"You need to break it in with 500 rounds of ammo"

Who else would sell a product that is not ready for use?

The SA 1911-A1 began having issues around the 300 round mark. I would get FTE, mangled cases and brass to the forehead. The rest of my small sampling has been GTG. By 500 rounds the actions are feeling pretty smooth, by 1000+ is a pretty sweet spot.

Of all the pistols I have ever owned, the only one that failed to give me reliable operation was a Kel-Tec P11. I ran like 200 rounds and that thing would jam up all the time.

I know a lot of people don't do it, but when I buy a new firearm, I give it a thorough cleaning and lubing first. There is sometimes packing grease that can hinder reliable operation. I also spray the firearm down with non-chlorinated brake cleaner after using solvent and brushes. This ensures that all the solvent is removed. Non-chlorinated brake cleaner does not effect polymer frames and is good at blasting out crud. After this I give it a good lube and it is ready to go.

This procedure has served me well in the past.

From what I have read, the only guns that require a lengthy break in period are those custom 1911s like Wilson Combat, Les Baer, Ed Brown. I believe WC says to not even clean the gun until 500 rounds.

Kahr and Kimber? Yes.

Glock? No.

Just look at the metal finish on the barrel and sliding parts. Smooth machined parts don't need a breakin. Rough jagged machined surface parts DO.

I usually break mine in at the 500 round count.They should also be good for CCW if there were no malfunctions.

Old Dog said:

Is this thread gonna run NINE pages like the last time this exact topic came up?

Click to expand...

To be fair that one was about carry guns..

I own several where the manual states to shoot 300-500rds before taking them apart.. never had a single issue.
Course 500rds is a day or two, not a lifetime of shooting...

BSA1 said:

Sadly this is often the case with many gun owners including those that post on this forum.

Man made things malfunction all the time. NASA lost not one but two multi-billion Space Shuttles.

My response to the O.P. is why don't you want to practice shooting several hundred rounds through a new gun?

Click to expand...

Poor analogy. Both those losses were due to poor program management, not poor workmanship, poor design, material failure or "acts of God". They could have been avoided, is it the first case, they stayed within the established design constraints, in the second if they stuck to the generally accepted safety protocols of the aviation industry in general.

BSA1 writes:

NASA lost not one but two multi-billion Space Shuttles.

Click to expand...

Neither of which had been test-flown 500 times before being manned. In fact, the entire shuttle fleet (five ships) didn't reach 150 flights, let alone 500. None were test-flown unmanned.

Does anyone have positive confirmation on a SPECIFIC manufacturer which suggests a 500 round break-in period before assuring proper function?

I personally do not believe in "breaking one in." If it doesn't work right out of the box, I'm either sending it back or fixing it so it DOES work right away, no 500 round count arbitrary threshold required. I also personally subscribe to the philosophy - if something has to break-in for a non-functioning pistol to suddenly function, then by extension, the same item might "break out" after 500 rounds and a pistol which functions well might spit the bit after the same wear occurs. Nobody would accept the latter, so we shouldn't be foolish enough to accept the former.

I've hear dumbass gun counter jockey's say such foolish things, but I've never heard of an actual manufacturer which made such an assertion. If there is one, I'd like to hear specifically which.

I've had multiple custom 1911's built - I've not had any which didn't function flawlessly out of the gate with properly dimensioned and powered ammo for its design. I consider that to be a perk of buying from such skilled builders.

Varminterror said:

I've hear dumbass gun counter jockey's say such foolish things, but I've never heard of an actual manufacturer which made such an assertion. If there is one, I'd like to hear specifically which.

Click to expand...

Like this??? My Baer also had similar verbiage.

... trying to remember which tub has his CQB books - DF is that noise...? Really surprised me Wilson admits their stuff is supposed to jam...

hmmph. I've always use the word "mesh" rather than "seat." Touche. Perhaps that is more correct.

From the gun box brand new: clean-shoot-repeat, clean-shoot-repeat, clean-shoot-repeat.
I`ll run a box of 50rds thru a brand new handgun, if it runs 50rds without an issue, it goes in my carry holster after its been thoroughly cleaned.
That method has never failed me in 50yrs. Personally, 500rds to break in is BS.

Varminterror said:

Really surprised me Wilson admits their stuff is supposed to jam...

Click to expand...

Seems to me they are just saying dont take it apart till after so many rounds. Not that it going to be a jamomatic.

tarosean said:

Seems to me they are just saying dont take it apart till after so many rounds. Not that it going to be a jamomatic.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking about that distinction as well - I consider "seating" or "mating" of the rails to be a VERY different thing than what you hear gunshop commandos talking about in terms of breaking things in or working in springs for proper feeding.

I remember when the LCP's came out and a lot of them weren't feeding well with JHP's, so many guys would say "they're so small and the springs are stiff, you have to shoot a few hundred rounds to work in the springs..." Uh - no. Maybe you get lucky and a problem mysteriously solves itself, or maybe a pistol comes from the homeland a bit too dry inside and it needs a little time to get oil dispersed internally, but I really don't subscribe to the philosophy of allowing pardon to a pistol which doesn't function out of the box.

But I absolutely do expect a hardballer to run just a little "slicker" after a few hundred rounds - but it has to run right in those few hundred rounds, just a touch better after.

The only guns that I've encountered that with are Kimber 1911's. Three of the four that I've owned did nothing but choke on 230 grain ball ammo for the first 500 rounds regardless of what magazines or what ammo I was using. Sent them back for repair each time, problem was solved and the gun was sold. That said, every handgun that I own has improved in minor ways after several hundred rounds of firing, typically the cycling will become smoother and the trigger will smooth out, but function has never changed. The only gun that I own that I'm still waiting on to loosen up a little bit is my Les Baer TR Special. The thing was tight as could be when I got it and now with about 2100 rounds through it, it's still tighter than the vault at Fort Knox.

In defense of Wilson Combat 1911s, they aren't made for ultimate reliability and shooting in horrible conditions. WC guns are precision made with VERY tight fitting tolerances. This precision assures accuracy. Nobody is going to buy a WC 1911 and actually take it into combat, guns that are made for that are FAR less expensive and readily available.

All in all, if someone buys a WC 1911, there's a 99.99% chance it's going to be a safe queen.

stchman said:

In defense of Wilson Combat 1911s, they aren't made for ultimate reliability and shooting in horrible conditions. WC guns are precision made with VERY tight fitting tolerances. This precision assures accuracy. Nobody is going to buy a WC 1911 and actually take it into combat, guns that are made for that are FAR less expensive and readily available.

All in all, if someone buys a WC 1911, there's a 99.99% chance it's going to be a safe queen.

Click to expand...

I only carried my Wilson CQB Compact for a very brief time before returning to a more pedestrian Springfield TRP and Colt CCO for my 1911 carry purposes before retiring those in favor of my Sigs and now more recently, HK's.

stchman said:

In defense of Wilson Combat 1911s, they aren't made for ultimate reliability and shooting in horrible conditions. WC guns are precision made with VERY tight fitting tolerances. This precision assures accuracy. Nobody is going to buy a WC 1911 and actually take it into combat, guns that are made for that are FAR less expensive and readily available.

All in all, if someone buys a WC 1911, there's a 99.99% chance it's going to be a safe queen.

Click to expand...

There is a 99.99% probability that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Tell me what percentage of soldiers get to choose their weapon of choice?

tarosean said:

There is a 99.99% probability that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Tell me what percentage of soldiers get to choose their weapon of choice?

Click to expand...

Please tell me which armed forces in the world issues their soldiers Wilson Combat 1911s.

I was trying to illustrate that Wilson Combat does indeed say that 500 rounds is recommended for a break in period and the reason being is that they are made to such exacting tolerance. True combat sidearms are usually not made to that exacting of a tolerance so they are ready to go even if brand new.

stchman said:

Please tell me which armed forces in the world issues their soldiers Wilson Combat 1911s.

Click to expand...

With exception of a very very small number of elite forces. No one gets to choose their weapon. They are issued what they are issued.

You are the one who made the following claim.

"Nobody is going to buy a WC 1911 and actually take it into combat"

Click to expand...

Balrog said:

Never in 30 years of shooting though have I had a gun that actually improved with break in.

Click to expand...

I had that experience several times, without the benefit of 30 years of shooting. My Browning 1911-380, Glock 42, and even Walther PPQ all improved with the break-in. However, it took about 200 rounds for the gun to settle, or less.

One thing to note, neither of the 3 was malfunctioning before the break-in.

The Browning's slide would not go into battery completely at any hint of riding, and the trigger was gritty. Both smoothed out over time, I'd say about 150 rounds. Well, trigger is a bit of a problem even 800+ rounds.

The Glock didn't like lightweight bullets. Basically anything 85 grain and below caused it to short-cycle, stovepipe, or misfeed. Not a problem with heavy ball. After some 300 rounds the RSA settled in and now it ejects everything short of Barnes' own ammo, even all-copper bullets.

The PPQ worked perfectly from the first shot. However, the slide unlock felt sticky. I then shot it while almost pouring Hoppes No.9 onto the barrel hood and the inside of the slide, just so it took away the wear products. In 200 rounds or so it broke in and became mostly smooth. It's still not like a well-used Beretta 92, but it's not bad.

So, absolutely, handguns do improve with initial break-in. It's just that if your gun fails to function in general, the break-in process is probably not the answer.

262madmike said:

I usually break mine in at the 500 round count. They should also be good for CCW if there were no malfunctions.

Click to expand...

Well, that's different. The 500-round testing period for carry pistols is a common procedure. It is suggested, for example, by Grant Cunningham in his book "Defensive Pistol Fundamentals". But Cunningham is not recommending it for a break-in -- only for testing. For that reason used guns are subject to the 500-round test too. Also, no cleaning through the string.

I always let the first owner break my guns in for me.....LOL

tarosean said:

There is a 99.99% probability that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Tell me what percentage of soldiers get to choose their weapon of choice?

Click to expand...

.1%