Break in period necessary??

I

IMTHDUKE

New member
I copied these words from the Seecamp forum by Larry Seecamp concerning a break in period for guns. Keep in mind this guy builds a pretty good product...expensive yes...quality indeed. And he has made thousands, so he bears hearing. I never thought of it this way buy he appears to have some very good points.

Larry Seecamp says...

Exactly what does a break in period mean?

It suggests we gun manufacturers send out pistols we know don’t work reliably out of the box, and that our expectation is the burrs and friction spots that should have been polished out at the factory will be taken care of by the customer popping off a few hundred rounds.

In my opinion, break in periods are pure BS. In the first place, if the pistol doesn’t work straight out of the box it’s not likely to work any better after a few hundred rounds. It’s just wasted ammo trying to fix a defective gun by shooting it ~ sort of like trying to get rid of backfires in a car by driving more miles.

If you have problems with your pistol and I tell you to shoot some more rounds to break the gun in, maybe I’m just blowing you off so you’ll either put the gun in a closet or dump it on someone else. If I blame you, the customer, for a factory problem, maybe I won’t hear from you again. The same applies to limp wristing, which actually can be a real problem but also is an easy way also to blame customers for factory defects.

Semi autos ought to work straight out of the box with no break in period. I never understood the mythical break in period. I’ve worked on some 50,000 guns and crap guns never got better by shooting those pistols more.

If function gets worse with shooting the manufacturer has an excuse. A burr might have kicked up that resulted from an unforeseen circumstance. Similarly, other unforeseen events might have taken place that adversely affect function.

Under no circumstances do I see a legitimate claim to be made that pistols are shipped not ready to be used and that the customer has the responsibility to shoot his gun until the parts get married up to produce something reasonably reliable.

Trigger pulls get better with use. Loading gets easier with use. Function should never get better with use ~ unless the manufacturer is not doing their job.
 
A (older) cop friend of mine explained it to me like this: Before taking your pistol to a match, put 300 rounds through it.That will make the trigger break a bit nicer. Before carrying it on duty or for CCW, put 500 rounds through it. If anything was done wrong at the factory (bad extractor, broken roll pin, gremlins weakened your firing pin, etc) it will surely show up before you reach the 500 round mark.

Break in period? Well, sorta. For the trigger and such. I'd call it more of a proving period. If there was a bubble in my extractor when it was cast, but it appears to be okay and slipped past QC, well, 500 rounds of Blazer Brass should tell me so.

Could be based on superstition, QC practices of years gone by, or good advice. Better safe than sorry. If I ever find another box of 9mm :mad:, I'm going to do the 500rd thing to my AR-24 before I decide to carry it. If my sheriff ever holds the class again...:mad:
 
My sig initially wouldn't lock back after the last round. I was just shooting 115gr standard range ammo. After I got through my 200 rounds I had brought, it was locking back reliably. Since I was familiar with the controls of the gun, I had skipped over the User's manual. Turns out they actually mention a necessary "break in" for the slide to lock back, on account of the recoil spring. It's too stiff initially for your everyday range ammo, and it doesn't allow the slide to fully retract enough to snag the slide catch. Other sig owners I talked to said that they called sig, thinking they had a problem. The guy on the phone told them to just run some +p through it to expedite the process of working the recoil spring. I probably wouldn't have had to even put 150 through if I had the foresight to use +p loads in it the first run around.

I haven't had any more failures to lock back since then. It took approximately 150 rounds to self-correct. It wasn't a real problem... I just couldn't tell when I was empty. I could've just counted rounds... but sometimes I lost count in all the excitement :D
 
Semantics and Perspective. Mr. Seecamp allows that trigger pull gets better with use. Loading gets easier. But these are secondary benefits of a break-in period. The primary purpose of the "break-in period" is to verify proper functioning, not to make functioning better, in my opinion. You shoot the gun with a particular ammo in a particular way and see whether, after some number of rounds (e.g. 100), the gun functions as designed. If it doesn't, you return it to the manufacturer or get it fixed. If it does, you have confidence in the gun. Perhaps a better term would be "proving period." Or how about "confidence test?"
 
Function should never get better with use ~ unless the manufacturer is not doing their job.
Click to expand...

WRONG. 50,000 guns, huh? Well, I'm a machinist by background - 50,000 parts machined. :D

ANY machined metal part, no matter how finely ground and polished, has minor imperfections in the surface. There are hills and valleys (maybe miniscule) caused by the above-mentioned processes. As the mating parts are rubbed together the imperfections are worn down until the parts fit much more precisely. This does not mean the gun is defective or that it won't work right out of the box. But it WILL work better after the mating parts have been lapped together. Ever hear of lapping in a valve on a car engine? It ain't gonna seal well until the valve and valve seat mate properly.
 
Semi autos ought to work straight out of the box with no break in period. I never understood the mythical break in period. I’ve worked on some 50,000 guns and crap guns never got better by shooting those pistols more.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this and the balance of your post. Which isn't to say that a prudent shooter who intends to rely on a firearm for self-defense shouldn't run a minimum number of rounds through it before counting on it when the chips are down (my personal standard is at least 500 rounds without incident).
 
no gun should require a break-in but I'm still gonna give it one. ya never know when something is gonna slip buy the guys in QC
 
There are hills and valleys (maybe miniscule) caused by the above-mentioned processes. As the mating parts are rubbed together the imperfections are worn down until the parts fit much more precisely.
Click to expand...
This is why used cars should cost more than new cars. :)
 
But it WILL work better after the mating parts have been lapped together. Ever hear of lapping in a valve on a car engine? It ain't gonna seal well until the valve and valve seat mate properly.
Click to expand...

True, a proper "break-in" procedure might make a car last longer but the lack of a break-in won't keep it from running. If you bought a new car that wouldn't run from the get-go and the dealer advised running 100 gallons of gasoline through it before it was "broken-in" and would run, allowing you to finally drive it, I doubt you'd accept that rationale. Yet, as IMTHDUKE (via Larry Seecamp) points out, that's exactly what some gunmakers argue. We expect products like cars, lawnmowers and sewing machines with many times more finely-fitted and number of parts to run "straight out of the box" and yet some of us will give a firearm manufacturer a pass when it comes to the same minimal standard: I pay money for a product and it should work as advertised-RIGHT FROM THE BOX it came in! To name a few I'm acquainted with that don't require nor ask for a "break-in": Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch, Glock, Colt, Beretta and Ruger.
 
I'm of two minds on this question. I too believe that a firearm should function properly when new; I understand it will have been fired at the factory to confirm proper operation. I also understand the machinists' point of view, in that use will bring about a functional mating of operating surfaces.

We have a break-in period for light aircaft engines. Even though they are supposed to be given a static runup by the factory or rebuilder, they still require a 25-50 hour breakin period, when we fly thaem at full throttle to get the rings properly seated; and no one in their right mind will fly a newly-rebuilt engine beyond gliding distance of an airport for the first hour after rebuild.

I suppose it all hangs on criticality of the mission. My life doesn't hang by a thread when I take the family auto off the mechanic's lot.
 
Break in

a better term would be "proving period." Or how about "confidence test?"
Click to expand...
That I like. I appreciate the comments by men who work with this stuff.....but... a gun that doesn't work well out of the box.....what good is it?
Personally, and maybe I've been lucky, the guns that I have bought new have all worked right out of the box. I'm thinking about a Colt Gold Cup, a Ruger Mk. II, a Makarov, a Glock, pistols from both S&W and Ruger, a Beretta Tomcat.
Other guns were used and I cannot say.
Pete
 
With all due respect to Mr. Seecamp, his comment in my opinion is pure BS. Semi-autos require a break in. I know this from my own experieces with new pistols. Generally I experience some jams, misfeeds etc. when I first shoot them. After 300 - 500 rounds, the problems are very few and far inbetween. Whether this is actually due to firing rounds or the fact that I clean the gun thoroughly after each session is up for debate. But the truth is the truth, all of my new guns got more reliable after putting a few hundred rounds through.

He may have said that as just PR for his own line of guns. Regardless, I will still always advise new gun owners to break in their semi-autos.
 
And if someone at the factory missed something, or the gun doesn't like a particular type ammo, the time to find that out isn't when bullets are flying your way and you're up to your butt in alligators. It's a little late then to find out that the factory's QC guy let one slip past him.
 
Generally I experience some jams, misfeeds etc. when I first shoot them.
Click to expand...

If you're happy with that kind of "performance", well, I'm glad for you. Seecamp makes no excuses for mediocrity and neither do I. "Enabling" is not a good strategy for getting manufacturers to make a product that at least works. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so and apparently neither do the many companies that make reliable pistols that work from the time the wrapping comes off. Said companies are not in the minority and would include the many pistols that I have owned and/or shot extensively that didn't require "break-ins" to work, namely the aforementioned companies and adding SIG and CZ from my experience.
 
Any gun should at least get 50 rounds through it of the type you are going to use for self defense before you ever bet your life whether it will work or not.

If a manufacturer tells you to shoot two hundred ball type rounds (FMJ)rounds through it before you depend on it to protect you from harm,I'd do that.

Break in periods are a fact.

The worst time to find a burr in your gun is when a bad guy is coming at you with a baseball bat.
 
I agree with Seecamp's opinion. That said, I can understand fully verifying reliability and testing different ammo. I'll even go so far as to go along with burnishing in lubes such as Militec 1. What I can't fathom is allowing a grace period of malfunctions. The pistol was either made to operable specs or it was not.

Shooting 200 rounds changes what? If a gun malfunctions in the first 100 rounds, it will probably malfunction in the first 1000 rounds, and so on.
 
My Kahr manual states a 200 round break-in procedure needs to be done to ensure full reliability.

I have no problem with it. Metals need to mesh together properly. Same with cars, most of the failures within 100k miles happen the first year of ownership.

My friend's Sig 229 choked horribly on everything the first couple hundred rounds. After that, worked fine.
 
I wonder if Seecamp could produce a gun for 400 bux, for a profit, and still hold that attitude? I see his point, but theres a flipside when finishing, polishing, tolerances, and handwork vs/cost is involved.
 
Any gun should at least get 50 rounds through it of the type you are going to use for self defense before you ever bet your life whether it will work or not.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Did you miss this part?
Which isn't to say that a prudent shooter who intends to rely on a firearm for self-defense shouldn't run a minimum number of rounds through it before counting on it when the chips are down (my personal standard is at least 500 rounds without incident).
Click to expand...

No need for red herrings. Nobody I know has said that you shouldn't wring a pistol out before you trust it with your life. But that has nothing to do with whether a gun should run as intended from the box. If you're satisfied with having to fire a few hundred rounds through a pistol to get it to work like it should have from the beginning, good for you. I'm not.
 
I have no problem with it. Metals need to mesh together properly. Same with cars, most of the failures within 100k miles happen the first year of ownership.
Click to expand...

As I noted in my previous post (no.9, I believe), breaking in a car has nothing to do with whether it will run. It may have everything to do with whether you can get 100,000 miles out of it as opposed to 125,000 miles out of it but it will drive you reliably where you want to go the moment you first put the key in the ignition. I won't be satisfied with a pistol that fails within the first round of ownership. But that's just me being my usual unreasonable self. Imagine! Insisting on a product that I paid good money for working as advertised...:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top