Do pistols truly need a break-in by design or is this just an excuse for a poorly built gun having problems early on and somehow gets better as springs take some set?
Do pistols truly need a break-in by design or is this just an excuse for a poorly built gun having problems early on and somehow gets better as springs take some set?
Or to ensure that a mass produced item isn't missing or doesn't have a sub standard $.03 cent (hard cost) spring.
All mechanical things "break in" some need it and some don't...... something about odds vs. stakes.....
My advice to my guys is to do 1k rounds without cleaning before showing up to qual. It makes sure they not only know their manipulations, but also to take care of any "break in",or, more likely, tolerence stack in mass produced guns.
To be fair, in 20 years of this, only one pistol had real issues. My hate for the XD continues to this day...I know, my bias is showing...
pat
I shoot my firearms to vet them, which in turn breaks them in. Apples and oranges I suppose. I would say that a firearm that is tightly fitted may need to be broken-in. I guess we all have our comfort zone when we trust our firearm for self-defense.
Maybe? It used to be a gun magazine staple to claim you needed to put 500 rounds of your carry ammo (Ha-Ha! Jesus, that was another world) through a gun before you could consider it properly vetted, and in the process, which would be like 5-10 range trips, you’d knock off all the burrs and find the sharp edges. It might be one of those things like collet bushings on Colt 1911s, Bangor Punta, and writing paper letters to Guns & Ammo to ask if Grandpa’s J.P. Sauer & Sohn .32 is a good pistol that we just don’t have to deal with these days.
The Khar user manual specifically directed a 200 round break in at one point. No idea if it still did. Tightly fitted 1911s could be expected to require break in and maybe even a trip back to the smith that did the “reliability package,” which is one of the reasons Ingot tired of all that bullshit.
I would expect a modern service pistol like a Glock, HK, Sig, Beretta etc to run out of the box, but would vet it anyway.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
I believe in testing / vetting carry guns / carry ammo.
HOWEVER
If the weapon needs break in it was not completed and tested properly !
I'm on a Sig brand centric forum and it's not unusual for enthusiastic new P365 owners to report stoppages, including FTRB, with new guns on their first range session. This seems to clear following a good cleaning, lube, and quality brass ammo. Some report no issues, but the 365 FCU appears to need some "break in" for some users. My own experience with three (P365, X, XL) is a few issues with Blazer Brass on brand new magazines recently with the X; otherwise no problems.
The six Glocks, two HKs, S&W M&P and Walther PPS M2 I've owned ran well out of the box.
I think the recommendation for running hundred and hundreds of rounds through a new gun to vet it is a hold over from days past. In my experience any problems that are there will surface within a couple of magazines.
Would I take a gun out of the box and immediately carry it? No. Do you need to do a military type performance evaluation before declaring it acceptable? No.
IMHO you do need to run a few boxes through a gun to assess it's performance and handling characteristics and to make sure it will feed your preferred carry rounds. That last part is more important with .45acp than 9mm.
YMMV.
What's the difference between breaking in and shooting?
No, modern assembly line guns from reputable manufacturers don't need breaking in.
Custom made, hand fitted guns ....? Probably?!?
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote