I was wondering what the thoughts were about how many rounds to fire before considering the gun to be broken in. I just bought a Springfield HDS 3.3 9MM and want to make sure I have it broke in before I start using it as my concealed weapon of choice. I have several different brands of ammo to try out. It took me a long time to decide between it and the Glock 26, especially since there was a capacity difference, but the fact that it felt better in my hand finally won out. Did I make a mistake ? I will probably use this pistol in the summer only when concealment might be a problem with the clothes I have to wear to be cool in South Carolina.
How many to break in
- Thread starter Grits
- Start date
I think the concept of "breaking in" is over-rated.
If the gun has no failures with a box of your chosen carry ammo, there's no reason to think it will fail unless you fire some arbitrary number of rounds
Keep your guns clean and lubricated and failures are virtually nonexistent
If the gun has no failures with a box of your chosen carry ammo, there's no reason to think it will fail unless you fire some arbitrary number of rounds
Keep your guns clean and lubricated and failures are virtually nonexistent
I think it’s not only a brand to brand thing but that it is a gun to gun thing. That is, two guns of the same model from the same manufacturer might have different characteristics.
I’d expect a new gun, once it has been cleaned to work pretty well right off the bat.
However:
Each part of the gun is made in a range of tolerances. If they all get skewed in a particular direction you might have a ‘loose’ gun or a ‘tight’ gun. (Most of course will be ‘just right’.) Different manufacturers accept different variations in tolerances…usually tighter tolerances means the gun will cost more. Tighter tolerances does not necessarily mean the gun is tighter but it does mean the guns coming off the assembly line will be more consistent.
When I get a gun I’m going to fire a couple hundred rounds through it to test which ammo it likes best and to test ALL the magazines. I usually get a couple extra magazines for the gun right off the bat so on a high capacity semi if they hold fifteen rounds each and I’ve got four magazines there’s 60 rounds right there. Plus if one malfunctions I feel it’s only right to give it at least one more chance.
If it’s a jam-o-matic and malfunctions consistently with three out of the four magazines then you don’t have to think much about it, you can send it back.
If it works fine with three out of the four magazines then again you don’t have to agonize over a decision, the gun works okay just see what’s wrong with the one magazine.
But what if you fire 200 rounds and get four malfunctions? With different magazines. And different ammunition. And the malfunctions aren’t the same? Then you have kind of a problem. Maybe you can find one brand of ammo that works consistently well but should you be restricted to one brand? Maybe it’s a problem with just hollow points, but don’t you want to shoot hollow points? Maybe the problem will work itself out but how many rounds do you want to give it?
All this assumes you’ve cleaned the gun up before going to the range for the first time and then after shooting the gun. Unless it's horribly bad I'd give it a couple of range trips and a couple hundred rounds.
One point though is ‘don’t borrow trouble’ or ‘don’t take counsel of your fears’ (which I always thought was said by Patton but I find out now it might be Stonewall Jackson.)
1. You’re going to clean the gun when you get it anyway.
2. You’re going to take it to the range and shoot it with a couple different types of ammo anyway.
So see how it goes without worrying about how it’s going to go and then come back and report.
Good luck.
I’d expect a new gun, once it has been cleaned to work pretty well right off the bat.
However:
Each part of the gun is made in a range of tolerances. If they all get skewed in a particular direction you might have a ‘loose’ gun or a ‘tight’ gun. (Most of course will be ‘just right’.) Different manufacturers accept different variations in tolerances…usually tighter tolerances means the gun will cost more. Tighter tolerances does not necessarily mean the gun is tighter but it does mean the guns coming off the assembly line will be more consistent.
When I get a gun I’m going to fire a couple hundred rounds through it to test which ammo it likes best and to test ALL the magazines. I usually get a couple extra magazines for the gun right off the bat so on a high capacity semi if they hold fifteen rounds each and I’ve got four magazines there’s 60 rounds right there. Plus if one malfunctions I feel it’s only right to give it at least one more chance.
If it’s a jam-o-matic and malfunctions consistently with three out of the four magazines then you don’t have to think much about it, you can send it back.
If it works fine with three out of the four magazines then again you don’t have to agonize over a decision, the gun works okay just see what’s wrong with the one magazine.
But what if you fire 200 rounds and get four malfunctions? With different magazines. And different ammunition. And the malfunctions aren’t the same? Then you have kind of a problem. Maybe you can find one brand of ammo that works consistently well but should you be restricted to one brand? Maybe it’s a problem with just hollow points, but don’t you want to shoot hollow points? Maybe the problem will work itself out but how many rounds do you want to give it?
All this assumes you’ve cleaned the gun up before going to the range for the first time and then after shooting the gun. Unless it's horribly bad I'd give it a couple of range trips and a couple hundred rounds.
One point though is ‘don’t borrow trouble’ or ‘don’t take counsel of your fears’ (which I always thought was said by Patton but I find out now it might be Stonewall Jackson.)
1. You’re going to clean the gun when you get it anyway.
2. You’re going to take it to the range and shoot it with a couple different types of ammo anyway.
So see how it goes without worrying about how it’s going to go and then come back and report.
Good luck.
zombietactics
New member
I think you mean XDS, and not HDS.
If that's the case, there is no need to break that gun in. It's GTG right out of the box.
I'd recommend you run a box or two of your choice in premium defense ammo, just to be sure it cycles correctly, and then don't look back.
If that's the case, there is no need to break that gun in. It's GTG right out of the box.
I'd recommend you run a box or two of your choice in premium defense ammo, just to be sure it cycles correctly, and then don't look back.
They do that mainly to keep people from returning guns based on a couple of failures when the actual cause could be something besides the gun itself.
They have no way of knowing the abilities/knowledge of the shooter or the quality of the ammo, and those are the two main causes of failures with good quality guns
If there are major problems with a gun it doesn't work from the beginning
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I sort of agree, but I mostly disagree.DaleA said:
When you buy a new microwave, do you test cook 200 frozen dinners before declaring that the microwave is reliable? If your wife buys a new sewing machine, does she hem 200 dresses before considering the machine acceptable for sewing? If you buy a new car, do you drive it for 200 miles only on weekends, while continuing to drive the old heap to work or important appointments, until you're satisfied that the new car is reliable?
Of course not. Microwaves, sewing machines, automobiles and firearms are machines. ALL machines are built to tolerances. IMHO it's simply unacceptable for a manufacturer to sell a firearm and then tell the poor
I buy a firearm to shoot. Whatever price I pay, for that price I should receive a functional firearm. If I have to shoot 200 rounds through it before I can actually use it for the intended purpose (which, for me, is primarily to defend my life), then the purchase price has to be figured to include the cost of the 200 rounds, plus the value of my time wasted in "breaking in" the new firearm, and possibly the costs of traveling to a range to perform the "breaking in."
In my case, I'm a 1911 guy. The 100-round value packs of .45 ACP are currently selling for $49 at Wal-Mart -- if you can find any. Kimber wants you to shoot 500 rounds as "break in." That means I have to add $250 right to the bottom line of the purchase price, because if the manufacturer doesn't think the gun is ready for prime time before firing 500 rounds, then my "break in" is really an extension of the manufacturing process.
We wouldn't tolerate that with a microwave, a sewing machine, or an automobile. I don't understand why so may people will tolerate it with a firearm. I won't. If I want a new 1911, I'll buy a Colt, and (based on prior experience) it's almost certain that it will be reliable right from the first round. I can bring a new Colt home on Saturday and start wearing it on Sunday, without worrying that it might not function.
The only reason some gun manufacturers pull these little tricks is because so many gun owners are willing to let them get away with it.
I don't get it.
Captains1911
New member
Even if the gun doesn't need a "break-in", the shooter likely does, especially with a gun that is to be carried.
Of course. But since most people would like to see ___ consecutive rounds without a malfunction before feeling confident enough to carry a gun, a gun that begins with reliability issues due to "break-in" requirements delays the completion of that chosen number of consecutive rounds without failures, and thus effectively costs an amount over its sale price equal to the cost of the additional ammo used during that delay.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
Apparently, you don't because you're complaining about the manufacturer recommending that you shoot XXX amount of rounds. They're recommending you shoot it and you're complaining about doing that...so you can't have it both ways.
Frankly, I don't care what kind of gun it is. Glock, HK, SIG, or 1911 - if you don't put at least 200 rounds through it before using it for self defense...ah, without trying to be insulting...you don't really know if it is reliable or not.
Two hundred rounds is the absolute minimum as a reliability / function test AND, more importantly, getting to know the gun: handling, reloading, sighting, drawing from a holster, etc.
Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. I especially like the "...it's almost certain that it will be reliable..." disclaimer. You just go right on ahead and run right out with something that's ALMOST certain to run.
Me? I want to carry something I've personally proven to run reliably with the ammunition I've chosen for self defense.
I'd have to agree with that...
Me personally, I clean and lube out of the box, then run 100 rounds of fmj to "break in," then clean and lube again, then test w 100 rounds of chosen carry load. Test with all magazines. If no malfunctions, I feel I am good to go.
ANY subsequent malfs, the gun is 'benched' at least until I have figured out the problem and it passes the above test again.
I believe Kahr builds its guns way too tight, and they are way too sensitive in how they have to be held and maintained, to be good carry guns. I know some will disagree, but I have owned four, and could not find one I trusted to carry. They all had occasional malfs, and my P380 was truly awful. No more Kahrs for me.
With the top-quality models from good manufacturers, I have confidence once I have run 200 rounds as indicated above.
ANY subsequent malfs, the gun is 'benched' at least until I have figured out the problem and it passes the above test again.
I believe Kahr builds its guns way too tight, and they are way too sensitive in how they have to be held and maintained, to be good carry guns. I know some will disagree, but I have owned four, and could not find one I trusted to carry. They all had occasional malfs, and my P380 was truly awful. No more Kahrs for me.
With the top-quality models from good manufacturers, I have confidence once I have run 200 rounds as indicated above.
I agree with this for almost all manufacturers.
I cut Les Baer some slack on this because you're getting a gun that is truly hard-fit, not just a sloppily-machined production gun with sub-par components. And whereas my anecdotal experience is that the Kahr and Kimber owners I know have needed the break-in period (or more) at least half the time (with serious functional issues requiring factory repair occurring during the "break-in" more than once, as with my Kahr), only one of the several Baer owners I know, including myself, has had any malfunctions at all during the first 500 rounds -- and the one that did only had two total in the first 25 rounds. From what I've seen, Baers don't really need any more breaking in than the rest, despite their tightness. Overall, they're a tremendous value relative to almost all other semi-custom makes, and they're easily the least expensive source of a new centerfire gun guaranteed to shoot a 1.5" five-shot group at 50 yards. The prices that new Wilsons, Browns, and Nighthawks have climbed to in recent times verge on silliness, given that they're not far off from -- and in several cases actually higher than -- prices for superior full-custom 1911s, and none of those makers will guarantee the level of accuracy that you can get from Baer.
Kahrs and Kimbers, on the other hand, are way overpriced for the level of quality they deliver, and that -- along with the fact that the guns do very often have to be shot into something resembling reliablity -- is what makes their stated break-in requirements outrageous, in my opinion.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Okay, let me rephrase that: I buy a gun so that I can shoot when I choose to shoot. I own handguns primarily to carry for self defense, and to a much lesser extent for occasional competition. Reliability is paramount to both types of use. A handgun that can't be relied upon to fire EVERY time I pull the trigger is a liability, not an asset.Buckhorn Cortez said:
If you buy a new car and it won't start in the morning, the dealer and manufacturer don't tell you to drive it 500 miles before you call abut warranty service. They say, "Bring it in and we'll look at it." The same should be true of a firearm, especially firearms that are actively marketed for a self defense role. But the expectation with a new car is that it will start in the morning -- every morning. Obviously, based on many of the comments in this thread as well as many others on every gun forum, many of us don't have that same expectation about a new gun. And that's just not right.
I agree. But that should be 200 flawless rounds, without a single stoppage. You should be proving reliability, not "breaking in" the gun. Suppose your benchmark is 200 rounds to demonstrate reliability. At round #176 you get multiple jams. You tinker, you clean, and the gun seems to run again. Do you just fire 24 more rounds and say it's good? No, your criterion is 200 rounds without a stoppage -- so you start over. And if you get another stoppage before reaching 200 on the second try, you back up and start over again.
No matter how you try to rationalize the problems, the bottom line is that a firearm is a machine that's sold to perform a function. If it won't perform that function, it doesn't need "breaking in," it's a defective product that needs to be repaired or replaced.
Last edited:
trigger643
New member
Every gun I buy whether new or used gets field stripped, cleaned, examined for defect or damage, lubed, reassembled and function tested before firing. That's my "break-in period". Period.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Clean it and shoot it. I don't buy into the break in period theory, a gun should pretty much run out of the box.
That said, shoot a few boxes through yours (100 to 200 rounds) and make sure it runs your chosen ammo fine without a FTF or a FTE. If it does, you should be good to go.
That said, shoot a few boxes through yours (100 to 200 rounds) and make sure it runs your chosen ammo fine without a FTF or a FTE. If it does, you should be good to go.
I'm not an engineer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but the concept of a break in period for a mechanical device with metal to metal contact makes sense to me. When I buy a new car or motorcycle, the manufacturer usually specifies a break in procedure. I've had any number of folding knives, bolt and lever action rifles that started out stiff and balky but smoothed up with use. In fact, I've gotten a few very good deals on almost new pistols because the previous owners experienced problems during their initial firing (in one case without even cleaning out the factory grease), and immediately labled the gun as "unreliable", without giving it a proper chance.
Captains1911
New member
It's obvious from this thread that far too many people carry firearms without training with them. I personally would never carry a gun for personal protection without first being intimately familiar with it, which takes at least 1000 rounds, and maybe more. Yet, there are people here complaining that they have to go shoot a couple hundred rounds through their new gun before they can carry it.... For these people, chances are if they ever need that gun they will be the limiting factor.
Last edited: