[gottabkiddin]

My first pistol way back when was a stainless Colt .45 Officers ACP. I took it to the range and had serious problems getting the pistol to function. Being a newb, I had no idea why this could be happening. I stepped out into the sales area and ask one of the guys workin the sales counter, and he said I needed to break it in before it would work like it should. Needless to say 3 to 4 hundred rounds later, it was running like it was supposed to. If I hadn't ask the guy and just left the range I would've gone home thinkin I had made a very expensive mistake.

My question is. How many are okay with the fact that some manufactures suggest their firearms should be broken in before you should use them as CC weapons?

 

[Rugergirl]

With a botton feeder, yes I say definately break them in. With a revovler not so much. My Kimber had some issues in the first 500 rounds, after that never a hiccup. My revolvers have been ready to go, from day one, right out of the box.
Does that stop me from shooting any of them regularly for practice, of course not.:smile:

 

[WHEC724]

'Concur with Rugergirl. Revolvers may be a little stiff at first, but they're gonna go bang.

Semi-autos (to me) are more finicky beasts and I don't really trust 'em until I've run a few hundred rounds thru. I hope to breaking in a new LCP today...:danceban:

 

[gottabkiddin]

:hand10: I agree all the way. I should have made a comment excluding the revolver for the most part. However, I would always take my new revolver and test different ammo for accuracy.

 

[Jeffrey1235]

I have never really considerded a gun as something that needs to be broken in. I always test fire my newly purchased guns to make sure that they work anyway but if one doesn't work it's going back. As far as that goes I guess in some cases I may need time to get used to a new gun but that is just me not anything about the gun. I could be wrong though.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Since I have only ever owned pre owned guns it is more of a non issue with me. I do however believe in the break in period and would never harass a gun company with a problem that happened within 300 or so rounds. I figure if its a Kimber just go ahead and start out shooting +Ps. That may hasten the break in period a little. Might cause irreversible damage too. Probably would only account for around a 0.0001" of accuracy though in the real world. But we, as Americans probably would find that accuracy unacceptable.

 

[Saint77]

My opinion is that anything with any kind of mechanism will have a "break in period" I dont care what it is, pistol, VCR, automobile, drill, whatever. The only exceptions usually come when you have machine cut matched up parts, but even then, on a microscopic scale, frictional surfaces "mate" to each others wear surface. or, "break in"

Seems to me with pistols, simply by using them breaks them in. I'm very particular and clean mine meticulously after ever range session, no matter how new or old it is.

The other(and arguably more important) benefit to a break in period is if the gun is going to have problems, they usually become evident within a break in period.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Of the majority of problems out there that happen during the so called, break in period, I would wager that at least a handful of them are shooter related. Limp wristing or something else and then the trip back to the factory has the techs there just loosen up the clearances and make the gun just a little more user friendly.

 

[93civicsedan]

I voted "Irrelevant, I always fire several hundred rounds through any new firearm.".

I think that every new gun should be tested and to the highest standards, you could be trusting your life and the lives of your loved ones with it.

I have no use for a gun that will not perform reliably, and to know if it will be you must test and train with it.

 

[paul45]

On any gun - new, used, repaired - I fire a minimum of 300 or until I feel confident that it will function and I have trust in it. It is a piece of machinery - they all should work but sometimes you get the Monday morning model.

 

[Frogbones]

I'm not a big fan of "break in period" thing. I usually "break them in" just cause I want to shoot them, learn them, and train with them. So I voted Irrelevant. First thing I usaully do is polish feed ramp....smooths out aggresive hollow point feeding.

 

[joelg]

If I even THINK that a gun may not work out of the box, I'm not buying it! If I hear of others having problems, I will not buy it. I do extensive research before even thinking about plunking down $$. When I do buy it, it's off the the range for a test. If it has problems AT ALL, I get rid of it and put the manufacturer [and anyone else who will listen] on notice. I gave serious thought to putting gradations on the barrel approximating a rectal thermometer and then sending it to the manufacturer, but I don't. I just get rid of it. I have had very few problems, NONE with the manufacturer of my current arsenal.

 

[Ram Rod]

Break-in? A Glock? Are you serious?

 

[gottabkiddin]

Break-in? A Glock? Are you serious?

LOL, NO......Fellow Glocker here! :image035: But I'm still workin the field. I'll pick up a few more G's in the years to come before I'm done.
A little variety is good for the soul.:hand10:

 

[JD]

I voted "Irrelevant, I always fire several hundred rounds through any new firearm.".

I think that every new gun should be tested and to the highest standards, you could be trusting your life and the lives of your loved ones with it.

I have no use for a gun that will not perform reliably, and to know if it will be you must test and train with it.

I'm kind of in the same camp...

Initially I was in the "break in is ok camp"...

Until I had a couple guns that required a break in period. 500+ rounds (per gun) later the guns still didn't run and they had to be majorly overhauled. So add up the cost of 1K+ rounds of .40S&W and that's what I wasted waiting for two guns to magically run after it hit a certain tround count. :9: And that's not counting the cost to have the guns fixed.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in reliability testing of a new gun, but that's not the same as a break in period.

1: Break in period: Gun won't run right until "X" number of rounds is achieved.

2: Reliability testing: Testing the gun for failures prior to carrying

Shooting 200-500+ rounds to make sure the gun runs is not a break in, obviously if the gun runs well enough to pass testing, it's broke in enough.

Yes, some guns will "smooth out" after extended use, but I'm a firm believer that a gun should run out of the box, and I shouldn't have to finish doing the factory's job to make the gun work in the first place.

IMHO almost all break in periods are total BS. :hand1:

 

[Lt Big C]

I always fire 300 - 400 rounds on any gun I buy to get the feel of it and to make sure it is functioning properly. If the gun doesn't function properly right out of the box I bring it back. I know when it's new it will be a little tight but should function properly and will smoothen out in time.

 

[cwblanco]

I have never really considerded a gun as something that needs to be broken in. I always test fire my newly purchased guns to make sure that they work anyway but if one doesn't work it's going back. As far as that goes I guess in some cases I may need time to get used to a new gun but that is just me not anything about the gun. I could be wrong though.

Perhaps you could be wrong, but as far as I am concerned you are right. There is nothing more apt to destroy my confidence in a new firearm than a failure to fire, mis-fire, or jam!

Most readers are aware of those brands which need "breaking in." I will avoid purchasing any firearm which submits "lack of break in" as an excuse for failure to properly function. They may be name dropper brands, but I am not that desparate for name dropper brands.

 

[ccw9mm]

My first pistol way back when was a stainless Colt .45 Officers ACP. I took it to the range and had serious problems getting the pistol to function. Being a newb, I had no idea why this could be happening.

Why is irrelevant to the fact that one won't know there are problems until one attempts to sort out such problems. At minimum, ignoring this simple fact on a carry gun can result in coughing up for a series of freight charges back and forth with the manufacturer. At worst, it can get you killed.

It comes to this: until you test, you don't know. Assumptions can be bad, if you rely upon them when they turn out to be incorrect. On a piece of life-saving equipment, that's bad juju in the worst way.

Me, I choose to assume that all guns will need a break-in for whatever reason, either gun-related, magazine-related, or ammo-related. Most have. What I believe should be so, or wish were true, doesn't come into it. Reality is. It's that simple, really, at least for me. YMMV.

 

[RETSUPT99]

I want to test any 'mechanical lead catapulting device' prior to 'game day'!:yup:

 

[FLSquirrelHunter]

Voted irrelevant. On the one hand, I wouldn't carry anything I didn't have enough rounds through to be really confident with.

On the other hand I love the "break in" period as an excuse to spend more time at the range.

Fluff and buff is just not as much fun.