Do you break in your carry pistol with 500 rounds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I probably run about 3 or 4 boxes of ammo through both my revolvers and semi-autos before I consider them good to go. Has worked pretty well over the last 40+ years of shooting them.
 
GRIZ22 said:
The question was in regard to "breaking in" a new carry gun not how many rounds to failure. You really need to dry fire a lot to make parts fail. I've got guns pushing 50 years old, live and dry fired thousands of times, that still have all the parts they left the factory with.

I don't think quality of firearms has taken that much of a nose dive. Everything wears out eventually. If it makes you feel better to change springs every X numbers of rounds have at it. I haven't seen any need to do it unless something was wrong.
Click to expand...

You have guns 50 years old with thousands of dry-fire 'rounds' through them?

By the time I've had a gun for a couple of months I've dry-fired the thing a thousand times or more.

There's no way I'd get anywhere close to 50 years without replacing parts, and everything I've ever owned has been top-notch quality.

And yes, I've had springs in trigger groups fail prematurely (according to live-round counts), obviously due to dry-fire practice.

Preventative maintenance and regular service intervals apply to all machines. Especially those used with regularity.

As far as waiting till something breaks, yes... you can do that. But it's not the best solution. For one - if it's your carry gun - the consequences of unexpected parts failure are obviously unpleasant. Two... minor parts failures have the potential to cause major damage, depending on what fails, and how. Just one example: I had a neglected recoil-guide-rod assembly give out, scarring the alloy frame where it seated. For the cost of a <$15.00 part, the entire handgun was trashed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm aware there are small carry pistols which the maker states need recoil spring replacement as soon as 250 rounds. Yet that same design manufactured by a larger firearms company has no such warning. And reading the extended high round count thread from a Vegas gun rental company, springs seen to last quite a while. Replacements there are done on a failure basis - it's not life and death - and for the most part the entire gun will go 100,00 round a year with only cleaning. Those are largely "duty" grade and sized guns, tho, not the smaller ones in the same calibers.

In comparison, the AR15 seems to need extractor and complete bolt change at about 25,000 rounds, which is far less than what the pistols will do. YMMV. But, agreed, if it's something you rely on, then preventative changes of springs are needed ahead of failure. Said rental range does do that - on some pistols. Others are completely original. It depends.

Part of the money spent on a firearm is also final fit and finish, a more expensive gun should have less to hang up in the feed and chamber surfaces and need little to no breakin. However - I keep reading the owner's posts of $1100 1911's and it's common. Back to Customer Service. So far what we have in this thread are those who haven't had to do it. It is happening.

What could be drawn as a conclusion is that the smaller you make the auto pistol the more likely it has a narrower operating window and the more important the surfaces which feed and chamber ammo need to be snag free. It's not always the gun - how many are firing a new magazine with it? Did you take it down, clean and lube it, dress the feed lips, and get the spring reinstalled correctly? Nobody reports much on that, but the gun is much more often at fault. Sent in for service the maker tries it out and - no problems. We have too many variables at that point, a different mag perhaps, or just someone who shoots daily and is very familiar to keeping a grip on it? Some guns require firmness in hand or the frame recoils just enough to interfere with the cycling and creates a stoppage. It's not often mentioned as a cause but I do applaud those who admit it. They either deduced the problem or had it pointed out, but they proved it wasn't the gun.

Very few go thru a decent analysis of what the problems might be - and then we get a post with no information describing a malfunction of the pistol, no idea what ammo, did they try full power defensive loads, a different magazine, etc. We do get some who are now detailing all this, but unfortunately too few, as it seems the public's interest in firearms keeps growing we have newer less experienced shooters more often. We go thru the drill again and again. Patiently for the most part here.

I've concluded you should shoot sufficient ammo to get the rough edges of a newer gun, and how you handle it. It's not wrong to meet the manufacturer's recommendation when by the experience of plenty of owners almost all of the problems iron out by then. Once that threshold is reached and there are still issues, then return is justified. All too many can't get thru the first magazine, tho, and then return the defective piece of junk for a refund and to complain on the internet about how bad it was. Frankly, that's a result of overexpecting perfect performance and reflects a potential lack of competence on the part of the owner. We may be joking about how certain people are reacting in the latest political theatre, but honestly, we seem to have our own subfrozen crystallized water fractals in the shooting community, too.

If you have never had a gun that malfunctioned, count your blessings, odds are you simply haven't bought it - yet.
 
Tirod said:
I've concluded you should shoot sufficient ammo to get the rough edges of a newer gun, and how you handle it. ...
Click to expand...
Something that has probably worked in my favor is that I have always disassembled, cleaned and closely inspected the parts on my firearms, whether new or used.

While performing this process, I am on the hunt for (problem?) areas/surfaces/edges that could benefit from a little TLC (usually some polishing).
 
I shoot until I feel comfortable. Sometimes, it's a couple of hundred (never that many in a revolver) before it gets put onto the list of potential carry pieces. Sometimes, it's not.

On a couple of occasions, I've gone out with a gun I had not yet fired. :eek: In one case, it was a Bulgarian Makarov; in another, it was a revolver. Each time, it was just a matter of "I just got this gun, I like it, and I want to carry it today."
 
short answer no, but I do check spring weights on my slides every now and again, and I have found a 1911 spring by most manufacturers are at 16lbs for about 500 rounds, and to 13 lbs by 3000 rounds. Plus P cuts that to 400/1500. They don't seem to go below 13 lbs, regardless of how much you shoot them.Crappy springs seem to drop to below 10, and you see the live round double feed as a result. SO the people saying quality guns don't eat parts (springs) are wrong. Still, 13lbs gets the job done.
 
If it doesn't work right out of the box it I will not carry it. You should not have to "shoot it in" to make it reliable, you should shoot it so you are proficient with it.
 
;)No. Why would you want to unnecessarily make your gun eat 500 rounds?

Combat practice, targets are one thing.

It's "broke in" when in comes from the factory.

Every round you fire takes life off the gun.

Absolutely no need for a break in.
 
I've had 5 guns that I can think of that had to go back for repairs (a CZ, 2 Springfields and 2 Rugers). For that reason, I'll put 200-300 rounds of range ammo through it to make sure it's functioning. I don't want to burn through SD ammo, which is more expensive, just to find out there's an issue with the gun. Assuming it functions with the range ammo I'll then run 200 rounds of the SD ammo I'm going to use.
 
Big7 said:
;)No. Why would you want to unnecessarily make your gun eat 500 rounds?

Combat practice, targets are one thing.

It's "broke in" when in comes from the factory.

Every round you fire takes life off the gun.

Absolutely no need for a break in.
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, if you don't shoot it, you cannot possibly discover (1) that all your magazines function reliably; (2) if the handgun has any flaws or functioning issues; (3) what loads are the most accurate; (4) what loads, particularly JHPs, might not feed reliably; (4) if your sights are regulated for the distances at which you typically shoot ... There are many more reasons, but hey, most experienced hand-gunners already know them all ...

I'd submit most folks would say at least a couple hundred rounds should go through a handgun prior to trusting one's life to it ... And some of us have even higher thresholds.

As for guns being "broke in" right out of the box ... well, as the immortal Patrick Swayze kept stating in the cheesy, but nevertheless, classic movie Road House, "Opinions vary." At any rate, 500 rounds should be a drop in the bucket as far as the lifespan of a modern quality handgun goes.
 
I don't even get close to 500 rounds before carrying a gun. If its perfect through 100 rounds I'm happy with it.
 
I think the "500 rounds for break in" comes from a few years back when Kimber used to tell folks that's what was needed to break in their 1911s before they would consider to take the gun back under warranty to repair for FTF/FTEs. I think the idea was that most folks never put 500 rounds thru their gun. With a semi auto, a coupla hundred rounds of the ammo you intend to use should be sufficient to decide whether the gun/mag/ammo is reliable. With a revolver, a coupla cylinders worth.
 
buck460XVR said:
I think the "500 rounds for break in" comes from a few years back when Kimber used to tell folks that's what was needed to break in their 1911s before they would consider to take the gun back under warranty to repair for FTF/FTEs. I think the idea was that most folks never put 500 rounds thru their gun. With a semi auto, a coupla hundred rounds of the ammo you intend to use should be sufficient to decide whether the gun/mag/ammo is reliable. With a revolver, a coupla cylinders worth.
Click to expand...
It comes from way back. I remember reading it in my high school library in a "Guns and Ammo" back in the 70s. Betting it was decades old back then. You know back when guns were steel and wood. Before they even thought of a plastic gun. Truth is guns are better today then they have ever been.

Anyone think you can still find a Guns and Ammo in a high school library?
 
Old Dog said:
Well, for starters, if you don't shoot it, you cannot possibly discover (1) that all your magazines function reliably; (2) if the handgun has any flaws or functioning issues; (3) what loads are the most accurate; (4) what loads, particularly JHPs, might not feed reliably; (4) if your sights are regulated for the distances at which you typically shoot ... There are many more reasons, but hey, most experienced hand-gunners already know them all ...

I'd submit most folks would say at least a couple hundred rounds should go through a handgun prior to trusting one's life to it ... And some of us have even higher thresholds.

As for guns being "broke in" right out of the box ... well, as the immortal Patrick Swayze kept stating in the cheesy, but nevertheless, classic movie Road House, "Opinions vary." At any rate, 500 rounds should be a drop in the bucket as far as the lifespan of a modern quality handgun goes.
Click to expand...

Go back and read my post REAL SLOW.
If it takes 500 rounds to do that, you or the weapon are not up to par.

My point was 500 rounds was/is unnecessary.

Run it to death if you want. Just don't be telling folks it "needs" to be done.

If you don't have POA and what will feed or not, it's YOU or your weapon. Not a "break in".
 
I've never thought too much about it, but I will run a couple boxes through the gun before I will carry it. Both of my Glock 20s needed a couple hundred rounds through them to run at 100%. But I also shoot reloads so that could be on me.
 
Big7 said:
Go back and read my post REAL SLOW.

Gosh, I did -- yep, still says the same stuff.

If it takes 500 rounds to do that, you or the weapon are not up to par.

I didn't say it would take all 500 rounds.

My point was 500 rounds was/is unnecessary.

Oh, and here I thought your point was that many rounds significantly impacted the lifespan of a gun ... and that guns come already "broke in."

Run it to death if you want. Just don't be telling folks it "needs" to be done.

If you read my post REAL SLOW (love the all-caps), you'll detect that nowhere did I say that it "needs" to be done.

If you don't have POA and what will feed or not, it's YOU or your weapon. Not a "break in".

Yeah, but you gotta shoot it some to find out which.
Click to expand...

My comments in red.
 
Tirod said:
I was reading thoughts in a thread elsewhere on the "life and death" reliability of a particular gun and one comment kept coming up - the owners suffered stoppages that were well under the the 500 rounds recommended by professionals for a carry gun.

Of course that made the gun complete junk and they hated on it from then on. No mention of WHAT ammo they were using, either.

How many of you have fired 500 rounds thru your carry gun? Did that process iron out which ammo was more reliable for you?

Over the last 15 years on the net, I haven't read of any Brand that doesn't have a few guns with FTF or FTE issues when new. Every brand you could think of seems to be capable of it and the more expensive the more likely. Yet owners of the high priced guns shrug it off and wait for the brown trunk to return it. And others continue to (perhaps rightly) think they can jam in any round possible and should get 100% success every shot.

Is that your experience?
Click to expand...

No, If I was anxious about reliability I would simply pick small aloyed-framed recolver.
 
I'm not enough of an engineer/manufacturing guru to know if a break-in period is really necessary on my own. For that, I rely on folks more knowledgeable than me. That said, I've had 3 carry guns in my life. I took each one to the range to make sure it worked, anywhere from 50 rounds (for a small, lightweight revolver) to a couple of hundred rounds (for a large, fun-to-shoot semiautomatic). If some break-in happened during those outings, or my irregularly-scheduled range days, great. That said, now that I have 3 carry guns with which I am happy, I don't see any need to start the process over by buying new ones.
 
I generally run 2-300 of ball and a box or two of what I plan to carry through a potential carry gun. It's for a combination of function and me getting familiar with the gun.

From my experience, guns that have serious issues will rear those issues far sooner than ~200rds. If a gun has a hang up or two in 2-300rds it doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't carry it.

Guns that I have bought as carry guns and got rid of had issues from the get go and they were consistent issues every mag or every other mag.
 
JohnBiltz said:
It comes from way back. I remember reading it in my high school library in a "Guns and Ammo" back in the 70s. Betting it was decades old back then? Anyone think you can still find a Guns and Ammo in a high school library?
Click to expand...

Kimber wasn't even around until 1979. A good friend bought a Kimber just a few years back with FTF issues and Kimber told him they wouldn't look at it under warranty until he had broke it in with 500 rounds or more. Back in the 70's CWC carry was extremely rare for civilians and I don't ever remember reading an article about such in any gun rag until well into the 90s. Most High School libraries don't have any magazines anymore, nor do they have newspapers on the racks. Everything like that is left up to the kids to read on their chrome-books or phones.

Part of the argument here is the difference between what constitutes "break-in" and what constitutes "reliable".
 
Regarding break-in:

I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that a manufacturer would have a choice regarding the design parameters of each spring... either set it up so it's the optimum rate/length right out of the box, or use springs that will become optimal during a break-in period. In the first case you'd get immediate peak performance, but your component life may be shortened. In the second, you'd probably see longer service life, but it may not run 100% until you've put some rounds through it. So I don't think it's fair to compare one handgun to another and state that because one doesn't require a break-in, all others should be the same. It isn't necessarily a fault in quality.

If anyone has practical experience in this matter, I'd appreciate it. I'm just conjecturing here.
 
The way it was back in the day, at least as I remember it, in the early 70s, was you put 200 rounds through the gun. If there were problems you did not count them against the gun for the first 200 rounds. They were break in rounds. If there was not malfunctions that was great but not the point. After the 200 rounds, you started reliability testing. Another 200 rounds of your carry ammo would be shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Defensive Ammo Break In
Replies
5
Views
607
SJG26
S
H
  • Locked
Your #2 requirement of a carry gun?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
golden
G
soonerboomer
  • Locked
If you HAD both, which would you carry? 642 or PF-9?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
LightningJoe
L
DMK
  • Locked
Researching carry ammo
Replies
6
Views
460
shadowalker
S
B
  • Locked
"You need to break it in with 500 rounds of ammo"
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
5K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
Back
Top