JohnBiltz
Member
Posted to a public forum where we discuss things, I don't think privacy applies.
Do you break in your carry pistol with 500 rounds?
- Thread starter Tirod
- Start date
- Status
JohnBiltz
Member
2017-1993 = 24 years. 500 rounds / 24 = 20 rounds a year. He probably fired more when he first got it. Forget proficiency, is that even enough to know if a carry gun still works?
BigMacMI
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2016
- Messages
- 127
took my wife's Glock 42 about 35-400 rounds before we were able to be confident in reliability. This was something that I also read about online.
We had mags that were 4 to 5/6 FTE/pipes with multiple factory ammunitions.
Both me and her. We brought it back to the LGS who told her she was just limp wristing it. We will never go back there. The wouldn't even look at it... they said if it is from glock, it is good to go.
Kept shooting it, it has been good to go. since then.
For my 2 S&W MP carry items, It was 2 boxes of standard ammo and 2 boxes of my preferred carry ammunition. Never a failure in my compact, any in my FS have very much been ammo related.
We had mags that were 4 to 5/6 FTE/pipes with multiple factory ammunitions.
Both me and her. We brought it back to the LGS who told her she was just limp wristing it. We will never go back there. The wouldn't even look at it... they said if it is from glock, it is good to go.
Kept shooting it, it has been good to go. since then.
For my 2 S&W MP carry items, It was 2 boxes of standard ammo and 2 boxes of my preferred carry ammunition. Never a failure in my compact, any in my FS have very much been ammo related.
Chuck R.
Member
Yea, but 35,000 rds later it's still nice and tight. My other 1911s (Colts) developed rattles by then whereas the Baer feels like glass on glass.
Chuck
helitack32f1
Member
I kinda knew it would be fun to see the responses to what I wrote. It is a Glock. It has very few parts that are all easily assessed for functionality in a regular tear-down. I honestly find it amusing that so many believe you MUST shoot hourly to not only maintain proficiency but ensure the gun works.
So here is an interesting thought, If you buy a new gun and shoot the crap out of it when you first get it and experience no reliability issues whatsoever, on a gun known for reliability, and then it is carried daily and shot occasionally for the next 24 years, will that gun be more likely to fail in that one in-a-million SD situation than would the same gun, with a hundred rounds a week through it for 24 years? Logic would dictate that in reality, the more a gun is shot, the closer it is to a failure. It may take 50,000 rounds but you are still closer.
For the record, I own a few other Glocks and shoot them regularly but i am sure not nearly enough for those that believe you must be a full blown operator in order to be QUALIFIED to carry a gun for self defense. I get the idea that people with these thoughts would be horrified by a female that is suddenly in need of a firearm for self defense due to a dangerous and threatening person in their life. How dare she go out, with no previous experience and buy a new gun and carry it without shooting it for many years, and firing thousands of rounds to assess it's reliability?
And one last question to those that brought up the proficiency argument: What is the definition of proficiency? Recently, I took my 11 year old daughter out and had her try out my wife's .380. Not only had she never shot this gun but she had only shot a .22 handgun prior to this. She was easily capable of getting all shots, center of mass at a bit over 7 yards. Now, considering that all those in the know claim that the average distance for a SD confrontation is 7 yards, and i have been shooting for 35+ years, isn't it at least conceivable that in such a situation, I will be "proficient" enough to hit center of mass with my carry gun at 7 yards?
Chuck R.
Member
We'd all like to think so, but at the same time I can't tell how many guys I've seen completely miss an IDPA silhouette with nothing more stressful than a timer and 8-10 other guys watching.....
Chuck
BSA1
member
Your sarcasm destroys your credibility and whatever point you are trying to make.
No one has advocated shooting hourly. The point that has been made is frequent practice is needed to maintain shooting skills and proficiency with a gun.
This is very true in my case. I was greatly embarrassed a while back with my how much my shooting skills had degraded when I brought a new handgun. Since then I am now trying to get to the range every couple of weeks (outdoor range and winter makes it challenge). I have noticing that I am bringing my skills back up to previous best.
Your logic ignores that proper maintenance such as replacing the springs according to manufacturers recommendations. keeping the gun properly lubed and oiled and inspecting the gun for parts wear and damage will greatly extend the lifespan of the gun and it's reliability.
Last edited:
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Why would anyone not want to shoot 500 plus rounds?
JohnBiltz
Member
The truth is most people shoot a lot because they like to shoot. I shoot a lot and I'd shoot more if I could afford it. That does not mean not shooting, doesn't lead to perishing skills. Shooting is a perishable skill. Handgun shooting goes down faster than shooting rifles. Plenty of studies to back that up. The military has done several.
No. For a new gun of reputable manufacture, I start with carry ammo right out of the box. I try free-style, strong hand only, weak hand only, limp wrist, etc. to see if I can get it to malfunction. I then decide if it needs any more rounds. For some guns like dual recoil spring Glocks, I usually run some +P ammo through them initially to loosen up the springs.
JohnBiltz
Member
Have you considered it was not a myth when it started? This is a very old thing, at least from the 50s. Probably older than that. Back then they could not do the tolerances they do today. Just did not have the machines.
You can say that again.. often will full sized pistols to boot.
Hangingrock
Member
Talk about the lowest common denominator. I've witnessed similar behavior with individuals speaking to a large assembly of other individuals not known to them. Why would you possibly care what other individuals think and get so stressed out thus miss scoring the 8-inch circle or the whole IDPA silhouette.
MTNSTRYDER
Member
I have SA revolvers in 45 and 454 the blackhawk 45 was my every day carry for over 20 years. 500 rounds a week often 500 rounds a month most of the time box of bullits 50rounds gone.Never thought of breaking them in I just like to shoot and hit what I aim at.
But I received a Coonan Clasic 357 for xmas this year and darn if it doesn’t say in the manual must shoot 600 rounds to break in.Fun! Gotta go Dear not broke in yet.No you can’t try it with the 38 spring its not broke in.
Breaking in a firearm is new to me.Ive always aimed every shot.A gun either works or get rid of it.And Practice a lot
But I received a Coonan Clasic 357 for xmas this year and darn if it doesn’t say in the manual must shoot 600 rounds to break in.Fun! Gotta go Dear not broke in yet.No you can’t try it with the 38 spring its not broke in.
Breaking in a firearm is new to me.Ive always aimed every shot.A gun either works or get rid of it.And Practice a lot
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
Yep. It was (and is) gun gurus... aka firearm manufacturers.
The way I see it, if you trust their engineers to design a quality firearm, you should trust them to know what you need to do to get it and keep it running right. So if they say break it in, break it in, and if they don't... don't.
A break-in requirement is not an indication of lesser quality. Often the reverse is true, especially if you measure quality as a function of accuracy. You build a machine to tight tolerances, where some rubbing is to be expected when up to temp, and during the process of breaking in, the tolerances grow to design parameters while the parts mate to each other perfectly... a matched set. It's in essence the same thing you do to the already-highly-finished surface of an internal combustion engine valve seat via lapping: achieving a match that even CNC machines can't - well - match.
I think there is some confusion between the need to break in a pistol and a need to do some serious dry & live fire practice to give yourself assurances that your CCW/EDC will serve its intended purpose. I don't accept the former, but I always do the latter!
TRX
Member
If the gun doesn't work out of the box, it is broken. Send it back to the manufacturer, or see if the vendor will swap it out.
You wouldn't accept a new car that randomly quit on the middle of the freeway, would you? "Oh, just run 500 gallons of gas through it, that sort of thing usually clears up." That would be ridiculous.
So is a gun that won't reliably function.
They want *you* to drop a couple-three hundred dollars' worth of ammunition through it, and your time, and range fees, and cleaning supplies? Really?
You wouldn't accept a new car that randomly quit on the middle of the freeway, would you? "Oh, just run 500 gallons of gas through it, that sort of thing usually clears up." That would be ridiculous.
So is a gun that won't reliably function.
They want *you* to drop a couple-three hundred dollars' worth of ammunition through it, and your time, and range fees, and cleaning supplies? Really?
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I don't understand the arguments about not shooting a carry gun. "Don't need to break in", "Should work right out of the box", "It's a myth or a conspiracy started buy gun and ammo makers to take your money and time and wear out your gun"
I shoot as often as possible, and that's a lot since may range is 3 steps from my door and about 50 feet from my reloading bench. I know not everyone has that advantage, but why discourage anyone from shooting as often as they can?
I shoot as often as possible, and that's a lot since may range is 3 steps from my door and about 50 feet from my reloading bench. I know not everyone has that advantage, but why discourage anyone from shooting as often as they can?
GBExpat
Member
I added bold to the weak part of your approach.
<chuckle> The first thing that came to my mind when I read your response was the 3.3" .45acp Springfield Armory XDs that I purchased in Aug'13 (after they had been in production for over a year) ... only to discover within a week of taking delivery that "the engineers" had issued a recall on the silly things because they found that their design could go full-auto.
The older I get, the (much) less I trust.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
I added bold to the weak part of your approach.
<chuckle> The first thing that came to my mind when I read your response was the 3.3" .45acp Springfield Armory XDs that I purchased in Aug'13 (after they had been in production for over a year) ... only to discover within a week of taking delivery that "the engineers" had issued a recall on the silly things because they found that their design could go full-auto.
The older I get, the (much) less I trust.
The point is: If you're griping that your gun isn't running right when the manufacturer has told you - in big bold print - that a break-in period is required and optimal performance will not be achieved until that break-in is performed, then any fault is pretty much on you.
The fact you apparently don't trust the engineers to get it right the first time around only underscores the importance of routine maintenance and a 'probationary period' for unproven weapons chosen for defensive purposes.
BSA1
member
New cars easily have a price tag of $40,000 +. Yet they are often need warranty repair and frequently subject to manufacturer recalls. So why is it ridiculous to buy a new car knowing that the vehicle could need repair and/or a recall?
There are several variables with a semi-automatic handgun that can cause it not to function properly. Things such as bad magazine(s), ammunition and shooter error are all common problems that are posted often on THR. Revolvers not so much.
Go price the cost of funeral. Or a hospital stay that involves surgery. Or just a visit to the Emergency Room. I have to pay a $100.00 upfront for a visit to the Emergency Room under my health insurance plan. Then add on the cost of meeting my deductible.
We have discussed why shooting 200 - 300 worth of ammunition is more than just ensuring your gun is reliable. 50 round boxes of Remington 9mm FMJ cost $14.44 a Walmart. So 6 boxes (300 rounds) at $14.44 equals $86.64 plus tax. So using simple math ammunition is a little cheaper than my $100.00 upfront cost to visit the E.R. for medical treatment after coming up on the losing side of a fight because I was too cheap to make sure my firearm works properly.
Of course as you mention there is range fees, cleaning supplies and personal time also involved. Compare that to the pain and suffering recovering from your injuries along with time missed from work and other activities.
Last edited:
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,659
Re: Les Baer.....Yes, they have the rep. So....let me rephrase: If you are buying a gun for SD/carry purposes, it should work right out of the box. If it needs 10 boxes of ammo to be trustworthy, you bought the wrong gun.
Personally...I bought a Gold Cup some years ago. Worked properly right out of the box. That was more than 80,000 rounds ago. I stopped counting then. Has it ever FTF'd? Yes, it has...maybe a half dozen times. Reliable enough for me. All machines will fail sooner or later.
I have a Makarov that has had CASEs of ammo through it. Never failed. I have no way of knowing its prior history.,
Pete
Personally...I bought a Gold Cup some years ago. Worked properly right out of the box. That was more than 80,000 rounds ago. I stopped counting then. Has it ever FTF'd? Yes, it has...maybe a half dozen times. Reliable enough for me. All machines will fail sooner or later.
I have a Makarov that has had CASEs of ammo through it. Never failed. I have no way of knowing its prior history.,
Pete
Last edited:
GBExpat
Member
I really enjoy shooting my firearms. I reload, have a range in my backyard and live on the western edge of our 160+ acre ancestral farm in hill country.
... but ...
I, too, balk at the idea of the MFR requiring such an expensive regimen before their new product can be considered "finished" and be expected to function reliably and/or properly. That, IMO, is unsatisfactory.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
