Break in period necessary??
- Thread starter IMTHDUKE
- Start date
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough:
I'm not claiming that guns (or other mechanical dinguses) won't benefit from "breaking in".
I just mean that, like Mr Seecamp, I expect guns to be sold ready to function properly out of he box, in other words that they shouldn't REQUIRE breaking in in order to work.
(And if they don't - but his is a very personal opinion- it's either sloppy manufacturing or faulty design).
I'm not claiming that guns (or other mechanical dinguses) won't benefit from "breaking in".
I just mean that, like Mr Seecamp, I expect guns to be sold ready to function properly out of he box, in other words that they shouldn't REQUIRE breaking in in order to work.
(And if they don't - but his is a very personal opinion- it's either sloppy manufacturing or faulty design).
I let the manufacturer be my guide, for the most part. If they say there's a break-in period then I'm willing to go along with them. Some manufacturers do a "wear-in"/"break-in" at the factory or design/build their product in such a way that a break-in period is unnecessary. Beretta, for example, uses a machine to cycle the slide on each one of their 92/96 series pistols over a hundred times before it leaves the factory.
In fact, we would even be able to sit down at home and punch buttons and then what we wrote would be able to be viewed almost instantly by people all over the world. If only engineers weren't a joke in the real world...
Yeah, it's pretty sad, isn't it. If only engineers could ever get things to work in the real world instead of just on paper just think of all the cool things humans could do. We wouldn't have to walk to work, we could easily and rapidly visit people on the other side of the world, our houses could be cool in the summer and warm in the winter, we'd have small boxes in our homes that would rapidly cook food without using any fire or even without applying heat, we could watch things that happened long distances away while sitting at home and even store those images to watch again later if we wished, we could make tall buildings that would hold thousands of people and we could actually fly to the moon and maybe even send space probes to other planets.
In fact, we would even be able to sit down at home and punch buttons and then what we wrote would be able to be viewed almost instantly by people all over the world. If only engineers weren't a joke in the real world...
"Why should we expect less than a pistol functioning correctly when it's brand new?"
The answer appears to be fairly straightforward. We don't always want to pay for the extra time and attention that is required to perform the final fit-and-finish and shooting-break-in that is always required.
IOW, pay a little and get a gun that has been fired a few times or pay extra to get one that has really been tested for full functioning - sight adjustment, safety function, trigger overtravel, magazine or cylinder lockup, etc. Not just 3 to 6 bangs, but tested to see if every part of it is working correctly. And that takes time and time is money and that drives the cost up.
What's the big deal, I buy guns so I can shoot them. Call it break-in or call it range time, that's why I bought them.
John
The answer appears to be fairly straightforward. We don't always want to pay for the extra time and attention that is required to perform the final fit-and-finish and shooting-break-in that is always required.
IOW, pay a little and get a gun that has been fired a few times or pay extra to get one that has really been tested for full functioning - sight adjustment, safety function, trigger overtravel, magazine or cylinder lockup, etc. Not just 3 to 6 bangs, but tested to see if every part of it is working correctly. And that takes time and time is money and that drives the cost up.
What's the big deal, I buy guns so I can shoot them. Call it break-in or call it range time, that's why I bought them.
John
Mr Seecamp is correct. A new gun should work right out of the box. Kahr even states a minimum of 200 rounds for break in. Then why don't they include the 200 rounds with the new gun? If the new gun has to be broken in, it is because the maker didn't do the job right. A measurement was over/under tolerance or if everything is in tolerance, the design was flawed.
People have steadily become sheep and they believe anything told to them. What would you do if your doctor told you that you had to have a pacemaker installed so you could live and he told you that it might not work right at first but after it's broken in, it will be fine?
People have steadily become sheep and they believe anything told to them. What would you do if your doctor told you that you had to have a pacemaker installed so you could live and he told you that it might not work right at first but after it's broken in, it will be fine?
What about those people who have the opinion....
That an auto pistol should work flawlessly, right out of the box, with any and every brand/type/style of ammo they put in it? Are they expecting too much?
I think so. I think they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the mechanism, and the business.
Kahr says 200rnds before the pistol is should be considered reliable, not that it will be after this magic number. Is this a design flaw? Or is it a way of telling the consumer that something you may be betting you life on better be tested and proven before you do so? I think the latter is closer to reality.
Considering the absolutely huge amount of variables involved in getting an autopistol to work properly, especially since the makers have no control of many of them (like the ammo used, for just one), I think it is actually reasonable not to expect flawless operation right out of the box. If you get it, count your blessings.
That an auto pistol should work flawlessly, right out of the box, with any and every brand/type/style of ammo they put in it? Are they expecting too much?
I think so. I think they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the mechanism, and the business.
Kahr says 200rnds before the pistol is should be considered reliable, not that it will be after this magic number. Is this a design flaw? Or is it a way of telling the consumer that something you may be betting you life on better be tested and proven before you do so? I think the latter is closer to reality.
Considering the absolutely huge amount of variables involved in getting an autopistol to work properly, especially since the makers have no control of many of them (like the ammo used, for just one), I think it is actually reasonable not to expect flawless operation right out of the box. If you get it, count your blessings.
As evidenced in my earlier posts, I stand by my conviction that it is unreasonable "not to expect flawless operation right out of the box." I agree with Coastal when he likened people who apparently feel that it's just fine with a brand new pistol that malfunctions from the get-go as brandwashed "sheep". Too many manufacturers are able to make a pistol that works "right out of the box" (S&W, HK, Beretta, Glock to name a few) to give a pass to those manufacturers who expect the consumer to run through a couple of hundred or more rounds before their product is "broken in".
"What would you do if your doctor told you that you had to have a pacemaker installed so you could live and he told you that it might not work right at first but after it's broken in, it will be fine?"
Is that the only option? I'd take it. Has a doctor ever said such a thing? I doubt it. What does this have to do with guns? Nothing.
What if a doctor told you that you had cancer and the expensive meds probably wouldn't work, but they might. Would you take them? See, I can be just as far off topic as the next person.
What if a tire dealer sold you snow tires but said they might not keep you on the road if it snowed? Hint: buy chains.
Some guns are broken in at the factory and some aren't. Most aren't. It costs too much and, as we know, a whole lot of gun owners will do almost anything to save $5 or $10 on the price of a new gun. It's not just the cost of the ammo, but there's the cost of employees to shoot all those rounds and the cost of additional insurance, etc.
On a different note, I get tickled to no end by folks who will tinker with a computer for hours and days on end to get it just so, but don't have a bit of patience with a firearm with numerous moving parts.
John
Is that the only option? I'd take it. Has a doctor ever said such a thing? I doubt it. What does this have to do with guns? Nothing.
What if a doctor told you that you had cancer and the expensive meds probably wouldn't work, but they might. Would you take them? See, I can be just as far off topic as the next person.
What if a tire dealer sold you snow tires but said they might not keep you on the road if it snowed? Hint: buy chains.
Some guns are broken in at the factory and some aren't. Most aren't. It costs too much and, as we know, a whole lot of gun owners will do almost anything to save $5 or $10 on the price of a new gun. It's not just the cost of the ammo, but there's the cost of employees to shoot all those rounds and the cost of additional insurance, etc.
On a different note, I get tickled to no end by folks who will tinker with a computer for hours and days on end to get it just so, but don't have a bit of patience with a firearm with numerous moving parts.
John
Everyone is entitled to their opinion
I guess it all boils down to what you are expecting to get for your money.
The thing with handguns is that because they could be such important things to our survival, we expect flawless performance, after all, its our butts on the line, right?
Nothing made by man is flawless. Not guns, not ammo. But things can, and should be made as well as possible.
But if you put 25 octane gas in your Ferrari, don't blame the car if it doesn't run perfectly.
I guess it all boils down to what you are expecting to get for your money.
The thing with handguns is that because they could be such important things to our survival, we expect flawless performance, after all, its our butts on the line, right?
Nothing made by man is flawless. Not guns, not ammo. But things can, and should be made as well as possible.
But if you put 25 octane gas in your Ferrari, don't blame the car if it doesn't run perfectly.
Hellbilly5000
New member
If all of Mr Seacamps guns work flawlessly out of the box why do they come with a warranty?
Halifax270
Inactive
With all due respect to Mr. Seecamp, he is in the business of selling guns. A manufacturer has to justify their price point and differentiate there products from others. If his company is losing market share to the competition, and those competitors suggest a break-in period, well it would certainly be to his advantage to exploit that to gain market share.
I certainly see more people here sporting Kahrs than Seecamps. Seems logical that he would take that stance to me.
I certainly see more people here sporting Kahrs than Seecamps. Seems logical that he would take that stance to me.
hoplophile
New member
How many manufacturers would put 200 rounds through a pistol sent in for feeding or ejection problems before they decided it needed to be worked on?
And if they ultimately decided it needed to be worked on and the problem could be fixed with a little fluff and buff, why wasn't it fluffed and buffed in the beginning before it got shipped out the door?
No gunsmith is going to put 200 rounds through a firearm before he concludes there's a problem and takes out his tools.
A new pair of shoes may fit more comfortably as they get worn in, but they should fit from the get-go. I beware the salesman who tells me my feet will hurt for a while wearing new shoes but that the pain will eventually go away and the shoes will fit like a velvet glove.
I used to buy that story: The shirt doesn't fit but after you wash it a couple of times . . .
No more.
And if they ultimately decided it needed to be worked on and the problem could be fixed with a little fluff and buff, why wasn't it fluffed and buffed in the beginning before it got shipped out the door?
No gunsmith is going to put 200 rounds through a firearm before he concludes there's a problem and takes out his tools.
A new pair of shoes may fit more comfortably as they get worn in, but they should fit from the get-go. I beware the salesman who tells me my feet will hurt for a while wearing new shoes but that the pain will eventually go away and the shoes will fit like a velvet glove.
I used to buy that story: The shirt doesn't fit but after you wash it a couple of times . . .
No more.
There is an official Seecamp forum with enough documented cases of magazines and new pistols malfunctioning to know that Mr Seecamp was most likely only speaking of an ideal he would like to strive for with his excellent pistols(and hopes other manufacturers would try to meet as well)...instead of a statement of actual reality.
Halifax270
Inactive
You missed my point. He's a businessman. Seecamp a niche company. It's his responsibility to promote his product, and as such I think the letter he posted on HIS website was an attempt to do so.
For a small company viral marketing is considerably cheaper than placing an ad in Guns & Ammo. From a business standpoint, I think his tactic is brilliant.