Every thing that has parts that are machined to fit toegther will benefit form a break in period. Rather or not you notice it is another matter.
Like many folks, they don’t know the difference. After all they think they bought a ready mix version. Just like children, no thought to their playthings. No doubt some models tend to handle/need less break in than others.
In example: The early Glock I bought in the 80’s always seemed to have magazine problems. So I didn’t carry a Glock for business purposes. I have owned on and off about a dozen different Glocks. Presently I only own three. One of them I purchased about 2 years ago jammed consistently on it’s two original magazines. Later versions of those magazines worked fine. Most but not all of the Glocks I own and have owned gave no problem at all.
On the other hand I have never had any of my 1911’s, presently I have 9, have a jamming problem.
Yet I have seen many issue 1911’s jam, including in combat.
Example if you rebuild a motor, put it in a car then run drive it like normal, bad things will happen. If you break it in with the proper lubes and procedures. Every thing is golden.
There is NO down side to breaking in a weapon that you may use for self defense. NONE! There could be a down side by not breaking it in.
What about all of the new 1911's, Garands, Carbines, M14's and M16's that marched off to war either new or shot very little? I like stuff that works. If I have to shoot a half of a case before I can trust it I will buy something else.
How do you know it will reliable until you do shoot a fair number of rounds through it? Or do you just trust who ever sold it to you?
Of all the issue weapons I carried in my 10 years in the Corps, and two years in the Nam, and there were many, only one was in fact NEW. And it jammed.
We always would FAM fire and sight in any new weapon. You had to get your battle zero at least.
You are entitled to your standards. I don’t doubt your combat experience trumps the hell out of mine, and as such your experience is much more valid.
B.D. Turner has a good point. Uncle Sam never used a small arm that needed to be shot in before it was considered reliable, and the same is true of other military forces around the world.
Who told you that? It simply is not true. We always FAM fired any new issued (to us) new weapon and any Brand new weapon, we shot the **** out of . At least as much as we could or were allowed to.
Then we would set the weapons for battle Zero.
This "breaking in" bull started with, and has been largely centered on 1911 style pistols made during the last 2 or 3 decades. That's when they were tightened up and made into big-boy toys instead of serious personal defense weapons. As a consequence some worked, and some didn't.
In hand guns that is probably true. After all, in this country for almost 50 or so years it was the only serious combat pistol available. And of course it was true in the military.
As for shooting so many rounds to test reliability. I never did, because if reliability was questionable I didn't buy the gun in the first place. These days many manufacturers don't even bother to test fire a full magazine through each of their products. Quality control and floor inspection has become a lost practice - replaced by computer models and random picks.
Funny, how do you learn if your weapon was reliable without shooting it a bunch? Probably a new process I missed hearing about. IMMACULATE RELIABILITY?
So in the unlikely event that I was to buy and carry what comes out of factories today, and in particular if it was a 1911 clone, I would indeed give it a workout before I used it for anything serious.
In my case I had more problems with brand new Glocks than the 1911’s. I guess we just have different luck, or maybe do something different.
The modern civilian handguns, semi-autos and revolvers, are manufactured to some pretty tight tolerances...My Kimber UCC II had a few failures to feed and one slide lock back in the first 200 rounds. After that I have put 500 rounds through it without a failure of any kind. It was rather stiff when I took it from the box. Now it is smooth as silk.
Yup one of the great side effects of ‘breaking in’ a weapon. It just works better. Many folks don’t shoot their weapons enough to ever get to that stage thought.
Wonder who brakes in all the new Military weapons befor issue. I mean be nice if my new rifle was tested before I went in to a fire fight.
Nope, that was your job.
Was my New. Beretta fired 500 rounds before I was issued for carry
Was those about worn out 1911 I carried Were they tested after a rebuild. 500 or so rounds befor sent back to duty.
Nope that was your job.
I was issued a M-16 in Nam that didn't have a fireingpin. Lucky I found that when cleaning before going out .
I didn’t have that problem with my M16. When I was finally forced to turn in my M14, they issued me a brand new widow maker, it jammed at the range I returned it to the armory and signed it back in. Went over to the BAS and got a couple rifles out of the KIA barrels. Used a M16E1 frame and upper, used an A1 Bolt and Buffer and the newer recoil spring. (I no longer remember, but certain companies, chromed their barrels and chambers, others didn’t. Some had out of spec chambers and other didn’t. As a gun guy, in those days I knew all that stuff, and selected accordingly. Today I frankly can‘t remember which ones were which.)
When you send back to factory do they test fire 500 rounds. Lucky to get a mag fired But we fixed it . How do they know .
No they don’t. That is why so often a ‘fixed’ gun comes back and isn’t or doesn’t seem fixed.
They should work and reliable out of the box. How many people buy today load and carry with out shooting it. A great many. We are a small% of the American gun owners. Most never go or may be 1 time to a range. But they have a pistol and a ccw .
Should company be sued if pistol jams in a SD sitution. Because you didn't shoot 500 rounds before carry. Maybe. If my new car brakes fail and I have a wreck off show room I gonna sue why not Kimber Colt S&W whoever. Might make them , make relieable and not the break in excuse.
Well let’s say you drove that new car in the next Indy 500? And those breaks failed or didn’t work right. Is that on you? Or on them?
Most folks don’t stress their weapons enough to see if they will function under stress and duress. That is what some of this ‘breaking in’ stuff we are talking about is supposed to iron out. It ain’t perfect. But I wouldn’t go run Pikes Peak in a car I haven’t checked the breaks on yet.
WHY?
Because apparently in my life a lot more “stuff” happens than in many of you folks lives.
For that matter “stuff” still happens in my life. That is why I try to reduce the potential for stuff happening in my life. I always thought that is what one does as we get, hopefully, older, more experienced and wiser.
Not really. By the time you "break it in" you've probably started the process of "wearing it out".
Exactly like life. By the time you start living it, you have less of it left. Most of us get a bit wiser and experienced with use and time.
Military weapons are designed with (relatively) loose tolerances. Les Baer, Kimber, Kahr, etc are designed with tight tolerances. No need to fire 500 rds from a mil spec gun because they're just that - mil spec. Baer/Kimber/Kahr, etc are "Rolex spec".
That is part of it. What is interesting, is that I often see, read, and hear about folks that think they need very accurate weapons to fight with. For a sniper I would totally agree. But for most combat, including self defense using a handgun as a weapon, I find combat accuracy a lot more important than range accuracy. I believe to many folks confuse the need to hit in combat with range MOA type accuracy. So many folks choose their fighting weapon based on range accuracy. I do not assess my fighting weapons on absolute accuracy, I choose my fighting weapons based on reliability. (if I can keep my hits within 4 to 6 inches at 25 yards with a given fighting weapon that is fine with me. If I need 1" accuracy for competition, I get a competition gun. Totally different set of requirements)
But what do I know? :banghead:
By the way, someone mentioned wearing a pistol out by 'breaking it in". If a couple thousand rounds, or for that matter 10,000 rounds wear a handgun out, I need to know that too. I have shot a 1000 round in one day, 'endurance' mat. I have been to many Tactical schools and such that require 2000+ rounds per weekend. I know my weapons will stand up to that. I know many folks, usually beginners, often their weapons and equipment do not. Most likely not 'broken it'.
My old carry SIG 228 has over 37,000 rounds through it. Still fit for duty, although for health reasons I haven't carried it for years. One of my Kimber Warriors, I have two, has 11,700 rounds through it. I have had as many as 60,000 rounds through my old S&W model 14 I used to shoot Bullseye/2700 and Police PPC with.
I shoot, maintain, and respect my weapons. Breaking them in is not only fun, it is a way in which I can be sure my weapons will deliver when and if I should ever need them to, again.
Go figure.
Fred
