Do New Guns Really Need "Breaking In"?

[FoxtrotRomeo]

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.

It only takes me 3 rounds to figure out if it's good to go. What I look for is grouping. If the grouping is a spray job then I say no go. If it
s a lil off and reliably so then it's good to go because push comes to shove, I can compensate.

It is my understanding that some pistols just feel different so you have to get familiar with it in reference to how you operate it. It's not bad, it's just that if you feel you still have a winner then just work with it.

That is the concept of fam-fire. It familiarizes you with the firearm so that you can operate it more efficiently.

 

[rtpzwms]

Originally Posted by Jim Keenan
NO! Any gun (with the exception of some target pistols) should work out of the box with any reasonable ammunition.

Why would target pistols get a bye on this? Seems to me to this would be talking out of both sides.

Originally Posted by FoxtrotRomeo
It only takes me 3 rounds to figure out if it's good to go.

Really, only 3 rounds? I want a LOT more than three, a LOT more! I think my life is worth a lot more than just 3 rounds.

 

[larryh1108]

Yes, we want tighter tolerances and smoother action. I doubt the old 1911s needed even 10 rounds to be fully functional. Of course, the newer 1911s are tighter with less tolerances and "slop". Glocks are the "model of perfection" because they have a looser tolerance than some other lines.

If a machining cutter or other finishing part has a life of 10,000 units, you can't tell me that unit 9,900 is as precise as unit 1,100. We can't change the parts half thru their shelf life or the costs would skyrocket. The more expensive gun makers use real human beings to hone the product for final fitting. You then pay $1200 for the gun instead of $800. Everything has a price.

If you buy a new gun you "should" put 200-500 rounds thru it before you deem it fit for carry. This also allows you to become familiar with the controls, weight, balance, POA versus POI, etc. You and your new gun have to learn each other just like all the parts within the gun need to "learn" each other as well. So what if you have 4 or 5 failures in the first 200 round but never have a problem again.

If you are so upset about being the guy to fit the final product then send a bill to the manufactor for the 5 rounds that didn't perform to your satisfaction. This is only about breaking in any new gun. Of course, the lemons out there are a different story. They happen to all makers but some more than others. You'[re going to shoot your gun anyways so I just don't understand the guys who get so upset about breaking it in.

A nice pair of new shoes perform as expected when you first put them on but they sure do feel better after you break them in to your feet. Same shoe, different feel. This is not a cookie cutter world with machinery, especially fine machinery. Breaking in a new gun is part of the buying process, IMO.

 

[zippy13]

I think there may be some confusion in terms when discussing a "break-in" period. Some are referring the post-initial-clean-and-lube firing as a break-in when in reality it should be considered a safety check or test firing. Service manuals discuss the procedures and cautions (like loading only two in the mag the first time as a precaution in case of full-auto firing). I agree with those who feel a NIB pistol should be able to be put into service after a thorough safety test firing.

As opposed to test firing, breaking in shouldn't be required; but, available as an option for the user to improve his pistol's performance. Many have opined about the advantages of wear fitting, or lapping, of mated parts. We've all read threads where those complaining about rough triggers are told to be patient, or to dry-fire their revolver a thousand times.

Supposedly, after the break in period, the lapped parts will fit perfectly and the pistol will function at its optimum. I suspect that's what the LGS guys were thinking when they suggested the OP put 500+ rounds through his new Springfield.

I'm curious, where did this magic number of 500 come from -- is there test data to support it -- because it's the number of rounds in a case of ammo -- or what? While some parts become better fit, might not others become worn or weak? Is there a point where a prolonged break in period is detrimental and takes the pistol beyond the point of optimum performance?

 

[44 AMP]

There is no magic number...

500 rnds was what the OP gunshop salesman recommended.

Its all about trust. How many rounds do you need (without serious failure) from a gun before you trust it? I figure that a gun should go a couple hundred rounds without trouble, before I would trust it for defensive use. And that's only with the ammo tested!

Hell, I buy handguns that are decades, sometimes half a century old, or older. They ought to be considered "broken in" don't you think?

But I still don't rely on them, until they have passed my personal tests.

Here's a question for ya, if your pistol is absolutely reliable with ball ammo, is it defective if its not absolutely reliable with JHP? Or with Brand A, but not Brand X? Is it fair to blame the gun if some of the ammo (especially the bargin stuff) gives it trouble?

Is it fair to blame your Corvette if it runs like crap on 50 octane gas?

 

[BlueTrain]

I'm getting the idea that firearms get better as they get older while every other machine product wears out. Or is it that the old ones were better than the new ones, which everyone says about everything.

 

[woodguru]

Machining roughness

How many people are aware of the roughness left by machine tools? More importantly how about the inherent roughness involved with stainless steel? Stainless leaves burrs when cut, if the barrel hasn't undergone a finishing polish or lapping as would typically be done with a competition grade barrel it is going to be rough which will be prone to copper fouling.

Chances are break in routines are going to help create a smoother bore and rifling surfaces especially where the bore started out rougher than normal as in late in a cutting tool's life/use cycle. Shooting a couple of hundred rounds through a rough new bore without the benefit of more frequent cleaning and lubricants might develop microscopic galling instead of smoothing as it was shot. I doubt that would make any more difference that half an inch on the group potential of the rifle. Competition shooters would consider the rifle barrel junk but most others wouldn't ever notice or care.

Competition bores are lapped and start out smooth. On fine firearms that I will be using for benchrest like my Sako .22-250 and .243 varmint barreled rifles I lapped them before using them.

For a production gun I doubt it makes any difference. For production semi auto pistols working the slide a couple of hundred times makes a difference you can feel. Many work a new gun over by moving the action and polishing and honing rubbing surfaces to make them work smoother.

People should have a reasonable expectation of having a gun work out of the box but we all know some guns may not work reliably at a brand new state.

I have taken a brand new S&W model 41 target pistol and had a tuner work it over for feeding and trigger pull before ever shooting it. I'm sure it would have worked out of the box.

I've had a lot of people ask me about break in through the years and my opinion for most general purpose guns is that it isn't going to make a difference in rifles except at competitive levels. Pistols get smoother with use.

 

[madmag]

How many people are aware of the roughness left by machine tools? More importantly how about the inherent roughness involved with stainless steel?

Agree and dis-agree.

Machine tools such as end mills do leave a rough finish. But there is no difference in stainless. 400 series stainless machines about the same as any other steel....there is no inherent roughness to stainless. BTW, I have spent 40 years or so machining stainless and other types of steel, alum, etc.

 

[johnbt]

"Hell, I buy handguns that are decades, sometimes half a century old, or older. They ought to be considered "broken in" don't you think?"

Did any of the owners possess a Dremmel tool? Did they hand file the face of the sear? Did they replace any of the springs?

No, I don't think I'd consider them broken in. They could be plain broken.

 

[EarlFH]

I don't think you should break-in your guns at all. Just stick a magazine full of ammo in it, and carry it like that. That will show everyone that they can't make you break them in! Hopefully your next of kin can have that engraved on you tombstone, when your gun doesn't work when you needed it to. After all, it's only your life that's on the line.

EarlFH

 

[madmag]

Did any of the owners possess a Dremmel tool?

The dreaded dremmel tool. Probably more guns have been ruined by a dremmel tool than any other method. I actually know how to use one but there should be a license for dremmel tool use.


Back to the OP's question. Yes some guns do require a break-in period. I think many would be surprised at how Little the difference there is between running smooth and having problems. Sometimes just removing a sharp edge does the trick. Wish it were otherwise, but that's just how it is.

 

[cougar gt-e]

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.

Like most things there is no one pure black / white answer. But, remember back to 1970? The low end Ford car was a pinto. Generally, when looked at with today's eyes and expectations -- it was a rolling pile of fertilizer. Fast forward through 40 years of hard fought competition with GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Honda, etc etc. The low end car from Ford is now the Focus. Compare the quality of the frame, the fit and finish of the exterior and interior components, the power and economy of the engine, the durability, etc etc etc to a pinto. You can't - the quality of a Focus today is higher than any automobile produced by anyone anywhere in 1970. And when you compare the cost of a pinto in 1970 and the cost of a Focus in 2010 to the average yearly income -- the focus is the same or less in real dollars.

If you are a GM person, do the comparison with a 1970 Vega and the Cobalt. The numbers work out nearly the same.

To my way of thinking, that shows exactly how competition drives quality and how raising quality drives expectations for still higher quality and how anyone that falters in the delivery of that higher and higher quality fails and is replaced by a new competitor. Yes, low cost competitors will jump in and undercut, but they won't last if the quality isn't on par.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I don't really buy the break in period. I can understand it I guess, but I've never owned a pistol that needed a break in period before it functioned normally, well, unless you include my Taurus M85 that failed to function after the break in period...

 

[madmag]

I can understand it I guess, but I've never owned a pistol that needed a break in period before it functioned normally

Understood, but what if one of your next pistols had minor feed issues for the first 300 rounds or so. And what if after 300 rounds it functioned with no failures. What would you do? Would you get rid of that gun because it had some initial failures? It's just personal choice, but I have had that situation and feel comfortable that after break-in that gun works just fine.