How many to break in

The fact that Kahr does the things described is what makes the claim true, not anything I say.
Click to expand...
It's only your opinion they do all those things

Unless of course you have access to the blueprints and spec sheets that show the tolerance on the final finishes

If so, please share
 
Is the cost of running a couple hundred rounds of ammo through a new gun to ensure it's reliable worth more than your life,
Click to expand...
But this thread is not about proving reliability, it's about breaking in a new firearm.

Since you have "1911" in your screen name, you may have heard of Les Baer and Kimber. Both have a reputation for telling new buyers who experience problems to call back after shooting at least 500 rounds. There's no talk there of shooting enough rounds to feel comfortable the new pistol is reliable. These are new pistols that have proven themselves to NOT be reliable, and the factory's answer to that is "Shoot it more."

And my point is that the cost of shooting it more has to be considered part of the cost of the firearm. Why should I spend close to (or over) $1000 for a new Kimber that has a high probability of not working, and then being told to shoot at least 500 rounds through it (which will cost about $250, minimum, roughly 25 percent tacked onto the purchase price of a $1000 firearm), when for the same money or less I can buy a Colt that's likely to be reliable out of the box -- and if it isn't, Colt will fix it without telling me to shoot 500 rounds through it.

After all, to use the automobile analogy, a new car may require some break-in but it starts and runs and drives while you're breaking it in. You get to use it for the intended purpose. Unreliable firearms do NOT run when they are being "broken in" -- they jam. If the intended purpose is self defense, then obviously the gun CAN'T be used for the intended purpose.
 
MJFlores said:
The bottom line is, why do people get a new gun and complain about the idea of shooting a few hundred rounds through it while l,earning it's trigger, hold, sights, etc?? That's supposed to be fun.
Click to expand...
Not everyone buys a pistol for fun. Many people buy guns solely for the purpose of self defense. Finding that your new self defense tool doesn't work is not "fun." And it also means that the new tool is not suitable for its intended purpose. It should be the manufacturer's responsibility to make the product functional, not the buyer's.
 
It's only your opinion they do all those things
Click to expand...

No, not exactly, actually. But you're free to hold whatever belief you like, no matter how unrepresentative of reality. I certainly don't care.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
But this thread is not about proving reliability, it's about breaking in a new firearm.

[...]

And my point is that the cost of shooting it more has to be considered part of the cost of the firearm.
Click to expand...

One would think this would be a simple concept to grasp.
 
I own a slew of guns (+20); various mfgs. My Kahr was the worst gun I owned, couldn't trust it. Even after the "recommended break-in" it was unreliable. The only other gun I experienced "problems" with is my Kimber Solo. I really like the gun; it's accurate, has a great trigger, low recoil for a gun its size and it great for carry with its long trigger travel and a safety. The "problem" was getting it to accept the magazine and load the first round. It's likely my fault; after 250 rounds I've realized the gun only works properly if loaded with the slide locked back, then release it by pulling it aft. Then, it works perfectly using the recommended ammo.

I believe all working mechanical devices will "break-in". And, if operated long enough will wear out. The only question is whether the device will function properly from beginning to the end.
 
I've realized the gun only works properly if loaded with the slide locked back, then release it by pulling it aft. Then, it works perfectly using the recommended ammo.
Click to expand...

After deciding to get my CPL three years ago, I took a handgun class in which the instructor said to chamber a round only by pulling the slide back fully, never by just releasing the slide lock. The reason he gave is it is the only way to ensure the gun fully cycles, which in turn is the only way to be sure the first round will be properly chambered.

After reading the first revision of the Army's M1911 manual, I tossed out the instructor's recommendation, as it appears the 1911 was designed to use the slide stop release to chamber the first round, and that allows it to be doneone-handed. Your story, however, indicates the instructor had a point.

Have you tried polishing the feed ramp to see if you can chamber your first round with a release of the slide lock?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top