The Big Conspiracy! "Break-in-ology" 101

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mad Magyar

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
1,967
Location
Arizona
It amazes me reading these posts how pistoleros accept the manufacturers & gun writer’s convenient line: “break-in” period. Let’s see now, hmmm, 200rds, oh no, it is 500 rds, or perhaps 1,000 rds? While I’m scratching my butt contemplating and purchasing box after box with sporadic failures to see if this pistol will fire this time & every time; then I must decide will it work say after the 201st rd or 501st rd? For many owners who are not “range rats”, this is a year or more to wait! Can you imagine carrying a Kahr CW9 with this lurking in the recesses of your mind? I mentioned this popular ccw pistol since a shooting buddy experienced a failure or two recently in different mags and recited religiously the manual about how he most follow the break-in period. Mr. J. Moon certainly learned a lesson or two from “daddy” about the “art of persuasion”. Quit falling for this crap about tight tolerances being the culprit, or the infamous, “limp-wrist”? All this means is that they didn’t machine it correctly and you’re left with the metal shavings. What we have here is poor quality control & non-existent test firing. Too many of you equate the break-in period similar to an automobile…Entirely different processes at work, like apples to oranges. You’ve fallen into the “Big-Trap”. If we carried this to its logical conclusion, we should all purchase used pistols. This break-in fallacy is perpetuated by the gun rags that have to explain during testing why a malfunction occurred. After all, they have a donated pistol and the mfgr is paying for the review in this particular magazine. Who signs my check? We can’t say it is a POS, now can we?
If you are experiencing malfunctions from the “get-go”; quit buying exotic ammo and stop with the pliers/tweaking your mag, and the Dremel to the ramp & barrel…No wonder we have so many “Bubba” pistols out there…SEND IT BACK! It’s driving me MAD!:banghead:
P.S., before you “apologists” start defending the gun industry & my logic: just reflect a moment and ask yourself is there some semblance of truth to all of this?
 
I can understand the idea of a break-in period to some extent, but I agree, it's WAY overblown.

I can understand maybe a slide fitting a tad bit tighter than it should but breaking in after a couple hundred rounds. I can see a sear being a bit rough but smoothing out after dry firing. With some of these things, it makes sense that some break in is necessary. Perhaps if I had spent the money on the top of the line model pistol, the trigger would be smooth as glass from the first pull, but having only so much money, I had to go with something less expensive. So, it will take some work on my part, not the manufacturer's, to make it nice and smooth.

The same holds true for overall function. Some guns don't come from the factory working perfectly. Again, it's a question of cost. Do you want to spend the money to have the manufacturer make it absolutely perfect, or would you rather put some rounds through it yourself to work out the kinks? You'll also probably notice that guns requiring some break in are cheaper. My Kel-Tec requires some break-in. It was also $200. If I had spent the big bucks on a Rorbaugh, I would expect it to work perfectly every time. I went into this purchase with my eyes wide open, knowing full well that it would take me some time and effort to perfect everything.

What really burns my cannoli is when some real fancy gun requires break in. If I spend $2500 on a tricked-out 1911, it had better shoot 1" groups at 200 yards, do my taxes, fix my car, and paint my house right out of the box. I'm also irritated that a lot of the manufacturers who say that their guns require break in don't explain exactly why or what's going on with the gun. I wouldn't accuse them of deceptive business practices, but I don't think it's entirely honest.
 
Personally, I don’t mind a “break-in” period as long as I know about it before hand. The only guns I have (out of 41) that the manufacturers informed me of a break in “requirement” was my Les Baer, and my Benelli’s. Everything else I’ve pretty much just shot.

I bought my Baer last July, and just hit the 5K mark with it. I was informed before buying that their normal “break-in” was 500 rounds of Win white box 230 HB. I had researched Baer pistols and read the opinions of some that they are too tight. I then reloaded 500 rds of 230 HB and went to the range. Pistol performed without a hitch for that 1st 500. I then had a couple FTFs with my 200 SWC #68 reloads which I diagnosed as being the fault of my Wilson 47Ds. Changed magazines, and it’s been close to 4K of 200 SWCs without a problem. The gun just gets better every time I shoot it.

The Benelli’s, I simply read the owners manually and shot 100 rds of 1 ¼ oz Max Dram through each of them. Both have been flawless.

For handguns I only own:

Colts: Gold Cup, Python, SAA (3)
Sigs: 220ST, 230SL
Ruger: Single Six, Blackhawk
Les Baer: Concept V

So maybe I’ve been lucky.

I suppose it depends on what you expect, or have been lead to expect. As long as I know it up front, I don’t mind.

Chuck
 
I would happily pay $20 more for a gun and KNOW they have fired a couple boxes of shells through it. (Assuming that after the "break in" period, if it didn't work, they would fix it rather than ask me to pay the shipping to get the thing back to them)
 
Break In?

I once ordered a ruger "Old Army". When it got to the dealer, the front blade was rotated 3 degrees to the right. How many rounds would I have to fire before the barrel or sight came to "0". My point...If it won't perform as required from the factory...it's defective. I've owned a LOT of defective or otherwise "not broke in" handguns. If you bench rest any handgun and shoot 15yds, you should in affect hit the same spot every time...period...no exceptions. If it's of semi-auto design, it should load, fire, and eject EVERY time you pull the trigger...period, NO exceptions, and also be accurate within acceptable limits (a 1911 standard GI should manage a 4" group at 25yds). Aside from the nut loose behind the trigger and using PROPER AMMO, there should be NO variations in accuracy, reliability or repeatability. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
 
P.S., before you “apologists” start defending the gun industry & my logic: just reflect a moment and ask yourself is there some semblance of truth to all of this?
Click to expand...

Well yes, there is a lot of semblance of truth to all of this. Back before the 1970's (60's in some cases) the only handguns that were suppose to require breaking in were certain extra-tight match pistols. Everything else was expected to work out of the box, and usually did. But nowdays, buyers of 1911 style pistols in particular expect them to be tight, because they equate tightness with accuracy. This is true, but only to a point. Tightness in and of itself simply means that the seller can talk the buyer into breaking it in (at the buyers expense). If buyers will do for this, well... as they say, there's one born every day. :evil:
 
I agree that really well made guns shouldnt need a break-in to function properly. Im sure that there are some exceptions, but I DO NOT like it when brand new guns simply dont work right. Especially when some makes dont have that problem.
 
Compadres, reading your replies makes me feel a lot better, so I am much more calmer today...:) As some of you have mentioned, in yesteryear, I just don't recall the "breaking-in" as being so prevalent or important as it is today and I took this to mean production with more "short-cuts". I guess the Gun world is no different than other aspects of our enterprise system: "buyer beware". :rolleyes:
 
For all the anti break-in commnets, I agree in theory it shouldn't be needed, but in case you never noticed, your new car suggests a break in period and low milage oil change to remove the results of the initial wear.

Every new gun I've bought, the trigger has improved noticibly after shooting 200-300 rounds even if there were no failures during this period.

--wally.
 
it's not so much a break-in period as a test for reliability.
Click to expand...

Right. You don't know if a pistol needs to be broken in till you shoot it a bit. And for those pistols that don't need to be broken in? You'd be a fool to rely on it without testing it first.

I don't mind if a pistol needs a bit of breaking in if the price is right.
 
The only guns I have (out of 41) that the manufacturers informed me of a break in “requirement” was my Les Baer, and my Benelli’s. Everything else I’ve pretty much just shot.
Click to expand...
Same here. My Les Baer TRS had two malfunctions -- one at ~rnd 90 and one at rnd 190, during the "break-in" period. I followed the LB recommendation of keeping the rails lubed but not cleaning. Apparently the idea is to form a lapping compound of sorts. Whatever, the gun started out super tight and fitted itself over time. It's very smooth now and hasn't had a malfunction since round 190. My other pistols have had no "break-in" at all. Just me getting used to a new trigger feel and determining if it all works together -- more reliability testing than breaking in. Malfunctions that show up early usually don't fix themselves.

I've got two Colt 1991A1's. One was near perfect out of the box. Zero malfunctions, POA/POI, nice factory trigger. The other was the same except that it didn't like Wilson 47D 8 round mags. Other 8 round mags were okay and all 7 round mags functioned fine. Trigger was okay and it hit where you aimed, but it locked back early with Wilson 47D's. No amount of breaking in could change it.

With most pistols, early rounds aren't so much break-in as they are testing to determine issues. It's much better to find out early and get the problem fixed.

$.02
 
I agree with MadMagyar's sentiments entirely as he addressed the same pet peeve I've had. What makes a gun so different than a washing machine, a lawn mower, a toaster or an automobile? All of these products have close tolerances and are expected to work "out-of-the-box" (if break-ins are recommended for specific cars it is for reasons of longevity, not reliability). But until the apologists and the brandwashed stop making their infernal excuses (it's the magazine, it's the ammo, the springs need changing, dry-fire it a couple thousand times first, you must be limp-wristing it, what? you have an external extractor?, it might be poorly finished on the inside but,hey,nobody looks inside and, of course, you've gotta shoot-fill in the blank- number of shots before it's BROKEN-IN) and start demanding reliable guns right out of the box, don't expect the manufacturers to change their ways of doing business.

None of the fore-going in any way is to be interpeted as meaning you shouldn't have to shoot a new gun extensively before ever relying on it- especially if the gun is to be used for self-defense. All guns are made by men, ergo all guns are to be presumed fallible. But our expectation for the minimum requirement that a gun operate reliably out of the box will never be met so long as we continue to accept the rationale that you need to "break it in " first.
 
I shoot at least 200 rounds through a handgun before I will carry it. I don't really consider that a break in period, really more of me just getting used to it.

I don't think I have ever had a pistol that jammed during the break-in period, but then worked fine thereafter. If they jammed when I bought them, they were still jamming 1000 rounds later.
 
I don't about the validity of breaking-in guns either. However, I follow manufacturer instructions for breaking-in a gun and usually use the break-in to test the gun's function with different types of ammo. That way, the gun supposedly gets broken-in and I get to learn something about what ammo works or doesn't work well in the gun.

Mad Magyar said,
While I’m scratching my butt contemplating and purchasing box after box with sporadic failures to see if this pistol will fire this time & every time; then I must decide will it work say after the 201st rd or 501st rd?
Click to expand...

Of course there is nothing magical about the 201st or 501st rounds or whatever round is the first round after break-in. The number of rounds suggested are the number of rounds the manufacturer feels the gun will be broken-in by, not that the break-in happens at 200 or at 500.

Similarly, take a look at various types of machinery that have break-in periods that are more often, but not always, in time, not number of repititions or cycles. If the break-in period is 20 hours, does that mean there is something special about the 21st hour? Nope.

P.S., before you “apologists” start defending the gun industry & my logic: just reflect a moment and ask yourself is there some semblance of truth to all of this?
Click to expand...

As for breaking-in guns being a conspiracy, I sort of doubt it. To suggest it is a conspiracy is to suggest that manufacturers have gotten together to promote the concept and have done so because they benefit or profit from it in some way. I think your notion that this is a conspiracy is akin to a lot of the paranoid gun people's views that everything and everyone is somehow plotting against them in some manner. You can't trust government. You can't trust business. You can't trust anyone who doesn't share your views. If more than one person doesn't share your views, then there is a conspiracy against you.

So just what evidence do you have that this is a conspiracy? You have presented nothing to substantiate the claim. If it is a conspiracy, that is it that is hoped to be gained by getting gun owners to break-in guns that the gun makers would not gain if the gun owners didn't break-in guns?

I actually find it a lot easier to believe that the notion of breaking-in guns is actually one of those 'facts' that everybody knows, only nobody has any proof to substantiate the claim. So the concept is continually perpetuated, but isn't valid. In short, it is gun lore.

To use an example posted already, tight 1911s that need to be broken-in. The original 1911s were fairly tight, certainly much tighter than the 1911A1s. People came to believe that for a 1911 to work, it had to be loose and that tight 1911s are poor guns to use in the field as the tight tolerances lock up the gun once it starts getting dirty. This seems to be an ongoing common set of 'facts' about the platform, only they are not true. I find it amusing as I own a WWI 1911 that is in 90-95% condition and it is tigher than many of the new 1911s I have handled at the gun shows. Either the 'facts' aren't facts, or my relative who purchased the gun from the military when he retired in 1927 has one of the earliest field issue match target 1911s made...which of course, it is not. FYI, the gun, holster, and 100 rounds of ammo cost less than $30. I have the receipt.
 
Break-in period - Manufacturers' Folly

I have purchased a few handguns over the years, and only in the past five years has the "break-in period" term become so predominate. I ceratainly heard it before five years ago, just not so much.

It really is a matter of quality control, and what the manufacturer is willing to push off on an accepting public. I doubt anyone would believe that a quality revolver should have to cycle through two hundred rounds before it were deemed reliable and broken-in. And yes, I realize that everyone should shoot several hundred rounds through any gun that will be possibly called upon for serious social work. The initial two hunded or so rounds should be for familarization and proof of factory quality, not smoothing out a roughed out gun.

Yet, familization and breaking-in period are two different things. What the manufactures have done is to get us to do their work for them, and we have agreed. We have agreed via forums such as this one and others. We talk to each other, and we recommend the break-in period for all automatics, and we accept this as the gosple. In part we must accept much of this responsibility. There should be no tolerance for a break-in period.

I (as many of you) have stock guns in CZ-75 B, Beretta, Kimber, Ruger, S&W, Browning, and others. I expect them to work from the first shot, and to continue malfunction free until they become too filthy to operate or until I have reasonably worn out parts.

How do we change an industry? I do not suggest that we send back every gun that malfunctions on the first round. What I do suggest is that when we complain to the manufacturer of a malfunctioning handgun, we do not accept their excuse of a break-in period.

Dobe
 
Break-in

A break-in period is a fact with anything that works with reciprocating/moving parts. This allows the parts to mate, polish, and/or wear in and work more smoothly.

A break-in period with a recoil-operated pistol seats and settles the locking lugs in, polishes off rough burrs within the trigger or fire control group, and in the contact surfaces between slide and frame. This is why we very often notice improved accuracy, trigger action, and overall feel of the gun's cycling after use. Used to be that double-action revolvers' actions only got sweeter with age. This is normal and acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable is the fallacy that a gun needs an extensive break-in period in order to function correctly. Also unacceptable is only certain brands of ammunition specified in order to guarantee reliability. If the gun is right, it should function with any good-quality ammo that is loaded to SAAMI
specifications in the particular caliber.

If your car failed to start one time in 20...and the manufacturer told you to drive it another 2,000 miles in order to break it in...would that be acceptable?

If your double-action revolver's cylinder intermittently failed to turn on average every 50th shot, and the manufacturer told you to keep "breaking it in"...would that be acceptable?

No? Neither is it acceptable or normal for an autopistol. A test-firing of fifty or a hundred rounds to make sure that it works? Of course. It would be foolish to carry an untested firearm for personal protection. To have to fire another 500 or 1,000 rounds of expensive ammunition in order to get it to function? A resounding NO! NOT acceptable!
 
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy: In re-reading his original post, it is clear to me that MadMagyar's use of the word "conspiracy" was sardonic, not literal, in nature(if I've got this wrong, MM, please advise). However, if there is a conspiracy it would involve the ammunition factories being in cahoots with the gun makers. After all, it's the ammunition industry that is benefiting from all those break-in bullets going downrange after the 201st -or is it the 501st?-shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
BREAK-IN-PERIOD: Am I Delirious?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
faustulus
F
I
  • Locked
Finally, the Kimber Eclipse Custom II 10mm range report
Replies
3
Views
2K
IZinterrogator
I
F
  • Locked
My Defective Wilson 1911 Part 2
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
AJD
A
M
  • Locked
Out of the Box: Passionate Persuasion?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
JohnBT
J
1
  • Locked
Anal about Reliability(Long)
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Dave Sample
D
Back
Top