1911 break in period

[Y-T71]

Call it (Wilson) "combat" if you want (sounds more like a competition thing to me, not "combat") but I don't see the necessity to be able to shoot the 2nd eyelash on the left hand eye from 50' for $4000 dollars after a 200 rd break in period as a sign of "combat worthy".

Spend your money on whatever you want (it is still America, at least for a little while longer) including a status symbol but my ~$400 RIA will stop a threat just as well as your Wilson Combat, I just won't get the chance to tell everybody I spent $4000 to do it.

As far as Kahr, if the instruction manual tells me I have to shoot 1/3 the price of the gun in ammo in order to see if it's gonna work, that one's not for me.

There are 100 other small 9mm's that will satisfy my needs without that stipulation.

(And before anybody gets "upset" on me I shoot my guns to confirm function anyway, I just don't think you should told you have to before you can trust it)

 

[RA40]

"Break-in" doesn't necessarily mean bad either. All sorts of machinery wears in and performs well as the parts settle in, like internal combustion engines.

 

[JTQ]

Call it (Wilson) "combat" if you want (sounds more like a competition thing to me, not "combat") but I don't see the necessity to be able to shoot the 2nd eyelash on the left hand eye from 50' for $4000 dollars after a 200 rd break in period as a sign of "combat worthy".

There is always a lot of this in these threads.

The point is that these types of guns are made with better parts, by more skilled workers, so that they are just as good at 50,000 rounds as they are at round 1.

Cheaper guns (we're talking 1911's in this example) will have lesser quality parts, assembled by less skilled labor, and this constant slight mis-match of mating surfaces will often wear out a firearm prematurely. While you may get more accuracy out of the custom/semi-custom gun, what you're normally paying for is long term durability and reliability.

 

[halfmoonclip]

...Even my Kahrs were good from the start, except the one that kicked its front sight off; which they cheerfully replaced..

.
A similar event (they fixed mine too) was the beginning of my dissatisfaction with most things Kahr. Really liked the size, sights, and feel of their .380s, but the slide rack (requiring two men and a boy), spare magazines that popped out rounds in your pocket, plus the admonition about a ton of break-in rounds... Still like many qualities of the Kahrs, and truly hope they get their stuff together.
Moon

 

[Y-T71]

There is always a lot of this in these threads.

The point is that these types of guns are made with better parts, by more skilled workers, so that they are just as good at 50,000 rounds as they are at round 1.

Cheaper guns (we're talking 1911's in this example) will have lesser quality parts, assembled by less skilled labor, and this constant slight mis-match of mating surfaces will often wear out a firearm prematurely. While you may get more accuracy out of the custom/semi-custom gun, what you're normally paying for is long term durability and reliability.

Fair enough. Of course, it's up to the purchaser where he/she decides at what point they might make that decision to compromise between $$$$ and $.

At any rate, that's the best rational explanation of the huge discrepancy in cost by two items that do, essentially the same thing.

Thanks!

 

[12Bravo20]

The point is that these types of guns are made with better parts, by more skilled workers, so that they are just as good at 50,000 rounds as they are at round 1.

The GI issue 1911s were made by the lowest bidders and served well from WWI up to Desert Storm and some limited use in Afghanistan too.

Jut my take on things. If you have to run X amount of ammo through any gun to "break it in" then that means one of two things. Either the parts were not truly hand fitted, not properly cleaned up/deburred, or there is something wrong. You can definitely get a slide to have too tight of a fit to the frame.

Yes an expensive 1911 that has been truly hand fitted by someone that knows what they are doing will give you a very accurate pistol. But we have all seen how some more expensive 1911's fail miserably because they are too tight and not properly hand fitted. There should be no excuse on why you need to shoot x amount of rounds before a pistol will run reliably.

Being a retired tool and die maker along with a gun smith, I do know a thing or two about hand fitting precision made parts. And if the parts are made to a high standard of precision and tight tolerances then there should not be any hand fitting required.

 

[tarosean]

A Kahr is not a Wilson Combat® pistol, tough to make the comparison there.

Ya Think?
I was merely questioning 200rds being "extensive".

the 1911 manual is in the spirit of the thread..

 

[md7]

Lots of thoughts, and opinions on this issue.

To simplify (probably overly so) it would seem that looser “GI fit” type guns probably don’t need a break in per se, but it’s a good and smart thing to run rounds as to verify that they’re in good working order.

Tight fit, custom type 1911’s (Baer, Wilson, etc) may benefit from a break in as to allow tightly fit parts to fully settle or “seat” as the Wilson manual indicates.

And lastly…. We should all be shooting our guns more often anyway. That seems to be the consensus here, no?

 

[Y-T71]

Ya Think?
I was merely questioning 200rds being "extensive".

the 1911 manual is in the spirit of the thread..

If you're going to "break in" your Kahr with what defensive ammo you would carry, and why wouldn't you? (what's that? $40-$50/box), then yes, it is excessive.
If you're going to "break in" your Kahr with WWB (I have no idea what that costs since I handload all my blasting/"breaking in" ammo $20-$30?) then, yes, it's still slightly excessive only because you shouldn't have to break anything in.

Because I like to shoot the guns I buy, I'm probably gonna shoot 500+ rounds because I want to, not because, for whatever reason, the manufacturer is telling me to.

 

[Skylerbone]

Tightly fit and reliable are not mutually exclusive. When Alchemy finished tearing apart a second 1911 for me it was nearly devoid of any original parts, with only the frame, slide, GS, and MSH left. Yes springs, guide rod, plunger tube, detents, magazine catch, and FCG were all gutted.

Tight as a drum, never missed a beat, feeds like Kate Smith, and wicked accurate. It’s gone 600 rounds between cleanings and not a single failure ever. Again I trust it for carry and often do with no fear of being too precisely fit.

 

[tarosean]

then, yes, it's still slightly excessive only because you shouldn't have to break anything in

Your vehicle came with a break-in.. I'm guessing it cost slightly more than a gun?

my ~$400 RIA will stop a threat just as well as your Wilson Combat,

As will a 100 dollar High Point. Yet there is a reason all these manufactures exist!

 

[Y-T71]

As will a 100 dollar High Point. Yet there is a reason all these manufactures exist!

To each their own.

If everyone liked vanilla it would be a pretty boring world.

 

[CapnMac]

the fingers breaking off the collet bushing but never experienced it first hand

I have.
Finger broke about halfway back and the loose bit rattled around inside in the recoil spring until it walked back and bound up in the link.
Pulled the slide stop out and "dink" goes the loose bit.

Reassembled, and the bushing still worked, having only lost perhaps 50% of the bearing surface on 25% of the fingers.
The replacement collet went several hundred more rounds before cracking between the fingers on the front ring, retired that bushing.
Got a solid bushing after that, and has run ever since.
YMMV

 

[Y-T71]

I have.
Finger broke about halfway back and the loose bit rattled around inside in the recoil spring until it walked back and bound up in the link.
Pulled the slide stop out and "dink" goes the loose bit.

Reassembled, and the bushing still worked, having only lost perhaps 50% of the bearing surface on 25% of the fingers.
The replacement collet went several hundred more rounds before cracking between the fingers on the front ring, retired that bushing.
Got a solid bushing after that, and has run ever since.
YMMV

Thanks for relaying your story.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Your vehicle came with a break-in.. I'm guessing it cost slightly more than a gun?

My vehicle has significantly more moving parts and support systems than my 1991A1. Not to mention my vehicle is designed to operate continuously for hundreds of miles at a time between refuelings with reciprocating and rotating components operating in four figure cycles per minute.

If my 1991A1 had an alternator, air conditioner, liquid cooling system, oil system, transmission, differential, fuel injection, antilock brakes, axels, electric windows, stereo, bluetooth, cup holders, rubber mats, tow hitch, air bags, and an air freshener hanging off a rear view sight, then I could understand a break-in period.

But it doesn't.

If you want to get right down to it, any pistol, revolver, rifle has a very limited actual operational life span compared to any vehicle essentially designed to operate continuously for hundreds of thousands of miles.

At 850 fps, it takes a .45 ACP bullet 0.00049 seconds to traverse a 5 inch barrel. I think someone mentioned 50,000 rounds earlier when discussing the differences between 1911s. That works out to 24.5 seconds of bullet-sliding-through-barrel time.

Somewhere there's a reference to the cycle time of a 1911 being 0.06 seconds. 50,000 rounds is 3,000 seconds of cycle time, or 50 minutes.

It would certainly take the average person quite a number of actual years to put that many rounds through a 1911. Heck, it would take a professional competition shooter several years to do it. But during that period, a 1911 would spend virtually ALL of it not actually shooting at all.

If this sounds ridiculous because a 1911 is not a vehicle... that's the whole point. You can't compare them.

THAT SAID... anybody who wants to invest in such a pistol, more power to them. Many are certainly very beautiful, and obviously good ones are very accurate. Certainly follow any manufacturer's suggestions on "break-in". You pay for it, might as well follow it.

 

[Y-T71]

My vehicle has significantly more moving parts and support systems than my 1991A1. Not to mention my vehicle is designed to operate continuously for hundreds of miles at a time between refuelings with reciprocating and rotating components operating in four figure cycles per minute.

If my 1991A1 had an alternator, air conditioner, liquid cooling system, oil system, transmission, differential, fuel injection, antilock brakes, axels, electric windows, stereo, bluetooth, cup holders, rubber mats, tow hitch, air bags, and an air freshener hanging off a rear view sight, then I could understand a break-in period.

But it doesn't.

If you want to get right down to it, any pistol, revolver, rifle has a very limited actual operational life span compared to any vehicle essentially designed to operate continuously for hundreds of thousands of miles.

At 850 fps, it takes a .45 ACP bullet 0.00049 seconds to traverse a 5 inch barrel. I think someone mentioned 50,000 rounds earlier when discussing the differences between 1911s. That works out to 24.5 seconds of bullet-sliding-through-barrel time.

Somewhere there's a reference to the cycle time of a 1911 being 0.06 seconds. 50,000 rounds is 3,000 seconds of cycle time, or 50 minutes.

It would certainly take the average person quite a number of actual years to put that many rounds through a 1911. Heck, it would take a professional competition shooter several years to do it. But during that period, a 1911 would spend virtually ALL of it not actually shooting at all.

If this sounds ridiculous because a 1911 is not a vehicle... that's the whole point. You can't compare them.

THAT SAID... anybody who wants to invest in such a pistol, more power to them. Many are certainly very beautiful, and obviously good ones are very accurate. Certainly follow any manufacturer's suggestions on "break-in". You pay for it, might as well follow it.

Right on brother!

You're alright!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I have.
Finger broke about halfway back and the loose bit rattled around inside in the recoil spring until it walked back and bound up in the link.
Pulled the slide stop out and "dink" goes the loose bit.

Reassembled, and the bushing still worked, having only lost perhaps 50% of the bearing surface on 25% of the fingers.
The replacement collet went several hundred more rounds before cracking between the fingers on the front ring, retired that bushing.
Got a solid bushing after that, and has run ever since.
YMMV

I read up of the Series 70 issues a few years ago. The collet bushing idea was nice in theory, but turned out to be an engineering and practical accuracy bust.

The "practical accuracy bust" comment is my opinion for the AVERAGE shooter, that is...serious shooters would see quite an improvement. This opinion of mine is based on the fact that the "average" shooter's accuracy is typically more an issue with the shooter than the gun.

But the engineering bust was really due in large part to not changing their instructions in field stripping the pistols fitted with this collet bushing, which lead to owners inadvertently damaging them to the point where they'd eventually break.

@1911Tuner has an article elsewhere about this very thing.

https://rangehot.com/1911-school-series-70/

 

[Jim Watson]

Combined with routinely yanking the bushing off the barrel.
That is why Barsto discontinued their spring finger Commander bushing.

A tight conventional bushing should not be horsed around with a wrench, either. It can wring the lapped contact surfaces and gall the metal.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The Commander's version of the 1991A1 of a brother of mine has a fluted barrel efficiency fits up tight in the barrel bushing. Very nice!

 

[Old Dog]

I have one Series 70 with the original collet bushing. Although the sights are pitifully tiny (I kept the pistol bone stock), it is a still tack-driver (uh, maybe not off-hand in my hands anymore).

 

[CapnMac]

(uh, maybe not off-hand in my hands anymore).

Depends on the tacks you use

 

[Hookeye]

Never broke my old Colt in.
Ball and ball shaped JHP all I ran.
Zero malfunctions.
Thousands of rounds.
Wilson and CMC mags.

Before that Colt I had a Springfield and it ran flawless, but would shoot 2 groupings.
The hood was a little short. I didn't want to fit a new bbl so away it went (back where I got it).

 

[1911 guy]

A properly made 1911 doesn't require any more "break in" than any other mechanical device. It's made to spec or it isn't, it functions properly or it doesn't. Are there parts that wear and seat with a little bit of movement? Sure, that's true of any machine made of more than two moving parts. But the "break in" myth came about because manufacturers made pistols that included tight tolerances where they were not needed or even detrimental because they were easy to do, the customer thought they were getting something special and marketing campaigns often work. There are only a couple places where close fit matters and only one of those can be checked by the customer by pressing on the barrel hood. Bushing to slide, bushing to barrel, and barrel to slide. If those are right, the barrel will return to the same position relative to the sights every time. Slide to frame is nothing more than marketing. But customers can operate the slide, feel a "tight fit" and think they're getting something.

I'll bet you a dollar that in four pages of replies, I'm not the first to say any of this. But the question still gets asked because manufacturers are still doing it.

 

[roval]

Perhaps forum member @tark can chime in, but Les Baer's have a reputation as being the tightest fit of the semi-custom guns, and almost universally their owners report that while a break in is recommended, it isn't for reliability reasons as the guns usually work perfectly from round one on.

When i was examining my new Premiere 2 at the FFL I embarrasingly had trouble racking the slide. it was super tight and was slick from all the lube. the instructions were to shoot 500 rds of fmj (American Eagle) for break in. it didn't malfunction during that time but instructions were not to complain about any issues till this was done. this made the slide easier to rack but it is still tight and smooth yrs later. another baer a heavyweight monolith with the 1.5" guarantee brand new actually had an easier to rack slide at the get go. that one did have occassional issues with FTE even after break in and was sent back after which the issues were fixed. btw, i don't see any difference in accuracy in both guns as i can't shoot like a ransom rest. save your money don't go for the extra accuracy guarantee.

 

[md7]

When i was examining my new Premiere 2 at the FFL I embarrasingly had trouble racking the slide. it was super tight and was slick from all the lube. the instructions were to shoot 500 rds of fmj (American Eagle) for break in. it didn't malfunction during that time but instructions were not to complain about any issues till this was done. this made the slide easier to rack but it is still tight and smooth yrs later. another baer a heavyweight monolith with the 1.5" guarantee brand new actually had an easier to rack slide at the get go. that one did have occassional issues with FTE even after break in and was sent back after which the issues were fixed. btw, i don't see any difference in accuracy in both guns as i can't shoot like a ransom rest. save your money don't go for the extra accuracy guarantee.

One of these days I’m gonna try a Baer