Do you believe in "gun break in?"

Not so much "breaking in", but learning whether or not it is trustworthy...

Do you believe in "gun break in?"

Click to expand...

Like breaking into a bucket of vanilla ice cream in the grocery store parking lot.

I've seen it occasionally on highly accurate pistols. Everything is very tight from the factory, 50-100 rounds usually breaks them in quite well. I have really only seen this on 1911 pattern pistols though.

Not so much "breaking in", but learning whether or not it is trustworthy...

Click to expand...

+1

C

our organization received about 75 Sig 226's a couple of years ago, and have found that their reliability improved greatly after the first 200 rounds. Out of the box we were having consistent problems, now, only when there is sand involved.

i have had two pistols that needed a break in. a browning bdm. it had a few failures to feed with the first magazine,one with the second, then functioned fine. the other was an interarms ppk. multiple failures to feed that got less common over a couple of hundred rounds then no problems. not sure if the 200 rounds broke in the gun or my hand on that one.

Kimber suggests putting 500 rds through your 1911 before making it your primary carry gun. Kimber manufactures their guns under extremely tight tolerances. out of the box my pro carry 2 just felt a bit "stiff"- mostly the action of the slide. you can manually rack the slide 500 times or so, but the break in rounds also semi polish the feed ramp. you can also just take 800grit paper to the ramp urself. but like the others have said, you can gain some confidence in ur gun and know its not going to fail when u most need it. cheers.

My CZ P01 had a few ftf's in the first couple hundred rounds. It could have been just an ammo issue, but it's been so solid since then I feel like I could feed that thing rocks and it'd still figure out how to fire 'em.

Do you believe in "gun break in?"

Click to expand...

Most of my guns have been reliable out of the box but a few did need to be shot a bit before they were totally reliable.

Probably the most recent was a couple years ago.
I have five Kimbers. All but the Ultra Eclipse II were 100% when new. My Eclipse and two friend's Eclipse weren't totally reliable for the first couple hundred rounds.

Kimber suggests putting 500 rds through your 1911 before making it your primary carry gun.

Click to expand...

Kahr used to 'require' 200 rounds before it would consider their K9 pistol reliable. The may still have that in their manual.

Personally I require 1000 rounds, and 200 rounds of the carry load without a single ftf in a pistol. (ftf = failure to fire of any type) All that shooting was NOT required at one sitting.

I used to require 500 of the carry load. The price of ammo has dissuaded me RE: the 500 of the carry ammo. Some of the gun "pro's" I used to work and hang out with required 1500, 2000, and 2500 rounds with out a single ftf before a weapon was considered reliable enough for service.

One ftf, and the count begins all over again.

This is just my way. Each of us must decide this issue for ourselves. Just make sure you do shoot it enough, before you begin to rely on any weapon you and your loved ones lives may have to be trusted with.

Go figure.

Fred

Every thing that has parts that are machined to fit toegther will benefit form a break in period. Rather or not you notice it is another matter.

Example if you rebuild a motor, put it in a car then run drive it like normal, bad things will happen. If you break it in with the proper lubes and procedures. Every thing is golden.

I didn't until I bought a Kahr PM9.

I'd rip skin off of my thumb and forefinger locking the slide back... everything was tight as a somethinerather. I read the manual, saw that they recommended 200 rounds for "break in" and got to shooting those 200 as fast as I could without burning myself on the metal parts.

Literally 200 rounds later, the first thing I noticed was how it SOUNDED looser when I'd hit the slide catch and load a round. "Loose" usually means "bad" when it comes to anything mechanical, but the gun just seems alot "healthier" now. The recoil spring is a lot more pleasant and the action is a heck of a lot smoother.

As far as testing a gun for reliability & "carry worth-ness"... If I had a lot more money, I'd be a lot more meticulous about how well a gun runs before I carry it, but I don't have the resources.

I now have ~600 rounds through it and the only failure was a failure to feed on about round 20, i.e. during the "break in", so I'm pretty comfortable carrying it now. The fact that I currently don't have another option makes it an easy decision.

What about all of the new 1911's, Garands, Carbines, M14's and M16's that marched off to war either new or shot very little? I like stuff that works. If I have to shoot a half of a case before I can trust it I will buy something else.

B.D. Turner has a good point. Uncle Sam never used a small arm that needed to be shot in before it was considered reliable, and the same is true of other military forces around the world.

This "breaking in" bull started with, and has been largely centered on 1911 style pistols made during the last 2 or 3 decades. That's when they were tightened up and made into big-boy toys instead of serious personal defense weapons. As a consequence some worked, and some didn't.

As for shooting so many rounds to test reliability. I never did, because if reliability was questionable I didn't buy the gun in the first place. These days many manufacturers don't even bother to test fire a full magazine through each of their products. Quality control and floor inspection has become a lost practice - replaced by computer models and random picks.

So in the unlikely event that I was to buy and carry what comes out of factories today, and in particular if it was a 1911 clone, I would indeed give it a workout before I used it for anything serious.

well, in semi-auto pistols i do. for the reliablilty end of it at least. i think every semi-auto pistol should have a minimum of 200 rounds through it prior to carrying for defense. every semi-auto i have owned had at least 1 "glitch" in the first 100 rounds or so. now, if i could afford a Kimber, or Wilson 1911, i would expect those to work properly right out of the box. but, i wouldnt feel real good about handing over a $1500-$2000 gun to the cops in the event i did have to use it.

And the weapons used in WWII were some of the loosest weapons you ever handled...Colt's.45 ACP being one. Most of the contract M1's I've had the pleasure of handling were pretty loose too.

The modern civilian handguns, semi-autos and revolvers, are manufactured to some pretty tight tolerances...My Kimber UCC II had a few failures to feed and one slide lock back in the first 200 rounds. After that I have put 500 rounds through it without a failure of any kind. It was rather stiff when I took it from the box. Now it is smooth as silk.

+1 to TAB

What about all of the new 1911's, Garands, Carbines, M14's and M16's that marched off to war either new or shot very little? I like stuff that works. If I have to shoot a half of a case before I can trust it I will buy something else.

Click to expand...

those guns were made to opperate under combat conditions. dropped in mud, sand, dirt, opperate without being cleaned for hundreds and hundreds of rounds in the worse possible conditions. rain, snow, sleet, swamps, etc. they really were not as concerned as much with accuracy, as functionability. an accurate gun, that does not work when dirty, is a club. and when the enemy is coming at you, with his semi-auto, or full auto, a club is not very effective. so in a war situation, this is very acceptable, but on the civillian target range, not so much.

Depends on your definition of reliable

If you take say, a new semi-auto pistol, and right out of the box it fires several times without a malfunction. You take it to the local range and shoot a box of ammo without a failure. Does that mean it's reliable? That depends.

Now, take your new semi-auto to an IPSC match, shooting bursts of rapid fire, up to 30 or more rounds in just a few seconds. Get that gun hot hot hot. Be the last one to shoot on a stage and the first one to shoot on the next stage. Shoot 30 more rounds as fast as you can. It's 95 degrees outside. Shoot all six stages without a malfunction. Do this at three or four matches without a malfunction, 200 rounds per match. NOW your pistol is reliable right out of the box.

It's not uncommon that a new gun will experience a few malfunctions during those first 1000 rounds or so that you never see again. Even if there are no malfunctions, the slide will work faster or at least more smoothly as the gun breaks in, allowing one to improve their split times.

So, there's breaking in and there's breaking in...depends on how hard you're using the gun.

TAB,

I was thinking the same thing: tolerances, engines, and such.

Let's look at an extreme example: Les Baer 1911s. They are, IMHO, absurdly tight. However, I'm not going to accuse the man of making anything less than fine handguns.

I would say that in general, match-grade, high-precision firearms might benefit from a break-in period during which some of the contact surfaces wear in.


B.

orionengnr said:

Not so much "breaking in", but learning whether or not it is trustworthy...

Click to expand...

Agreed, it is more for that than a "break-in" per se.

In the first ~200 rounds I can live with sporadic stoppages, but it had better straighten up and fly right after that.

I recently purchased a Springfield loaded 1911 that was ridiculously tight out of the box. 1000 rounds later it feels and shoots, much better.

Wonder who brakes in all the new Military weapons befor issue. I mean be nice if my new rifle was tested before I went in to a fire fight.
Was my New. Beretta fired 500 rounds before I was issued for carry
Was those about worn out 1911 I carried Were they tested after a rebuild. 500 or so rounds befor sent back to duty.
I was issued a M-16 in Nam that didn't have a fireingpin. Lucky I found that when cleaning before going out .
A good pistol should work out of box. Thats why I have Colts not the POS para I bought or the Kimber I traded . Neither worked out of box. My Dan Wesson is tighter than my Kimber and has been flawless since day one. Didn't need any break in.

When you send back to factory do they test fire 500 rounds. Lucky to get a mag fired But we fixed it . How do they know .
They should work and relieable out of the box. How many people buy today load and carry with out shooting it. A great many. We are a small% of the American gun owners. Most never go or may be 1 time to a range. But they have a pistol and a ccw .
Should company be sued if pistol jams in a SD sitution. Because you didn't shoot 500 rounds before carry. Maybe. If my new car brakes fail and I have a wreck off show room I gonna sue why not Kimber Colt S&W whoever. Might make them , make relieable and not the break in excuse.

Do you believe in "gun break in?"

Click to expand...

Not to the extent of shoot a round, clean, shoot a round, clean, shoot around, clean – as one often hears with rifle ‘break in.’

I’ll do an initial clean of a new firearm and use it expecting it to be reliable and function correctly. With regard to handguns, the Colt’s 1911s, CZs and Rugers I own have functioned flawlessly out of the box. As noted there is a ‘break in’ involved with all machines but nothing I’ve perceived with semi autos – pistol or rifle.

I have noticed the action smooth out on my bolt action rifles, however, as the bolt jewels it slides more easily.