"Break in a new Gun" Can someone explain?

[usp9]

I read many post where a "break in" period is discussed. As a long time shooter and gun owner, I find this phrase perplexing. What exactly is being broken in...what change is occuring in the gun that makes it better? It has always been my opinion that a well made gun should be at it's peak on shot one, and begins to go downhill after that, that it should leave the factory ready to operate.

What change is expected? Do the springs get better, does the mag feed better, do the guide rails guide better? I believe Kahr for one recommends a breakin period for their guns, (I don't own a Kahr), but why? Is it to flesh out problems?

Set me straight...I just don't get it. :banghead:

 

[diyj98]

In my opinion, "break-in" is really only needed in lower quality pistols. I know that comment is going to get a lot of folks worked up. When the parts are made to exact specs, they usually need to be worn in. When I read owner's manuals stating that a gun needs a break-in period, I generally know the quality isn't top notch. I've never had any break-in issues with HK's, Sigs, etc., but I have on several lower price or lower quality firearms.

 

[Old Fuff]

I read many post where a "break in" period is discussed. As a long time shooter and gun owner, I find this phrase perplexing.

I don't find it to be perplexing - just annoying.

Unlike earlier times, some manufacturers don't finish the job, and leave it to the gun's new owner to spend his/her time and money to finish what they should have. It used to be that guns worked, out-of-the-box, and any manufacturer that didn't make them that way might suffer some serious loss of business.

"Breaking in" is a gunmakers version of bata testing. I generally let someone else buy such stuff.

 

[busdriver72]

That's a good question.
I have bought a Llama and 3 Springfield 1911's that shot great out of the box.
(Yes....the Llama shot great out of the box.)
But my S&W1911 had a FTRB problem, and I was told "it just needs to be broke in." A new 1911 should be able to reliably shoot 230gr ball ammo if it is a decent gun. My S&W needed work as it turned out.
A properly made 1911 (even a less expensive one) should shoot basic ball ammo okay without a break in period.

 

[Jim Watson]

The concept is that a "popularly priced" pistol has a lot of moving parts that cannot be as smooth and closely fitted as in days gone by. That it must be shot for a while with low expectations so as to let the working parts wear off the rough spots into a proper fit.

This is particularly common in the various copies of the 1911 which have, as Jan Stevenson said 40 years ago, "a maze of little fink parts." Cost cutting measures have eliminated the artisan workmanship that used to go into them and we are left with break in periods to let parts assembled right off the machining centers and moulds to grind each other to a fit themselves.

There is the subtype of the high dollar pistol that is machined to dimensions that make it as tight as can possibly be assembled and operated. Presumably so that as the bits "break in" they will wear to a close fit instead of a loose one. So for those you have to add the cost of 500+ rounds of ammunition to the already high price of the pistol, right there in the instructions.

Then you come to the point where more "break-in" is specified upon complaint of a malfunction. Often one that is not going to be rectified by wear of incorrectly made parts or by a brass cartridge rubbing on ordnance steel. This is a translation of "go away and leave me alone" voiced by some makers and dealers.

I find it interesting that as manufacturing precision improves, we are told to do more "break-in" on our guns and less on our cars.

 

[Chuck R.]

Jan Stevenson said 40 years ago, "a maze of little fink parts."

Hey, I've got that book! Didn't he also say "it cannot last?".

I agree with Jim, there’s “Break-in”, and then there’s “broke-in” which means that something isn’t quite right, but we’re hoping it gets better enough to get by.

For instance, I own four guns which came with a recommended break-in period. Two Les Baer 1911’s, a Benelli M1S90, and a Benelli SBE. Both of my pistols and the Benelli’s were functional as they came out of the box. They got better (smoother) and they continue to get better as they are shot.

A lot of folks will say that guns should be delivered “broken-in”, but how many are willing to pay the extra for it? Unfortunately, folks want decently priced guns, and in some cases decent priced = cheap. Therefore companies increased use of MIM parts, and final QC and break-in done by the consumer. Handfitting, and testing costs money and those costs will get passed on.

For instance, I have a little over $1900 tied up in one of my Baer’s. IF I could have bought the same pistol for $2100, but “pre-shot” or “pre-broken-in”, I’d probably opt for the $1900 “deal”, since I planned on shooting the thing anyway.

I don’t mind a “break-in” period as long as I know about it up front, I buy guns I intend to shoot, and for the most part shoot a lot. I don’t consider any new firearm ready for SD or HD till it’s got a boat load of rounds through it. Since I reload and shoot quite a bit, for me at least it’s no big deal. IMHO anybody that relies on a gun for SD that hasn’t been wrung out is assuming a lot of risk.

Chuck

 

[Coyote3855]

Perhaps another angle on "break in:" I will put 200-300 rounds of the ammo I intend to use in the gun through it before I carry that gun with that ammo. Yeah, I agree, whether it's a $2500 Wilson, a $600 Kahr, or a $200 KelTec, it ought to run right out of the box. Would I just top up any of the above with the SD cartridge de jour and go out to play with the bad boys? I don't think so. Well, maybe the $2500 Wilson, but I've never owned/can't afford anything close to that. So I'll live with MIM parts, plastic frames with metal inserts, etc. etc. because those good old guns from back in the day of meticulously hand fitted parts would be priced out of the market today. And those good old guns had to function with FMJ or RNL in a standard weight and configuration, not two dozen different bullet designs. Yeah, it sucks, but it's an economic fact of life. I can live with break in better than I can afford $2500.

Coyote3855

 

[Old Fuff]

It's sort of sad when you have to put X-number of rounds through a gun simply to confirm that it's reliable.

But there is also a difference between doing this because you choose to, and doing it because the manufacturer says it's necessary. In times long past handgun manufacturers that made products that were represented to be weapons - on which a user might stake their life or the lives of others - felt that they had a responsibility to make sure that product was as reliable as possible. Owners in turn could be reasonably sure this would be the case.

Back in (I think) 2004 our own 1911Tuner took a basic Springfield Armory .45. made some minor but important adjustments that should have been done at the factory - including an extractor switch, and ran that pistol through X-number thousands of rounds without a bobble. As part of a torture test he'd occasionally throw in some dirt/clay and wash it out in a pail of water. Through all of this it continued to run, and I belive it still is.

Making a pistol that's reliable doesn't necessarily require big bucks. It does require a maker that cares.

 

[Hawk]

Manufacturer suggested break-in rounds in a handgun is nothing more nor less than a means of deflecting responsibility for function onto the purchaser.

As a myth, it aspires to approach the exalted status of incorrect limp-wrist diagnosis. I don't personally believe it has a chance of overtaking the mother of all responsibility-deflecting strategies, but it's been known to give it the old college try in at least one of my purchases.

Personally deciding to burn "x" number of rounds in a service gun is a very good idea.

 

[Jim Watson]

One of the racegun makers has a high end model - I think the STI GrandMaster - that is shot in at the factory. All "break-in" and debugging done for you, gun ready to take to a match. Of course it is $600 more than the next model down which differs in only a few cosmetic details and no "break-in".

 

[armoredman]

Ah, Jim, I just completed the factory "break-in" period for my new van, 600 miles.
I always shoot no less than 200 rounds to wear in any brand new firearm, and have rarely had any actual issues.

 

[gudel]

I never had the need to "break in" my HK. The terms "break in" or "jam" is not in the HK dictionary.
I've seen lots of post on how people get problems in the first 1000 rounds. I don't think this is a break in, you just have poor quality gun.

 

[diyj98]

A number of years ago when the Kel Tec 9mm first hit the market I ordered two of the stainless models. Yes they did make some stainless models in the first series of guns. I had numerous failures to feed and several light strikes. The company's response to my complaints was "they just need broken in". It's sad when companies use "not reliable until fully broken in" to cover sloppy workmanship.

 

[possum]

the only true diffence i can see after a "break in" like on my xd service model ,a dn i am sure that it will be the same with the sc, is that the trigger got nicer over time, and slide locks back with little effort now compared to before. my brake in process is normally just making sure that everything functions properly, and seeing what ammo does best in a particular weapon, plinking ammo, as well as hd/sd jhp's. so i guess i should call waht i do a "function check" but that is something intirly different, so i will stick with break in.

 

[Hawk]

To clarify: the "break-in" philosophy I object to is where the firearm is running at around 65% and they insist that 500 rounds be put through it to see "if it clears up". After 500 rounds, the 65% is 68% but you're out the cost of 500 rounds of .40S&W and that portion of your life devoted to chasing the wild goose.

I could live with a tight gun burping once or twice when new.

 

[Chuck R.]

All "break-in" and debugging done for you, gun ready to take to a match. Of course it is $600 more than the next model down which differs in only a few cosmetic details and no "break-in".

I see room for a new cottage industry!

Send me your new guns and I'll "break them in" for ya for $595!

Act now and I'll have it back to you in time for X-Mass for the special low introductory price of $495!

Chuck

 

[Mad Magyar]

"just completed the factory "break-in" period for my new van, 600 miles"
The break-in period is simply the greatest "bamboozle" ever perpetrated on the shooting public...They even convinced most of the pistoleros to equate it to the internal-combustion engine...I echo Old Fuff's comment #1......

 

[usp9]

diyj98 said

"A number of years ago when the Kel Tec 9mm first hit the market I ordered two of the stainless models. Yes they did make some stainless models in the first series of guns. I had numerous failures to feed and several light strikes. The company's response to my complaints was "they just need broken in". It's sad when companies use "not reliable until fully broken in" to cover sloppy workmanship."

I agree;

What caused me to start this thread was a bunch of other threads on this and other sites, in which people discussed "Break In". Over the years I've seen countless references to this, as have most of you, but never have I seen a concise reason. I personally believe it is myth. All parts should be as perfect as they'll ever get on the day they're installed. If not, then the part is defective or quality control missed something.

Running rounds to check functionality, or which particular bullet you prefer is different. That is the "Get Aquainted" period. Manufacturers that preach a break in period are hoping problems and/or customers just go away IMHO. The percentage is with them...some will just fade away.

 

[Smurfslayer]

I am of the opinion that for the class leading manufacturers, among their service, special, limited & even most competition guns there is no real break in as such. An example being Beretta, who machine cycle the 90 series guns post assembly with a big cycler... It's really just a big hand that comes down from the ceiling and cycles dozens of gun slides at once...

Ok, I made that last part up (about the hand) but not about the cycling. They asserted on the tour that the fit is so tight before this that they cannot by cycled by hand.

While I don't deny there are guns out there that may mention a break in, the major manufacturers don't mention it in their manuals. I'll bet that's a clue.

I never had the need to "break in" my HK. The terms "break in" or "jam" is not in the HK dictionary.

I am also of the opionion that if an owner is able to say this, they're not shooting enough. I've malf'd every gun I have. Every single one. Only one gun in my inventory has not had a non-ammo related malf, my original, 1990 Beretta 92FS. In fact, the original magazine spring FINALLY failed to lock back the slide back in October '06. That isn't bad IMO and they've never been cleaned(the magazines). The only failures this pistol had were 2 of my 1st batch of reloads, incorrectly sized, and from a ram-line magazine.

Anyway, the term "broken firing pin" is in the HK dictionary

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

In my humble experience with handguns, 1911's are the only guns that need to be "broken in." Everything else seems to run perfectly OOTB

 

[fineredmist]

I bought a 1 month old slightly used Kahr P9 about 3 years back and the manual called for a 200 rd +/- break in and I have since put several thousand rounds through and I have not noticed any difference. The gun work perfectly OOTB and continues to do so.
The fit and finish on some guns is inconsistent in some makes and models and I guess it depends on who did the QC on the finished product. A neighbor of mine worked for Colt many years ago was did the assembly on the Colt Python. He worked there for many years assembling revolvers and when his skill level was up to par he was assigned to the Python line. Each gun was signed by the assembler and if it came back he corrected the problem and had to explain his mistake to his boss. Too many mistakes and your were back on the other line. Those that worked on the Pythons took a great deal of pride in their work.

 

[rbert0005]

Since noone has touched upon it, I will put my .02 into the fray.

I believe the Break In is just the simple act of wearing the parts in. All machined parts have sharp or rough edges on them. That's one of the reasons you pay some big bucks for the semi custom guns. They have people that sit there de burring the moving parts.

I have been known to totally strip down a new gun and do this. A bit of stoning and polishing does wonders. Saves a bunch of money for ammo too. Of course the gun will do this on it's own, and that is called breaking in.

Bob

 

[possum]

A number of years ago when the Kel Tec 9mm first hit the market I ordered two of the stainless models. Yes they did make some stainless models in the first series of guns. I had numerous failures to feed and several light strikes. The company's response to my complaints was "they just need broken in". It's sad when companies use "not reliable until fully broken in" to cover sloppy workmanship.

maybe but kahr pistols are the same way, the book says 200rds i think, i don't think it is because of " sloppy worksmanship" though. i think the kahr's are some fine firearms with great craftmanship.

 

[-terry]

In addition to breaking in the trigger pull and other moving parts, what about breaking in (i.e. polishing) the barrel. You know, the one shot/clean, one shot/clean thing.
-terry

 

[alamo]

I believe the Break In is just the simple act of wearing the parts in. All machined parts have sharp or rough edges on them. That's one of the reasons you pay some big bucks for the semi custom guns. They have people that sit there de burring the moving parts.

I have been known to totally strip down a new gun and do this. A bit of stoning and polishing does wonders. Saves a bunch of money for ammo too. Of course the gun will do this on it's own, and that is called breaking in.

I agree with this and I've done it before.

I doubt anyone would buy a gun for protection and not fire a 100+ rounds to test it out for reliability and familiarize yourself with it. If it works fine, then it didn't need a break-in. If you have a few problems and then it starts working reliably, then it needed a break-in.

My Glock 19 had a couple of issues in the first 50 rounds but has performed flawless since. It needed a break-in. Could you then say Glocks need a break-in? Most probably don't but you don't know until you try it.