I had a kahr that had it's first 500 rounds worth of malfunctions constantly blamed on being part of break-in, but outside of it, glocks, m&p's, and sig have been as reliable from the first round through the tube as they are now.
Printable View
I had a kahr that had it's first 500 rounds worth of malfunctions constantly blamed on being part of break-in, but outside of it, glocks, m&p's, and sig have been as reliable from the first round through the tube as they are now.
For revolvers, Glocks, and Springfield XD's, no. Everything else, yes.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
But a defensive firearm is one of few things we're betting our lives on. Sad, that the makers of such tools believe them to be tantamount to a normal, everyday "stuff" people buy every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAm_Not_Lost
On such tools, I'd much prefer that the standard sought by the manufacturer be Failure Is Not An Option, typical in some industries (ie, telecomm satellite production, in which 15+ yrs flawless operation is a min. standard). One would think life-saving tools would be afforded some element of that care and concern, given the gravity of failure.
I bet your dealer sells a lot of ammo, eh?:image035:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cook74
New guns and friends, the break-in period is called 'trust building'.
And it keeps the legal department happy. I may be just lucky, but I have not had any problems with any of my guns during the 'break-in period'.Quote:
Originally Posted by retsupt99
I certainly agree with the 'trust building' comment.
Considering how long most guns I'd say we already get amazing reliability for the price. If you want telecom satellite level quality control then what you'll get is a gun few can afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
Some element of that care and concern could go a long way. It needn't be telecomm satellite grade quality and reliability. But the hit-and-miss approach many firearms makers take doesn't cut it, IMO, not with a life saving tool. There's just no excuse for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by nazshooter
OK OK OK...perhaps MY definition of "running" a weapon vs "breaking in" a weapon is very similar...
When I purchase a weapon, before I "run" it, I do several things:
1. Read the Manual
2. Inspect the weapon
3. Clean the weapon
4. Try all movable parts (slide, trigger, mag ejection, etc)
5. Dry fire in the privacy of my home
6. Now I'm ready to go to the range and "run" 50 - 200 rounds of various and sundry ammo
7. Rule out the ammo that wasn't weapon compatible
8. If semi-automatic, remove any mags with feed problems, refire weapon
9. Gauge weapon reliability on this initial range trip.
10. Home, clean my weapon and prepare for next range trip
11. If my EDC, load n lock. (Note: if this is a new weapon, and I'm planning to make it either my EDC, BUG, or put in some type of rotation for carry, I will NOT enter it into that mode until I am confident in it's functioning properly and flawlessly.)
Now, if you want to call that "breaking in" a weapon, the so be it. I call it a performance test and nothing else. JMO
I don't define breaking-in of firearms as merely trying it out to see how it works. I define it as a new gun that "requires" "X" number of rounds to make it work properly, a reliability or functional issue, not one of building faith in a particular round, etc. While I can agree that certain makes don't like a particular brand or bullet shape (Some I don't either), I do expect a new gun to function otherwise. If down the road gun "X" desides Brand C ammo isn't so bad after all, that's fine. Some guns will never function properly with Brand C ammo regardless of number of rounds fired.
Some owners simple don't have the basic skill sets to make some small heavier recoiling pistols function well enough. And then you have a old school hand fit pistols that you also have to be shot in to make it work at it best. If a person buys any of these firearms today with out reviewing them on these forums or simple searchs first and knowing going in any problems they might have going in and then whine about it maybe should not own a firearm. They don't have the common sence to work thew the problems to find if the issues are ammo, shooter or firearm. At that point it can make for a good deal on a firearm for some of us.
I'll be tolerant of a couple minor malfunctions in the first 100 rounds or so, but some of what I see attributed to a "break-in period" is just ridiculous. I've had one gun that malfunctioned in the first magazine, and never had an issue after that. I also had one gun that started malfunctioning around the 500 round mark. Sold that piece of crap after the second trip back to the factory.
If it don't work right, I won't use it. Constant FTF's or FTE's will result in a gun being returned.