The truth about first time use and breaking in a 1911 handgun?

[Jimfern]

How do you test your NEW 1911 for functionality?

I made dummy rounds of every bullet type I plan to use including lead and jacketed bullets. I load a magazine with them and hand cycle to see if the 1911 has any problems with them. So far this has worked well for me. I haven't had any problems with any of the 4 1911s I bought. I did buy them all used, so maybe the previous owner(s) worked out the bugs.

A shiney new to me Kimber Gold Match is on my list if I can save enough money for it. It already passed my round test.

 

[twice barrel]

The manual that accompanied my RIA Tactical stated it needs 500 rounds for break-in and recommends only round nose bullets for reliable function. I loaded up 100 rounds and they all ran flawlessly.

Look forward to shooting it more!

TB

 

[CZ223]

Hey Earl

First, understand that I am not getting personal here but, if you haven't had any experience with Kimbers, perhaps you don't understand the frustration. Kimbers reputation for putting out overpriced guns that don't work as well as some much less expensive guns, some of which you mentioned, is not undeserved. They have earned it. Seriously, they have one or two problems that keep occuring over and over again. The biggest problem is untuned extractors that cause slides to lock back when they shouldn't and cause jambs. There is another that I am aware of but can't remember precisely what it is. If Rock Island, Taurus and, Springfield can put out guns that work right from the factory then why can't Kimber? I get what you are saying about the more guns you put out the problems you will encounter and I know it is true. The problem is in percentages. I believe that their percentage of problem guns is higher than a lot of other less expensive guns.

By the way I don't fall into any of your categories. I love putting 500 rounds through a gun, that is why I buy them. I do however like it a whole lot more when they work as they should. I am not new to shooting and I don't limpwrist, my Glocks cured me of that. By the way I would venture a guess that Glock sells a whole lot more guns than Kimber and they don't have nearly as many problems.

I do my research beforehand, which is why when I had the chance to buy a like new Kimber Tactical Pro II for $700 instead of close to $1100 I suspected that it might be one of those "Mythical problem Kimbers" that didn't work right from the factory. Through my research, I also knew that it was probably an easy fix like tuning the extractor. I was right. I sure didn't need to put 500 rounds through it to know that I had one of those Mythical Problem Guns". I was also right about it being an easy and, in this case, cheap fix. I trade three used Chip McCormick mags for the work. I didn't like them anyway and my Smith does. He said that the gun had been fired very little just as I expected.

Final thoughts: People who spend close to a thousand dollars on a gun have the right to expect them to work from the factory.

Why do people defend Kimber so vehemently when their guns don't work but will trash Taurus if one of their guns encounters problems? I have two Taurus 1911's and both have functioned flawlessly. They are both also more accurate than my Kimber.

I also don't think that there are a lot of new gun owners who buy a 1911 as their first gun nevermind an $1100 1911.

 

[beltjones]

^^^How on earth can the extractor cause the slide to lock back prematurely?

 

[earlthegoat2]

And nothing personal intended on my end. Thank you for the good response.

 

[Just One Shot]

Don't look at it so much as a break in instead, look at it as a function test. You shouldn't carry any handgun for S.D. until you are absolutely sure it will go bang when you need it to.

I don't know about you but I'm more comfortable carrying a gun that's had at least 200 rds. through it than I am one thats only had 50 down the tube.

As far as the break subject goes. All mechanical devices that are machined will have microscopic ridges and valleys at the points the machining was done.

Even with the highest quality lubricant in use, the mating surfaces will react to the forces applied to them and they will form a wear pattern at the point of contact.

Here's a link that illustrates the point. Notice the surface after the cutting bit has passed.

Microscopic video on machining Cast Iron:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZh6WGR16q0&feature=related

So to conclude that a firearm doesn't need a break in isn't exactly true. While it may not malfunction during the initial use, it does have a break in period that occurs until the wear pattern is set at the point of contacts of all the moving parts.

If this isn't true, then how do you explain the improvement in feeding, ejecting and trigger function the more use a gun has over a period of time?

 

[Lv4snobrdg]

people don't necessarily defend a product as they do their own judgment.

If I spent $1300 on a Kimber SIS and you told me the SIS was junk and I argued with you am I defending the pistol? Or is it more likely that I am defending the judgment I made to drop 13 benji of my hard earned on it?

You be the judge.

 

[Lv4snobrdg]

JOS Said: So to conclude that a firearm doesn't need a break in isn't exactly true. While it may not malfunction during the initial use, it does have a break in period that occurs until the wear pattern is set at the point of contacts of all the moving parts.

Finally someone putting into words that which makes sense. The difference between "break in" and "functional testing"

 

[EddieNFL]

to me it would seem that a "break in" is more about taking it easy on a piece of equipment. Such as when I purchased a Honda CBRF4i all those years ago. The manual stated that you should not exceed 70MPH or 8kRPM for the first 500 miles, and to have it serviced (oil change, chain tension, shocks adjustment, valves, etc) at 500 miles.

There is that 500 number again, I wonder if its a coincidence?

So, if it randomly stalled, did you drive the 500 miles before returning to the dealer.

Break-in gives the parts a chance to mate; not repair themselves.

First of all I have never owned a Kimber and though I believe they are good pistol I would stick my money with Springfield and get a similar gun for a few hundred less. That said however....

I don't own a Springfiled, so you won't find me commenting on them.

I find it irritating to hear about all the so called problems with Kimbers:

Why? I don't own a Hi-Point and could care less what folks say about them. Really, I don'y care what folks say about the brands I do own. Not owning a Kimber, how did you determine the problems are, "so-called?"

Buy a less expensive pistol so you can afford to break it in or shell out the big bucks and buy the Kimber and then since you spent so much money on it you should be able to afford a few extra rounds to "break in" that Kimber.

Kimbers are not "big bucks" guns. Are they worth the price? Debatable.

 

[Slamfire]

My Clackamus ran perfectly since day one. I heavily lubricate the pistol, and if after 200 rounds I am not having any problems, I figure the thing is reliable.

I did wear out the hammer and Kimber replaced that. I had the Marines at Camp Perry install the short GI trigger, they told me the sear was worn out, so I got a new sear from the Springfield Armory shop on commercial row, and everything is good.

Any other malfunctions have been due to magazines and crappy ammo. Since I roll my own ammo, I can't fire the ammo maker.

 

[Lv4snobrdg]

I do believe, from the simple testimonies of people on this board, that there are problems with Kimber. It would seem that those problems are first and foremost: Customer Service. Falling to a close second is extraction/ejection.

Well actually maybe these problems are one in the same. One has problems with their extractor, a known issue, they then call Customer Service and the run around begins.

 

[Mags]

I have never seen customer service being an issue with Kimber please show me the threads, what I do see are alot of legit problems that people never tell CS about and just get rid of their Kimber or have their own smith fix em.

 

[Lv4snobrdg]

Mags, I just read and retain, I don't memorize the threads. I have searched Kimber here and found plenty of complaints about customer service within Kimber. My uncle bought a Kimber years ago and had the external extractor issues. He got the brush off from Kimber CS since he had not yet achieved the 500 rd break in bench mark. He simply did not think he would be able cycle that many rounds with all the FTE's. He went to the internet and learned how to adjust the tension himself.

 

[EddieNFL]

He got the brush off from Kimber CS since he had not yet achieved the 500 rd break in bench mark.

Sounds like he spoke with Dennis Madonia. Lots of folks won't buy another Kimber after speaking with him.

 

[JohnBT]

"but I am convinced that 500 is excessive."

Excessive? It's a gun. I buy guns to shoot. But I've never been much of a collector.

JT

 

[NMGonzo]

My Dan Wesson fired allright with less than 500 rounds on it.

Lube everything with a sheen of any gun oil of your choice but the inside of the barrel.

 

[SwampWolf]

I don't know why anyone would carry any gun for self defense without running a few hundred rounds through it

.

I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't function test a pistol before you rely on it for self-defense. But that's not the issue. The question is should you have to run X number of rounds through a new pistol before it works "out-of-the-box". Imo, like cars and outboard motors, a break-in period might be recommended in order to insure maximum longevity, but break-ins shouldn't be required in order to make a gun (or car or lawnmower) run from the outset. I don't know how it is that some gun owners ever got sucked into this ploy. I can't think of any other product that is mechanical in nature where the manufacturer insists that the customer tests the product many multiple times before it can be expected to work as advertised.

 

[Lv4snobrdg]

John, I fully intend to run 1000's through this weapon, but 500 for a "Break in" is excessive, IMHO.

The question isn't about functional testing, we have settled that. It has been about initial wear and tear.

 

[jwh2]

I'm not sure how many, if any rounds it takes to properly break in a new 1911. I got a new Springfield Mil Spec yesterday and cleaned and lubed it really well. Today I put the first box of 50 through the pistol without any failures of any kind. I got home and cleaned and lubed it again. I will repeat this several times and then try some different brands of JHP until I find one it likes. I have dione this with all types of pistols before trusting them to defend me or mine.

James

 

[SSN Vet]

Well, if you look at the blue prints for the m1911, you'll see that the slide tolerance and the frame tolerance will, by design, result in a slide to the frame fit with a .001" to a .009" gap/play.

.001" is uber tight and .009" is far from it.

My new Colt 1991a has .005" of max play, so it's right in the middle, and after some 400+ rounds, it has demonstrated 100% reliability, with no failure of any kind whatsoever.

Many, however, would consider .005" to be a "sloppy" fit, and the tendancy is to view any slide to frame wiggle as being poor workmanship.

So in response, those who are marketing themselves as "premium" manufacturers (i.e. they want to get more $$ for their guns) feel they have to have a really tight slide to frame fit.

But... just introduce some dust, grit, carbon, spec of sand, etc... and that uber tight 1911 may prove to not be so uber reliable.

So I suspect that the 500 round break in thing was their response to customer reliability complaints.

And just exactly what is the magic that happens during that 500 rounds? Some abrasion and wear takes place and the fit loosens up.

So IMHO and limited 1911 experience (I'm only on my second)... your reward for being all hung up on getting an uber tight frame to slide fit is that you ... 1.) get to pay a lot more for it (precision machining is expensive) and then 2.) get to pay a couple hundred bucks for ammo. to break it in. And in exchange, you get 1.) bragging rights over how tight your 1911 is and 2.) some potential frustration when your expensive pistol has "hiccups"

The misconception is that any play in the slide to frame fit is a source of inaccuracy. Well the sights are hard mounted to the slide. So if the sights are aligned properly and the barell locks up tightly, then the pistol should be accurate.

What slide to frame fit does affect is the performance of the pistol in a Ransom rest, which (if I understand correctly... I've never played with one) hard mounts the frame to the bench.

In theory, off hand accuracy should not depend on the slide to frame fit.... but rather, depends heavilly on barrel lock up.

And now the disclaimer.... If I'm out to lunch with my reaoning, please correct me, as I'm an eager student of the m1911.

 

[CZ223]

BeltJones

***Disclaimer: I am not a gunsmith.**** As I understand it, it works something like this. If the extractor has too much tension on it it will hold onto the fired case too long which keeps the next round in the mag from rising into position where it can then be pushed into the chamber. When this happens the slide lock engages just as it would on an empty mag. If I am wrong in my description plese feel to correct me.

 

[wtfd661]

All three of my Kimbers have shot without issue from day one. I've never had a problem with any of them. The 500 rd break in is for giving the parts to mate together, nothing more than that. As far as the post about Kimber "having so many problems", try to remember that Kimber, by far, out sells other production 1911's by a huge margin. Kimber sells over 50,000 1911's a year. They have been doing that year after year after year. If they were a crap gun, or not worth it would they continue to sell more than anyone else constantly, I don't think so. Some people need to stop reading the internet to become 1911 experts.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Kimber is the only company
that I know of who recomends a 500 round break in.

also Les baer (non-half inch guarantee models), para usa, springfield armory emp's....

 

[jaysouth]

Interesting discussion. The armed services do not have a "break in" period for handguns. If it does not run right out of the box, it is defective.

It's also interesting to note that the average 1911A1's average annual number of rounds fired was 50. If you got to qualify in a given year, if you were not detracted by more serious issues(to the army) like KP, guard duty or hauling ash and trash.

Handguns were issued to units. Units were "stood up" and "stood down" all the time. Some handguns would probably spend more time in a depot than in a unit arms room. So, using this model, some 1911s would not get fired 500 rounds in 20 years. However, once issued, they might be field stripped and cleaned each time issued out, could be hundreds of times in a year.

 

[G27RR]

I broke my Colt Defender in by cleaning it, lubing it, and shooting it. I went through about 400-450 rounds for break in, with 150 of those being the hollow point I use for carry. Since 1911s are sometimes more prone to having trouble with JHP, and since smaller 1911s sometimes have more trouble in general, I wanted to be extra sure my choice worked in the Defender. Ordinarily I only run about 50 rounds of carry ammo through a particular gun in addition to 150 rounds of FMJ before deciding it's okay to carry it. (assuming no problems showed up, of course)