Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Skribs, Apr 29, 2016.
.....still failing to see your point......
At this point I think the dead horse has been sufficiently kicked.
Arguing on Internet forums has almost become a past time. My desire was to explain to the OP that his firearm was probably just fine but needed just a bit of, let's call it seasoning. I think others have really hit the nail on the head in that they brought out the fact that after a bit of seasoning everything just works better (triggers, slides, springs, engines....).
Ultimately, the goal here is to pass on usable information and not try to debate the obvious. For the OP, who has probably stopped reading at this point and may be totally confused, he will just need to make his own determination on whether to keep at it to see if things smoothe out, send it back to the manufacture to be checked out or dump it for something he feels will be more reliable.
For that OP, I will leave you with this. 1911's can be a joy to own. There is an endless supply of parts and many, many little tweaks you can do to it yourself to make it your own and improve its performance. I would only suggest before you give up on it to determine whether you want another run of the mill composite gun (which may function more reliably for you) or the gift of 1911 ownership, which can be rewarding in itself. You will always have something to talk to other gun owners about.
Your call man. I hope the best for you with which ever direction you choose.
I am "old school" too, but I bought my '70 F100, '67 Mustang, and '57 Belair used, so they didn't need break in periods.
(And yeah, I drive one of the three to work every day, depending on my whim.)
I have a few good friends who are gunsmiths and we talk a lot.
Many new semiautomatics have stiff recoil springs and magazine springs, and it can certainly take a few hundred rounds before these springs take a proper "set". Do I expect that my new gun will run properly while things are working their way in? Yes! Can a hiccup happen in the meantime? Of course!
I love and own good quality 1911's, I believe that a 1911 will usually benefit from some reliability tuning at some point, where you polish the feed ramp & breach face, throat & polish the barrel, tune the extractor, use "known good" aftermarket magazines rather than the OEM mags that came with the gun, and use good quality ammo. Later on, after a thousand rounds it so, if I'm happy with the sights & trigger, I zero the sights for the ammo I like, and "maybe" have an EGW angle bore bushing fitted which can help get your shots on target, a spare barrel bushing is always nice to have.
Or forget all the stuff I said about 1911's, get a Glock 21 like mine, shoot the cheapest factory ammo all day beautifully, without a hiccup, straight out of the box!
Point is, if I had to bet on the reliability of a new average 1911 against a new G-21, while I still think the 1911 can be very reliable, I'd have to go with the 21. But I still like my 1911's a lot!
That's pretty much directly the point.
I always liked my 1911's too, the ones that worked anyway. But even the Colts, depending on era, often needed "something" out of the box, to be acceptable.
If the companies building the guns arent going to do the work, and are going to require "you" to break the gun in, they at least ought to give you a coupon for the ammo to do so, and compensate you for your time. That really does add to the cost of the gun.
Just assuming a 200 round break in using 9mm, and using 100 round WWB value packs, thats another $50+ in ammo (add that price to the cost of the gun), not to mention your time (whats that worth?) and effort.
Then theres always the cost of having to send it back after the break in, because it still doesnt work, which with 1911's, was a pretty common thing for me.
Its interesting that they have got people conditioned to think its "their" responsibility to break the gun in, and actually have a majority of people accepting and parroting that, just look at all the threads and gun mags telling you to do just that.
Its bad enough to have to pay what they demand for a lot of these guns, but it just adds insult to injury, to make you spend more, doing thier job getting them to be acceptable. Especially when other makers, who often cost less, work 100% out of the box.
hmmmmm?? calculating your time and effort for something that one would be already doing. i.e. Shooting their gun.
yet you never know till you actually shoot it regardless of the name on the slide.
for instance, I was the proud owner of a lemon glock before.
Since I quit buying 1911's, my first time out range trips with what Ive been buying since, have been quite pleasurable. Just load the mags and shoot.
with exception of a Tactical Sport all I shoot routinely anymore is Glocks and 1911's.
wanna guess which one of these pistols is more reliable than the other?
Oh and it came with "break in" instructions... 300-500 rounds before field stripping to clean. passed with flying colors too...
Then again, I can buy 5 Glocks for what he paid for one, so they had better work out of the box.
I also out shoot him with my "lowly" Glocks. Then again, I out shoot him with his Nighthawks.
My Colts and GI uns were never really an issue, other than needing reliabilty packages with the older guns if I wanted to feed anything but ball. Most of the others were pretty annoying. If you have one that works, they are great guns.
They might be about perfect, if you can get Glock to finish them (I tried), and you increased the mag capacity.
Yes you can buy a nitride/melonited one. They sell double stack ones too.
I manually cycled the slide 500 times (probably more than Jocko was thinking). Not only did I use 250 rounds of FMJ - I used hotter ammo, I stayed away from the anemic 115gr stuff and used 124 "NATO" instead. When I say NATO - I mean 124gr FMJ rated at or near 1200 fps from a 5" barrel. That is a little hotter than the average and quite a bit hotter than the rather anemic 124gr Blazzer Brass rated at 1090 fps. Fifty rounds of the Winchester Ranger RA9124N (NATO) and 200 rounds of the Georgia Arms 124gr "NATO" I considered those 250 rounds the "Break In" rounds.
I don't know if doing all that stuff really helped but I haven't had any problems to feed, fire, eject or return fully to battery.
While I have no experience with them I suspect the reason Nighthawk gun work is because one gets what they pay for when dealing with reputable companies. I would expect something like that to get some "a mano" attention before it leaves their factory and this in turn pays dividends to new owner. When one gets 1911 for well under $1000 they're playing gun function roulette.
Yea, but can you get one for $450-550?
At $2500 a pop, it had better work. I wasnt aware that they were still requiring a 3-500 round break in at that cost, which is really ridiculous. But like I said, its standard 1911 rhetoric these days, and no one seems to bat an eye. My buddy's two worked right out of the box, and I was really amazed, as they were very tight and lock up when disassembled, just due to oil in the gun. Yet they seem to run fine when shot.
My Kimbers were probably the prettiest 1911's I owned, yet they were one of the worst as far as function goes. Ill take ugly any day in that respect.
I know for a fact, the Glocks would have held up better if thrown across the range through the gravel and into the creek, which is something I was seriously considering with the Kimbers.
Never had a problem with Ruger center fire hand guns, HK USPs, Glocks, XDs, XDMs, XDS, Berrettas 92Ss, M&P 9, 556 ARs, Browning A bolt, Browning X bolts, M70s, Model 94s, Rem 700s, Rem 7....
The ONLY time I recall a gun "breaking in" to later work right was my M1A Supermatch. Now it was still a POS, but it did start to function correctly (feeding issue) after 100 rounds or so. In the other cases there were manufacturing problems. The only thing accomplished by attempting a " break-in" was wasting a bunch of ammo on guns had to go back to the factory, only to then require a whole bunch more ammo to attempt to prove themselves a second time. Or in the case of the FN carbines and M&P 10, simply using ammo that proved it would properly cycle the guns.
With poster above, my Kimbers (2/3) were PsOS too.
Shooting any gun will cost. They are no different then shooting 300-500 rounds through a Glock.. They just recommend not taking them apart to clean them till after that period.
course some guns do need a break in period...
I've had a number of guns that ran better after a couple of hundred rounds than they did when they were new, especially semi autos.
Every gun I shoot (new or not) gets shot about that anyway. Thats basically what I shoot every week in practice. The difference there is, its because I "want" to, as Im just there to shoot, not because I "have" to, to break the gun in.
In my case, it just happens to get done during my normal shooting session, and is really no big deal. For someone of limited funds and time, who just blew their wad on the gun they bought, figuring it was quality and would work when they took it out of the box, it could be another thing altogether.
Those couple of Kimbers I had would likely have made you consider it.
Other than that Gen 1 I had troubles with in the 80's (and believe me, I considered giving it a chuck too! ), theres been no need to throw the Glocks I have. Even if I were to do so, I have no doubt that they would come out of the incident pretty much unscathed. The Kimbers on the other hand, would now be uglier, and still not work for a damn. The Glocks just keep chugging ever more boringly along.
I'm no Bodhi-Zapha, nor do I play one on TV, but I can envisage doing both, at the same time.
It might not be much harder than walking and gum chewing.
Separate names with a comma.