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.