Do you break in your carry pistol with 500 rounds?

[Tirod]

I was reading thoughts in a thread elsewhere on the "life and death" reliability of a particular gun and one comment kept coming up - the owners suffered stoppages that were well under the the 500 rounds recommended by professionals for a carry gun.

Of course that made the gun complete junk and they hated on it from then on. No mention of WHAT ammo they were using, either.

How many of you have fired 500 rounds thru your carry gun? Did that process iron out which ammo was more reliable for you?

Over the last 15 years on the net, I haven't read of any Brand that doesn't have a few guns with FTF or FTE issues when new. Every brand you could think of seems to be capable of it and the more expensive the more likely. Yet owners of the high priced guns shrug it off and wait for the brown trunk to return it. And others continue to (perhaps rightly) think they can jam in any round possible and should get 100% success every shot.

Is that your experience?

 

[badkarmamib]

My problem with running a certain number of rounds to "prove" its reliability is this: by the time you have dry-fired and live-rounded enough times to be comfortable with it, you have probably gotten close to the life expectancy of half of the springs and other wear parts on the gun. So, you replace those worn parts, but now the gun isn't the same as when you bought it. Rinse and repeat.

I will check all of my mags with at least 2 full loads by racking the slide, and 2 more by shooting, with whatever I plan to carry in it. I will continue to shoot to check for feel and accuracy, until I am comfortable with my abilities to use it. Any stoppages or failures, I try to identify why. If it can be remedied, I repeat the test. If it can't, I would never trust my life to it, and it is relegated to a range toy.

Basically, my opinion is that any mechanical device can and will fail at some point. I do what I can to mitigate this. Either I feel comfortable with it, or I don't, but nothing is for certain. Unless, of course, you stick with Glock...

 

[Drail]

As my Physics professor was so fond of saying - we must define our terms. What exactly does "breaking in" mean? Firing enough rounds to "prove" the function is not "breaking in" the gun. I have a Springfield 1911 that I built in 1990. The only original arts are the slide and frame. It has run perfectly through many years of match use. With any type of ammo. It has fired approximately 80K rounds. It has never failed to feed, fire or eject. I have become very fond of this gun. Do I trust it enough to carry it? Nope. I will never trust a gun that was mass produced by a factory. They build guns to sell. They don't really seem to care if they run 100% as long as they meet their sales quota. Bill Wilson learned back in the 70s that Colt was unable to build him a Gold Cup that would run 100%. It kept failing in matches. So he learned how to build his own guns that would run 100%.

 

[GRIZ22]

I don't think that you need to fire 500 rounds to determine if the gun is reliable with most modern firearms. If you "wear out" parts with 500, 1000, 2000, or more rounds as badkarmamib is concerned about, you don't have a quality firearm to begin with.

I run at least 100 through a revolver and 200 through a semiauto. That would include a string of 3 or 4 reloads fired as fast as possible to see if there's any problem when the gun heats up some.

I realize it's fashionable to change springs after a certain round count. I haven't found this to be the case in my nearly 50 years of shooting.

 

[Drail]

Then you are not shooting it enough to wear out springs and parts. I can assure you recoil and magazine do wear out after a point. But if a gun will not survive 5000 rounds without something breaking - it is a piece of mass produced junk. And the market today is filled with mass produced junk.

 

[Armored farmer]

I am sure that I don't have 500 through my lcp yet. Probably over 250 without a hitch. I do shoot it about once a week.

At what point is it pronounced reliable?

 

[Ignition Override]

Not with the 'East German', Bulgy or Russian Makarovs (commercial versions are in 9x18 or.380 Auto).
It's very nice to have No concerns about a handgun which has barely been used by the single, previous owner/collector (now deceased). Especially when they are very concealable.

Good luck out there.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Break in is not the same as reliability testing. 200 is pretty good for reliability from a trusted manufacturer. Break in is something else all together. I've found the trigger on a Glock is very different after 1,000 rounds or so. It smooths out significantly. My carry has 11,000 rounds through it. About 6 months ago the the spring that keeps the lever from locking the slide back broke. I did not get rid of the gun or stop carrying it. I replaced the part. I've shot 11,000 rounds very reliably through that gun. And, yes, I replace the RSA every five thousand rounds. I also replace the air filter and oil filter in my car.

Look, you buy a car and drive it 200 miles no problems, doesn't mean the engine is broken in.

 

[AZAndy]

A couple hundred is plenty for a semi-auto, as far as I'm concerned. That's enough to see if there's something it doesn't like to feed, and to make sure things aren't falling off of it. I usually only run a box of 50 through a revolver, more to acclimatize myself to how it shoots than to check the gun.

 

[Robert101]

I'm in agreement with the 200 round count suggested to test reliability of a certain ammo in a gun. I have guns with about 3,000 + rounds through them as well. Replacing recoil and magazine springs is necessary with the use any semi-auto. I typically will not trust a new carry gun without about 500 rounds through it. I don't have any semi-autos that have not experienced a failure of some sort. I shoot mostly reloaded ammo (by me) and I will get a batch wrong with an out of spec case mouth, high primer, or something. I change bullet designs too. Heck I'll tolerate that in lieu of taking the time to check every case. Shooting is fun and I don't want to get all anal about my reloading and not have fun. I do take seriously the charge weight - no compromise there.

 

[lpsharp88]

I'll shoot a box or so of range ammo, and a mag or two of carry ammo. If it digests it just fine, I call it good

 

[mnrivrat]

Most of my shooting and buying of handguns was started in the late 60's and ran until the early 80's. To this day I am still a revolver shooter, and have put most of my rounds down the barrel of a K frame S&W . I honestly can not remember one firearm failure in all those years, with only one exception, and that was a Colt Diamonback that broke a cylinder lock.

I still carry a revolver that has never failed to function. It happens to be a Taurus M731 total Titanium in .32 H&R. I have had it now 10 + years with not one hickup.

I do have a couple semi-auto handguns that I don't carry, but they have not failed me either. One being a Taurus 24/7 compact in .45 acp that I have been shooting up my late brothers reloads with. I have not kept count but the loads are semi wad cutters that won't chamber worth a darn in my 1911 . I have been very pleased with this Model 24/7 and would not hesitate to carry it if I decided to.

I tend to believe that one should shoot 200+ rounds without a failure on a revolver and perhaps that 500 round for semi-auto is not a bad idea. Then trust it to carry.

 

[Hangingrock]

As an example a S&W MP9c with (6) 12Rd capacity magazines 200Rds Mil Spec 124Gr-FMJ and 100Rds of 147Gr-JHP ( Such as Winchester Ranger 147Gr bonded JHP or Federal 147Gr HST) If there is going to be a transition problem from magazine to chambering usually shows up early with new magazines. I don't over lubricate the pistol either but follow the manufactures instruction. A quaint habit I have is to read the manufactures instruction guide in its entirety.

 

[Shaq]

In my experience, defects in a quality auto show up rather quickly or not at all. I'd consider 250 rounds malfunction-free rounds sufficient for reliability assessment. I don't believe in the term "Break-In Malfunctions." A broken-in gun may operate more smoothly but IMO a quality new gun should not malfunction. If the price is low, it's not a quality gun. The following guns were purchased new & have never malfunctioned - when new or used.
I have six Glocks (older Gen. 3's) that have never malfunctioned or needed parts replacement - over 18,000 rounds between them.
HKUSP 45 - 1,700 rounds; never malfunctioned (bought new in the 90's)
Wilson CQB 45 - 5,600 rounds; never malfunctioned. Wilson does claim they test their guns with 50 rounds before shipping & if there are any malfunctions, they repair. (Well....they should for that price)
Sigarms P220ST - 960 rounds; never malfunctioned
Uzi Carbine - 23,000 rounds; never malfunctioned.

Perhaps I'm rather spoiled...

 

[SC Shooter]

My break in periods have gone from zero rounds to 50. My Colt 1911 came out of the case, I broke it down and gave it a light lube, and off to the range I went. I have put 1,000 or so rounds in it and have never had a fail. Other guns I have purchased have had FTE issues for the the first few rounds, but no problems after 50. I am guessing, that the cheaper the gun, the longer the break in period. On the other hand, the more you fire a cheap gun, the faster it will wear out. A real catch 22.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I do typically like to "break in my gun", but if it doesn't cycle cheap target ammo every single time, I don't really sweat it. As long as it functions with my carry ammo. I usually put at least 100 rounds of what I plan to carry through the gun to make sure it functions.

I used to worry about this more, but honestly since I've started carrying HK guns, I don't worry quite as much. All three of mine have never malfunctioned with any ammo.

 

[azrocks]

If you "wear out" parts with 500, 1000, 2000, or more rounds as badkarmamib is concerned about, you don't have a quality firearm to begin with.

Quality only goes so far. Springs and other such items are wear items, meaning they have a finite lifespan.

Many shooters put far more dry-fire 'rounds' through a firearm than live, and springs cycled during the process wear pretty much the same. So it's entirely possible to wear out springs on firearms with relatively low live-round counts.

Materials used for springs that fatigue faster than some are not necessarily inferior. Sometimes other performance metrics make the shorter-lived spring the right choice for a particular application.

 

[JohnnyFlake]

I guess everyone has their own way of doing it, not braking a gun in, but testing for reliability.

With a new gun, I run fifty/sixty rounds of ball ammo through it, using an equal number of rounds per magazine. If there are no issues, with that, I'll run two fully loaded magazines, of my carry ammo, with each magazine I'll be carrying. If there are no issues, I am good to go!

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Nope... I have been issued 3 different brand new duty handguns and 1 new duty rifle over the past 25 years. We qualified with them a time or two, which took less than 100 rounds and put the guns in service.

 

[Hanzo581]

A couple fifty round boxes of range ammo for me (more to get used to shooting the gun than "testing" it), then a few of whatever defensive round I'm using as a basic function test. There is no magic number that proves a gun is reliable.

 

[Chuck R.]

I normally go well over 500 rds, probably closer to a 1000 actually.

But it's not to "break-in" the gun as it is to get me to a point that I'm comfortable carrying it. Until I can get decent scores on a few of my favorite drills on the clock I don't like to carry a pistol. Honestly it's not that big of a deal, I reload and I own my own range out back. So a 1000 rds or so might happen in a week or two. I do the same sort of "transition" whenever I change carry guns.

Chuck

 

[GRIZ22]

Quality only goes so far. Springs and other such items are wear items, meaning they have a finite lifespan.

Many shooters put far more dry-fire 'rounds' through a firearm than live, and springs cycled during the process wear pretty much the same. So it's entirely possible to wear out springs on firearms with relatively low live-round counts.

Materials used for springs that fatigue faster than some are not necessarily inferior. Sometimes other performance metrics make the shorter-lived spring the right choice for a particular application.

The question was in regard to "breaking in" a new carry gun not how many rounds to failure. You really need to dry fire a lot to make parts fail. I've got guns pushing 50 years old, live and dry fired thousands of times, that still have all the parts they left the factory with.

I don't think quality of firearms has taken that much of a nose dive. Everything wears out eventually. If it makes you feel better to change springs every X numbers of rounds have at it. I haven't seen any need to do it unless something was wrong.

 

[browningguy]

I don't think I have ever gone through 500 rounds for a break in, if I had to do that I would just buy a better gun. I normally take a new potential carry gun out and run 2 loads of each of the magazines through it with the load I want to shoot. If no problems I call it good and stick it in the holster. Springfield XDM, Witness Elite Match, Walther PPS, S&W Bodyguard 380, S&W 1911 SC, Sig X6 ...I could go on and on. I guess I've just been really lucky because I have never had a problem with a gun I bought for carry or competition. I have bought some .22's that were a pain to shoot much due to random problems though.

As an example when I got my first Witness Elite Match I got 3 magazines with it, went to the range and ran each magazine twice. I started shooting matches the following week, it's now had several thousand rounds through it now and has never stumbled.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

500, no way... I run a few cylinders worth of ammo through the gun for function and call it good.

(Sorry but someone had to lol)

 

[Old Dog]

Well, I'll run a couple hundred FMJs and then a couple hundred JHPs through any pistol I'm planning on carrying -- if no malfunctions, I'll call it good. But then, I don't ever carry "budget" handguns and I'm pretty confident in my pistol/revolver choices.