Rounds till CCW approved?

[tarosean]

Well of course a glock from day one, without any rounds

This is terrible advice, and should not be listened to by anyone.

+1

2 of the 5 Glocks Ive owned couldnt make it through a full magazine straight out of the box.

 

[SFsc616171]

I agree with Torian on the BHP comment.

Yet, as owning a lever action rifle in the past, it was always suggested to send a couple hundred rounds downrange, "to take out any little burrs that the quality control folks missed".

In the world of ccw, I don't think that any gun owner wants to find any surprises from their firearm, "on that day".

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I used to say 200 of the round I plan to actually carry in it. Now that those are well over $1 a shot, I'll say 100 rounds of FMJ target/range and a couple of magazinefuls apiece of hollowpoints.

 

[herrwalther]

At the very bare minimum, 50 rounds of the ammo you plan to carry. Personally I won't carry a firearm until it has had 50 defense rounds and 150 FMJ/practice rounds through it by me.

 

[19-3Ben]

Unless 1911s that need break-in period. NONE

Are you serious?
That advice is just as bad as the above about Glocks.
By the way, Glock is far from being the only reliable gun out there.

 

[Teachu2]

I started carrying in the '80s, and reliability of new guns back then simply was not as good as today - especially autoloaders, very especially 1911s. Some of that was QC, some manufacturing methods, and some related to factory ammo. It was not uncommon to spend nearly as much getting a gun to run reliably as it did to buy it in the first place. I work for a gunsmith as his range stooge - everything he modded went to the range for me to evaluate. It used to take a couple boxes just to find all the problems, and several more to verify everything was fixed.
Thirty-some years later, modern firearms are much better - and ammo has improved as well. It's rare to get a quality firearm that doesn't function. Buy a new Colt, Sig, S&W, Glock, SA, XD, RIA, Sig, Beretta, Ruger, HK, or a host of others, and the odds are greatly in your favor that it's going to work with just about any factory ammo you feed it.
So now, I follow the mfg's suggestions on break-in, if any. Then I run each magazine through 2-3 times with full loads of carry ammo, eliminating any that have any issues from carry use. If I'm comfortable with the gun and how I shoot with it, it's ready. If not, I shoot it until I'm either comfortable or the gun gets disqualified.

 

[just for fun]

That would be a call that only the gun carrier can decide! Should you decide to carry a semi-auto, make it appoint to keep your "clearing drills" sharp. The drills are taught, shown, and written about for a reason. Pay attention.
As for me, I'm an "old school" revolver guy, so six rounds to check the timing are plenty.

 

[just for fun]

Trusting ANY device with your life without using it at the range first is a very, very bad idea. Every single manufacturer can have manufacturing defects from time to time.

As for the rest of your post, so until 1982, there was not a single firearm on the planet that people could trust for anything beyond plinking and hunting? That's...a somewhat head-scratching assertion.

Well, now you know how they got the nickname-glocktards!

 

[Teachu2]

Well, now you know how they got the nickname-glocktards!

Very High Road....

 

[Tirod]

Quote: "Well of course a glock from day one, without any rounds"
This is terrible advice, and should not be listened to by anyone.

All firearms are mechanical devices; some work better than others. But, to take a gun without ensuring it functions properly is negligent at best - and just down right stupid. Trying to keep it THR, but do not ever assume a firearm is GTG without testing it first.

Should a gun be fired to check the action, sure.

Should someone go without a gun entirely until they do? Why was it purchased, then? Not having a gun was working just fine.

Do you test drive your car to it's natural extremes to see if it correctly works? Most don't. Does the average AR owner boost another guy with an 80 pound loadout into a window 5 feet off the ground, or run a tactical bayonet course with it? Part of the normal use of the gun and it's design, nope, no testing.

Who buys a gun they know will NOT shoot from the first magazine on? Ok, some collectors. Point being, we should be able to load it with the preferred ammo and carry it. Not find out which of ten different types might not.

That seems to be the real issue, too many load up cheap low powered rounds and "test" their gun. No wonder it takes 500 to get it working.

The average "shoot out" is three feet, in three seconds, three rounds. In the majority of well documented cases, just putting the gun into view communicates your intent and the perp vacates the scene. I'm not recommending that, but the idea that you "must" shoot it with a variety of ammo it was never meant to use to "prove" it is what I take exception to.

Frankly, if someone chooses to carry without having fired the gun extensively, he's likely doing it with an issue firearm just handed to them. At best he got to zero it. That has happened in combat areas, literally from the back of a truck with a firefight within hearing range, the soldiers committed to the reserve and on call.

In those circumstance you don't get any break in ammo. And in mine, I didn't ever need it. All the firearms I've ever bought new worked from round one without exception. All the new weapons issued to me, the same.

If I have ever heard of the opposite, it's always included shooters using ammunition that was never intended by the makers. The military only uses full power ammo, almost never any problems. It's the civilian shooter who cheaps out and doesn't want to pay a few cents more to ensure he does get reliability. It's like trying to drive your car on kerosene. Don't expect real good performance.

Yet the forums are full of "My new gun shoots like crap using WW* ammo. This gun is JUNK!"

So be it. Test to your heart's content, the real issue isn't the gun, it's usually the shooter.