I don’t mean the shoot a round, clean the barrel, shoot a round, clean the barrel nonsense for “breaking in” an accurized barrel. That is another discussion.
I’m talking about the notion that semi auto Handgun A or Carbine B must be fired X number of rounds (usually 100 or 200) before it cycles reliably. Growing up in the late 70s, early 80s I don’t remember any of that. Most guns were run right out of the box without any cleaning (although to be fair I think the preservatives used today has less lubricating qualities than what was used 40 years ago).
I think the first time I ever heard of anything like a break in recommendation was back in 1999 when Todd Bailey of Special Weapons suggested his SW3s and SW5s had to be “broken in” and that this was common of all HK guns and most other firearms. IN 1999 it was a great source of amusement but it seems to be an “accepted shortcoming” of many firearms these days and is offered as some sort of SOP for most new guns on many forums.
Is my memory selective or has a Special Weapons “excuse” become a mainstream practice in a mere decade?
For me it’s mainly an evaluation period to see if the gun has any defects which will show up right off the bat.
For instance bought a regular old Cold Series 70 1911 and on round 2 or 3 the little safety detent thing on the side just above the left grip popped off. Was never properly attached at the factory. So I think it’s a good idea to test a new gun out with a variety of ammunition, and make sure everything was made right at the factory before you go out and use it in the field.
I wouldn’t call a ‘break in’ thing where you expect the gun to not work right until you have XXX amount of rounds down it anything other than a gun that wasn’t made right. Like I said just a test/evaluation period.
I first started hearing about it when the 1911 market exploded about 15 years ago. A few semi-custom manufacturers such as Les Baer were known for having very tight fitting guns that may need a few hundred rounds for optimal reliability. However, the notion of a break-in really took of when Kimber became popular :rolleyes:.
I had avoided this conversation for a few years (declining conversation with gun store employees generally improves my mood), but heard it again the other day when picking up some ammo from a local GS. I openly laughed at the guy.
our 2013 subaru outback has a recommended break-in procedure for the engine. same thing when i bought my last motorcycle. essentially limiting the RPM and varying the driving speed for the first few hundred miles.
i think it’s the same for any newly manufactured mechanical device with moving parts - there’s going to some initial wear where sharp edges or rough surfaces smooth out. new brake cables on bikes may need to be adjusted after initial stretch etc.
This. More of a function verification period than a need for mechanical adjustment or settling.
Though the interaction of some surfaces will polish and distinctly improve with work. I can think of several J-frames that had distinctly different triggers after a few hundred rounds of dry or live fire.
I have noticed that Glocks seem to get more accurate the more they are shot. So I don’t shoot them for accuracy until they have 200 or so rounds on them.
Tight friction surfaces will need to “wear into” (burnish) each other if they aren’t finished well and until they do, they will drag a little until all those microscopic sharp ridges get the edges knocked off or mashed over. Once that is done, the friction component will be greatly reduced.
I would imagine that over time one of the cost savings ideas proposed was why finish/lap in bearing surfaces when they will be finished by usage anyway. Just tell the customer it is “break in” and save that money.
Doesn’t HK have a “break in” period on the P30? Expect ejection problems with US spec 9mm until after it has seen a couple hundred rounds.
I’m thinking more this than anything else. Don’t know exactly but I have heard “break in” for close to twenty years. Never put much into it except for 1911’s.
This is true, yet nobody bashes Kahr for making junk handguns. They happen to be very tight when brand-new though and I noticed my CW9 got smoother the more rounds I put through it. It never malfunctioned but cycling it by hand was smoother. So the break in thing may be real on some designs but not others, I dunno.
I remember when I bought my first AR-15 the dealer told me how to break it in (you know, shoot, clean, shoot, clean, etc.) and I was like :rolleyes: because it’s a chrome-lined barrel. Some people still believe it applies to everything. What I believe is gun shops don’t know jack about guns.
Exactly.
That and what some others have mentioned about the gun feeling a little smoother after a few hundred.
Due to the legions of problems I’ve had with darn near everything, I don’t trust any gun until it’s had about 500 rounds through it- after that, I think it just gets really subjective based on the owner…
That being said- when buying a new untested brand or product, I absolutely want to hear all about how it went 10 gazillion rounds with nary a malfuntion and no/minor maintenance, or how it bombed after 200.
I think what a LOT of you guys are talking about would be more correctly an “evaluation period” which should be done with most guns that are new to you.
But the idea that you have to put a couple hundred rounds of +P+ through a firearm to make it function reliably is IMO the mark of crappy production.
If a factory builds guns that tight, they should put them on a machine that runs the slide for two hours or whatever is necessary to send a functional firearm out the door.
I agree with that ^^… Same with metal pistols and car engines… The tolerances and accuracy of machining in my Toyota engine when new would be unthinkable in my old Chevy’s or Jeeps. IIRC, the FJ had break-in recommendations in the owners manual.
That being said, I do think the “break-in period” is often overly dramatized. My Les Baer pistols rang as good at 100 rounds as 500 rounds. Just saying… Ron
