Do you break in your carry pistol with 500 rounds?

[Fine Figure of a Man]

There seems to be two schools of thought here. Those who love their guns and like to shoot and those who love to shoot and like their guns. I have always been the latter but there is nothing wrong with either, we are all on the same side.

 

[tarosean]

I, too, balk at the idea of the MFR requiring

How many manufacturers explicitly state that in their manuals?

I've got a few hi end guns that do. Course it's as simple as shoot 200-500 rounds through it before you take apart and clean. None ever hiccuped through that arduous process thou...

 

[GBExpat]

How many manufacturers explicitly state that in their manuals?

<shrug> I haven't the slightest idea. I responded after reading your somewhat disingenuous response to TRX.

Actually, it may have been in this Thread that I read about Kimber(?) at some point requiring such a thing prior to being able to send the firearm in for servicing/correction. I recall two Thread participants referred to it.

 

[TomJ]

How many manufacturers explicitly state that in their manuals?

I've got a few hi end guns that do. Course it's as simple as shoot 200-500 rounds through it before you take apart and clean. None ever hiccuped through that arduous process thou...

Dan Wesson does. Their manual states that for the first 300 to 500 rounds you should clean it every 50 rounds and use RN ammo. I spoke to their customer service, and they said it was ok to shoot it to failure and then clean it. I get that some people may not want to do that, in which case it's not the gun for them.

 

[Mayvik]

In a word, no. I might run a couple mags of a brand of HP through an auto and a couple boxes to get used to the trigger and handling, unless it is like a C&R or something. Revolver gets a function check. The odds of me needing to use it, having a failure, a mental block on years of failure drills, and not having another weapon on hand are so low that I don't worry about it.

 

[BSA1]

There seems to be two schools of thought here. Those who love their guns and like to shoot and those who love to shoot and like their guns.

Except that this is not the O.P.'s topic.

The O.P. is asking about test firing (or "break-in") 500 rounds in a new gun that is to be carried for self-defense to determine it's reliability and what ammunition is most reliable in that particular gun

For many of us in makes little, if any, sense to take the time shopping for the handgun they like the best, spend hundreds of dollars for a modern handgun, holster (and extra magazines for some of us) but then not spend the money and take the time shooting it to become very familiar with how the gun operates, where the controls are, where the sights are regulated and what ammunition functions best.

We are fortunate to have so many choices today in self-defense ammunition. However having so many bullet designs makes it all the more important to take the time and spend the money to find one that hits at point of aim while being 100% reliable.

It is not about whether you like to shoot or love to shoot. It is about having a last ditch tool when you are faced with protecting yourself and loved ones from serious bodily injury or death.

 

[MedWheeler]

Drunkenpoacher writes:

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 didn't see any such arguments. Who here is arguing that a carry gun should not be shot?

The debate is about if any of us is carrying a gun, or has carried one, or would carry one, that hasn't had 500 rounds through it.

At least, that's how it started...

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Drunkenpoacher writes:



I didn't see any such arguments. Who here is arguing that a carry gun should not be shot?

The debate is about if any of us is carrying a gun, or has carried one, or would carry one, that hasn't had 500 rounds through it.

At least, that's how it started...

OK, I would not.

 

[GBExpat]

OK, I would not.

IMO, an excellent response to such a (friendly) nudge.

 

[the count]

This thread is now a total waste of time.

 

[zb338]

I would like to know who set the number at 500 and then wrote it in stone.

Zeke

 

[.308 Norma]

I would like to know who set the number at 500 and then wrote it in stone.

Zeke

I was kind of wondering the same thing.

 

[Barry the Bear]

As my Physics professor was so fond of saying - we must define our terms. What exactly does "breaking in" mean? Firing enough rounds to "prove" the function is not "breaking in" the gun. I have a Springfield 1911 that I built in 1990. The only original arts are the slide and frame. It has run perfectly through many years of match use. With any type of ammo. It has fired approximately 80K rounds. It has never failed to feed, fire or eject. I have become very fond of this gun. Do I trust it enough to carry it? Nope. I will never trust a gun that was mass produced by a factory. They build guns to sell. They don't really seem to care if they run 100% as long as they meet their sales quota. Bill Wilson learned back in the 70s that Colt was unable to build him a Gold Cup that would run 100%. It kept failing in matches. So he learned how to build his own guns that would run 100%.

Guess my lowly factory made Smith's and Ruger's won't save my bacon when called upon ... Who has the contact info for Korth? Only they can make me a solid revolver that won't fail.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

This thread is now a total waste of time.

Amen

 

[Pete D.]

"For many of us in makes little, if any, sense to take the time shopping for the handgun they like the best, spend hundreds of dollars for a modern handgun, holster (and extra magazines for some of us) but then not spend the money and take the time shooting it to become very familiar with how the gun operates, where the controls are, where the sights are regulated and what ammunition functions best."
That is a sensible regimen. It is, however, not "break in" per se. Surely, though, the purposes cross. while doing the above, the gun gets "broken in" as much as the shooter gets used to the piece and its function.
None of that, though, guarantees that the gun will not FTF the very next time it is used.

Pete
Waste of time? No. It is a good thing to share ideas, to argue, to agree, to disagree. That is how we learn.

 

[Glock Doctor]

Yes! If the frame is metal then 150 to 200 rounds should get everything sorted out for ya. However, if the frame is polymer — and, especially, if the frame is unreinforced molded polymer — then I will and I have run a minimum of 350 and up to a maximum of 1,000 fired rounds through the pistol BEFORE trusting it for potentially life-saving EDC use.

Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that we all live in 'the Information Age', most gunmen are completely unaware of the fact that molded polymer gun frames — especially unreinforced polymer frames — come out of the mold with a built-in criterion to need to, 'RELAX'* before being able to realize 100% of their design potential.

Translation? Don't trust your life or physical wellbeing to a brand new or only sparsely fired polymer frame pistol! (This is a principal reason 'Why' so many new owners complain about the performance of their brand new polymer frame pistols.) New polymer frames are too, 'stiff' and lack the necessary flexibility to operate smoothly until AFTER 'X amount' of fired rounds has been put through the gun.



* Note: See the April, 2016 issue of the NRA's premier magazine, ‘Shooting Illustrated’. On page #10 there's an article titled, ‘Plastic Fantastic’. Albeit, somewhat indirectly, it touches on the need for molded polymer firearm frames to be deliberately relaxed BEFORE peak performance can be attained.

 

[Hangingrock]

Post Removed

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I was scratching my head until I note the OP specifies pistol. Mine is a revolver.

500 rounds? Yes in the first two practice sessions.

 

[peacebutready]

As my Physics professor was so fond of saying - we must define our terms. What exactly does "breaking in" mean? Firing enough rounds to "prove" the function is not "breaking in" the gun. I have a Springfield 1911 that I built in 1990. The only original arts are the slide and frame. It has run perfectly through many years of match use. With any type of ammo. It has fired approximately 80K rounds. It has never failed to feed, fire or eject. I have become very fond of this gun. Do I trust it enough to carry it? Nope. I will never trust a gun that was mass produced by a factory. They build guns to sell. They don't really seem to care if they run 100% as long as they meet their sales quota. Bill Wilson learned back in the 70s that Colt was unable to build him a Gold Cup that would run 100%. It kept failing in matches. So he learned how to build his own guns that would run 100%.

Interesting post. First time I read a person would not trust a good mass produced factory gun with thousands of rounds though it without fail. For me, several hundred rounds without fail using ammo chosen for defense through a gun with a good reputation is good enough.

The Gold Cup was made for bulls eye, IIRC. Perfect reliability isn't nearly as important there.

I knew Wilson 1911s are very well made but didn't know they ran 100%. Is that with ball ammo only, or with various bullet profiles?

 

[.308 Norma]

Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that we all live in 'the Information Age', most gunmen are completely unaware of the fact that molded polymer gun frames — especially unreinforced polymer frames — come out of the mold with a built-in criterion to need to, 'RELAX'* before being able to realize 100% of their design potential.

Interesting! I didn't know that. Thanks Glock Doc!

 

[Glock Doctor]

Interesting! I didn't know that. Thanks Glock Doc!

You're welcome! Here's an except from the article in the April, 2016 issue of the NRA's premier magazine, ‘Shooting Illustrated’. On page #10 there's a piece titled, ‘Plastic Fantastic’. This revelation helps to explain, ‘Why’ so many new Glock owners have experienced, and continue to regularly experience, unexplainable: stoppages, jams, and other problems with their brand new Glock pistols. The first pertinent quote is,

'In terms of a pistol frame, the tip of the barrel is where specific heat is applied, although the barrel is not touching the frame.' 'This heat (referring to barrel heat and new polymer that's still stiff from the molding process)(Ed.) is predictable and therefore the injection mold is designed to manufacture the frame with THE ULTIMATE RELAXATION (emphasis added)(Ed.) of the material in mind .... .' 'It does not impact performance or accuracy.'

Now, to continue from the general text of the article, the second pertinent quote is, (Ready?)

‘IT TAKES 500 TO 1,000 ROUNDS FOR THE POLYMERS TO RELAX.’ ~ Dave Borges, CEO, Polymer80 Corporation

This plastic-molding phenomenon is equally as true of Glock's polymer frames as it is of Polymer80's aftermarket pistol frames, and AR15 receivers. It, also, helps to explain, ‘Why’ brand new polymer magazine baseplates are so very difficult to remove the first time the magazine is disassembled. Newly molded, stiff, and un:flexed polymer needs to relax.

 

[Pete D.]

Ah.

I knew Wilson 1911s are very well mad but didn't know they ran 100%.

No gun will run 100% forever. The best that one can say is that it hasn't failed yet.
My Gold Cup was well past 30K rounds before it had its first ftf. Since that one there have been five more (through another 50K rounds) most were attributable to ammo.
Pete
PS: Are Glocks included in that polymer relaxing business? I have a Glock 36 and an FN FiveSeven for some years now. Neither has failed....yet. (Anecdotal, I know)

 

[peacebutready]

No gun will run 100% forever. The best that one can say is that it hasn't failed yet.

I assumed the gentleman meant if it was cleaned/maintained appropriately and fired with quality ammo.

 

[peacebutready]

I wonder who started this "break in" myth. I would bet it was some gun "guru" that bought some stock in ammo making corporations.

I don't know but I think it has something to do with the avoidance of warranty servicing.

If the pistol in question has a less than great reputation, perhaps the break-in requirement is also due to it being made with less quality than it should have for how tight it is.

 

[Spats McGee]

Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that we all live in 'the Information Age', most gunmen are completely unaware of the fact that molded polymer gun frames — especially unreinforced polymer frames — come out of the mold with a built-in criterion to need to, 'RELAX'* before being able to realize 100% of their design potential.

Thanks, GD. I'm not an engineer, but for all of the reading that I've done on pistols, I'd never run across that. I was certainly completely unaware of that. (Just for the record, I mean that. I'm not being sarcastic, or trying to cast doubt on your words.)