machining, there really is no reason why this should ocurr IMO. Luckily, the gun is not used for home defense or it would be returned.

 

[Ben86]

bought a new Sig P232 and when I called the Sig service center about jamming, I was told that 600 rounds will 'Break the gun in'.

I don't get it? If the tollerances are correct, why any break in at all. Maybe the springs need a break-in period?

600 rounds is a bit excessive. To me 100-200 should break in any reliable gun. It varies according to make and model and sometimes even individual gun.

All "break in" means is that the parts learn to work with each other properly. Opposing surfaces adapt to one another and the springs relax a bit (as they usually come from the factory intentionally heavier than required).

 

[the_skunk]

With CNC machining, there really is no reason why this should ocurr IMO.

The problem with a CNC is the machinist is replaced by a button pusher. And a CNC has 100 tools, so a part is made, and there can be 500 slides, or frames, put out with a tiny defect.

What happens is a milling tool wears out, and a rail that is suppose to be .250 deep, is now .247 deep.

 

[fatcat4620]

Never bought a brand new handgun and never had anything other than primer issues with all four of them. I let someone else deal with the BS and buy the ones I know work for way less and after someone else spent all the money on ammo to find out.