Do New Guns Really Need "Breaking In"?

My impression here of what some customizing of automatics (mostly) amounts to is doing things to the gun that a certain amount of normal use will produce anyway after a while. Usually a gun will smooth up after it has been fired for a while, which leads me to believe that the Nagant revolver I had was virtually brand new--and the Colt revolvers were all nearly so. But anyhow, when I get home tonight, I'm going to see what all the manuals I have say about it. I don't recall that any mention a break-in period.

I also wonder what those WWII issue .45 autos were like when they were still new in the box, although I also suspect they may have had a closer inspection than we may give them credit for having today. And perhaps a better inspection than guns get today.

I also suspect that 500 rounds may be more than is necessary to break in a new gun. Most of my guns were never fired that much if I bought them new, although I made up for it with others.
 
There is another issue to the break-in idea. Some new pistols are just fine, but have problems with magazines. Example, my Ruger P90 came with an 8 round mag with a lousy follower that could tilt on the last round. This immediately caused problems. I changed to a Wilson Combat skirted follower and GI spring with 7 round capability. No more problems.

BTW, I hate 7 round (1911 type) dimensioned mags that are made to work for 8 round by changing the spring and follower....they always give me problems. Now 8 rounders that have extended floor plates are OK.
 
Some types of guns have a real need to be smoothed out (lapped together) to ensure functioning. Typically, high end 1911 pattern pistols manufactured to the very low end of the spec tolerance to make them as tight and accurate as possible. The up-side to that is a very accurate gun that has good hand feel, the down side is they may malfunction early and often. A lot of tweaking needs to be done to get a tight gun to function perfectly.

Many, if not most, new guns are made to looser tolerances, have few if any early life issues and are still inherently more accurate than the vast majority of the people shooting them.

The OP's question gun, a 1911 Springfield loaded in .45acp, is in the second category of looser tolerance guns that shouldn't have early life issues. The manual from them does NOT list any need for a 500 round break in. Do take it down and clean/lube it well before first firing and it should be good to go. Always fire a couple boxes of the exact same rounds you will carry to be sure they will function flawlessly in your gun. Some brands won't work right away and the gun may need a tweak to run them.
 
I call that period the I'm-going-to-the-range-to-shoot-my-new-gun period. I suppose I was breaking in guns before it was even called that.

And the new cars I've had said not to drive at one speed/rpm for extended periods during the first 1000 or so miles. You're supposed to vary your speed to seat the parts and... break it in. Iow, lay off the cruise control.

JT
 
One of the most overused and overhyped sayings in the gun industry. I agree with Jim, if it doesn't work out of the box it is defective. I only hear this when someone spends a lot of money on a "high end" piece and it has problems. The immediate response is "break it in".
 
New guns SHOULD be broken in before being used for SD/HD, just like a car should be driven easy the first thousand miles or so. But not all guns will need a break in to function properly.
 
Just because it works out of the box doesn't mean it doesn't need to be broken in.

Just one more point of view.
 
The sales guys was giving him some basic advice and then told him to put at least 500 rounds through the gun to break it in. I will admit I have heard similar advice about most any gun I have purchased, but this time it got me thinking.
Click to expand...

The real question is, how many rounds does it take through a M1911 before you trust your life to it?

500 rounds is not a bad number. Load up all your magazines, use them all. If a 45 ACP functions through 500 rounds without a problem it is a reliable pistol and you can trust your magazines.

Always oil the thing, then clean it up real good.
 
Unfortunately, I think break-in is real. I have had guns that required no break-in period, but here is the problem. If you have a pistol that has minor issues in the first 200 rounds or so what do you do? I think what most do is to correct the minor issue or let it wear in..etc. I have never thought about selling one of my guns do to minor issues. As far as brand...I have been shooting for 60 years and I seen them all fail at one time or another.
 
Unfortunately, I think break-in is real. I have had guns that required no break-in period, but here is the problem. If you have a pistol that has minor issues in the first 200 rounds or so what do you do?
Click to expand...


IMHO, most issues are not from stack tolerance being too tight. Often it's just a hunk of crud that wasn't cleaned out well enough or a burr that wasn't taken down. That's a cleaning or machining error - not a tolerance problem.

While we don't like to send guns back, forcing the manufacturer to fix the mistakes on their dime, improves quality overall. They either fix the issues before the products are shipped or they go broke and out of the business. The "cheap" guns from Asia and other places used to be cheap, now they are just inexpensive. Competition drives quality, quality drives expectations and expectations drive the need for more competition. Think PC's would be cheap like they are if they were only made by IBM?
 
Any firearm that does not come out of the box with total reliablilty is not worth buying. There is absolutely no need to make a handgun so "accurate" that it requires a break in period where it is not reliable. I will not purchase such a firearm.
 
I've had guns that needed "breaking in" according to the manufacturer... that had mill work done to them so poorly so as to make the frame unsalvageable, ever. Cuts in the wrong place on the frame.

Manufacturers use this line of bull-pucky to get out of fixing problems. And "high end" gun owners tend to buy it. In particular, 1911 owners.

Burrs might retard the operation of the slide on the rails, or rough edges on the barrel's contour might defeat perfect lockup... but there's a big difference between a lemon gun and one that needs a few hundred rounds to slick up.

Frankly, IMO, a $2000 gun (Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, Nighthawk, etc) should not need a break in. After all, all that hand crafting should have actually CRAFTED something. If it can't hire a junior apprentice to hit the rough spots with a croccus cloth or whetstone, and the master smith didn't do it right the first time... just what exactly DID it buy?
 
my recent purchase of a Taurus 357 magnum needed a trigger job cause the trigger was messed up, fortunately the gun smith I bought it from did it him self rather than making me go through Taurus.
 
Reliability is like accuarcy.

Both are over-rated.

Just let the ads tell what is good, let them take responsibility for your safety and let the experts do alll the thinking for you. Remember, Be Happy. :)


:
 
I don't think competition necessarily improves quality by which I mean you get a better quality at a lower price. The market varies over time and if low price is what the market wants, competition will give you lower prices, not quality. There are very good products coming from Asia but I can't believe that something that used to be made in the United States that is now made somewhere in the Far East is of equal or better quality than the former American made product. I just haven't seen it. Lower cost is what sent the production there and lower cost is everything that matters.

The irony is when most of the workers in the American factory were Asian and production still went overseas.
 
With a reliable design and brand, most pistols should work essentially perfectly right out of the box, with no break in period necessary. If not, then the design and/or quality control is lacking by today's standards.

That said, there are always going to be some pistols of generally good design and quality control that will work perfectly only after slightly rough parts on the wrong ends of their tolerance ranges wear down a bit in a process known as breaking in. This is an unavoidable fact of mass production, although it may be possible for a gunsmith to diagnose and fix the problem, obviating the need for further break in.

And finally, there are always going to be some lemons, even among the most reliable designs from manufacturers with the finest quality control. Even in my limited experience, I've seen plenty of examples...yes, including lemon Glocks that are apparently so fundamentally out-of-spec in some way that changing out every single part doesn't help--it's rare with good designs and brands, but it happens.

Jim Keenan said:
NO! Any gun (with the exception of some target pistols) should work out of the box with any reasonable ammunition. If it doesn't, it is no good and the brand should be avoided.
Click to expand...

The whole brand should be avoided just because a gun isn't reliable from the get-go, even when most of that design are? I hate to break it to you, but every mass-produced gun in your collection is hereby rendered worthless. I'll take them off your hands for $1. :D

Jim Keenan said:
But too often, makers (1911 type makers are notorious for it) will respond to complaints about a new gun by telling you that their guns have to be broken in for some huge number of rounds.
Click to expand...

Well, if they're not being reasonable, then I can understand avoiding a particular brand, but I still think what you said earlier is a bit harsh. Not to make excuses for them, but perhaps some of these manufacturers (particularly regarding their 1911 models) are merely giving people in a certain market what they want by making their guns fit so tightly that they're bound to require hundreds if not thousands of rounds to loosen up enough in order to function reliably. The cost of such guns would skyrocket if sufficient QC and hand-fitting were used in their manufacture to make them both tight and reliable right out of the box.

In contrast, it's easier and cheaper to manufacture a reliable Glock because they're relatively loose to begin with by design. It's not that they're perfect in either design or manufacture (despite the marketing :rolleyes: ), but they may be more pragmatic in some ways. If I'm not mistaken, the original GI M1911 was similar in this way, having been designed as a service pistol as opposed to a connoisseur's dream gun (as most 1911s seem to be these days).

Jim Keenan said:
Then, after the break in, if the gun still doesn't work, they will tell you the warranty has expired or is void because you used the gun too much before reporting the problem!
Click to expand...

That's just bad customer service, and if it's a common problem with the design, then obviously both are to be avoided. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said first, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
The only gun I truly had to break in was my Beretta Bobcat 21A 22lr. I put about 300 rounds before it all but stopped jamming, and the more I shoot it the better it is getting.
 
A matter of opinion, and of trust...

For all those who say that if it isn't flawless out of the box, its crap, you've either been very lucky, or you own a lot of crap you just didn't recognize as crap.

For decades, its been standard advice for us to run at least a couple hundred rounds through a defensive pistol before trusting it with our lives. And I think thats still good advice. 500 seems like a lot, but if it will go 2/300, it ought to go 5.;)

Last year I helped out a friend break in his Kahr .45. The manual specifically said to fire at least 200 rounds before considering the gun suitable for carry. And yes, there were 5 failures. 2 failures to fully eject, and 3 to fully lock up. This was with 150rnds of ball, ending with 50 rnds of Speer Gold dot. And there were zero failures in the last 45 rnds.

I find the idea of a break in period eminently sensable, particularly since the makers have no idea (or control) over what ammo you are shooting. Also, it allows you to understand the gun, and hopefully, master its function, and malfunction(s) if they occurr.

I know several guns that absolutely will not work right with a certain brand of ammo. Other guns in the same calibers work fine with that ammo, but not these (and they are not defective). Thats something you kind of need to know, for a defensive pistol. A break in period might be the place where you find it out.

Many guns are not shipped from the factories with proper lubrication for operation. They are lubed for storage. They may not work correctly "right out of the box". Some gunbuyers don't know this. Some sellers don't make it clear, only saying they could/should clean it before use.

Every gun I have ever gotten brand new has worked "out of the box". Not all have worked flawlessly. All have worked better after a number of rounds have been fired. Guns are NOT THE SAME as blenders, TVs computers, or nearly any other consumer goods. No other consumer goods are expected to operate flawlessly under such a wide range of potential conditions.

Sure, gunmakers could spend all that extra time and effort breaking in the guns for us, but then a $600 gun would cost $3000, and they wouldn't sell nearly as many. And that goes for the already hugely over expensive "high grade" guns like so many custom 1911s. If you are willing to pay for it, you can have guns already "broken in". Damn few people are willing to do that. I'm one of them. I like shooting, and breaking in a new gun is something I enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top