Break-in? - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > General Handgun Discussion > Break-in?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2010, 09:20 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Greenacres,Florida / Palm Beach County
Posts: 124
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts

Default Not really!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojubrian View Post
I've learned from many years of manufacturing and machining that everything having to do with metal needs a 'fit-in' process to work correctly.

Gl*ck type pistols are so sloppy that they don't need it, but they are 3/4 plastic too.

My Kimber required a break in, but it runs like a top. It's accurate too!

I've noticed that people who complain about break-in periods really aren't tinkering gun guys. I'm a tinkering gun guy. YMMV
I agree on most of what has been said concerning the so called "Break in Period" but I must say that a weapon that you must trust your life and those of others should not have an extended (300 to 400 rounds) break in period in order to get out the bugs and make them safe to carry. This is IMO Pure BS and a cop out for the way they mass produce these guns and rush them out just to make the money. The worst being the small .380 guns as we well know! As for your comment concerning Glocks, I could be wrong but I don't think they are 3/4 Plastic. And Sloppy, are you kidding me! I have been owning and shooting Glock Pistols for over 12 years and have never ever had one malfunction. And yes, I too TINKER with my Guns and can take them apart almost with my eyes closed, so please get your FACTS in order before you post!
__________________
SK2344 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 05:21 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hurlburt Field,Florida
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SK2344 View Post
I agree on most of what has been said concerning the so called "Break in Period" but I must say that a weapon that you must trust your life and those of others should not have an extended (300 to 400 rounds) break in period in order to get out the bugs and make them safe to carry. This is IMO Pure BS and a cop out for the way they mass produce these guns and rush them out just to make the money. The worst being the small .380 guns as we well know! As for your comment concerning Glocks, I could be wrong but I don't think they are 3/4 Plastic. And Sloppy, are you kidding me! I have been owning and shooting Glock Pistols for over 12 years and have never ever had one malfunction. And yes, I too TINKER with my Guns and can take them apart almost with my eyes closed, so please get your FACTS in order before you post!
Don't worry about him. He is just trolling. Most people should know that the Glock slide is completely metal and most of the weight of the pistol. The frame and the trigger are the only polymer components (and those parts really don't have to be made out of titanium to work fine in a pistol).
__________________
iMagUdspEllr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 05:30 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gatekeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Uniontown,PA
Posts: 3,710
Liked 8 Times on 6 Posts

Default

Sometimes a few hundred rounds are needed to smooth out the action of an autoloading pistol or a few dozen rounds to smooth the bore of a bolt action rifle to get them performing at peak level.
Sure they could do this at the factory for you, but would any of you pay "new" prices for a pistol with a couple hundred rounds through it?
All it takes is an afternoon becoming familiar with your new purchase to break it in.
It does it good and you good at the same time IMO.

__________________

----------Gate
______________________________________________
Hellfire, Doom, Watch the hatred spin
Beyond the speed of sound---
Fire it up, Let the engines roll
It's time to burn it down

Gatekeeper is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 06:49 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hurlburt Field,Florida
Posts: 46
Default

Well. Okay. From how most people are making it sound. A break in period is more about familiarization with the firearm. Not, a grace period to forgive a firearm for malfunctioning until it has had X amount of rounds through it. Correct?

__________________
iMagUdspEllr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:57 AM   #15
Retired
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
danf_fl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 10,387
Liked 2962 Times on 1708 Posts
Likes Given: 1272

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMagUdspEllr View Post
Well. Okay. From how most people are making it sound. A break in period is more about familiarization with the firearm. Not, a grace period to forgive a firearm for malfunctioning until it has had X amount of rounds through it. Correct?
True to a point.
Familiarization with the firearm, yes
Grace period, kinda
To get all parts (handgun and shooter) to work smoothly together, yes

I've seen some firearms work right out of the box and never have a failure for the owner, and I've seen "old work horses" that have had failures constantly for a new owner.
__________________

Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)

danf_fl is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 05:40 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Change the words. Substitute 'shake down cruise' for 'break in period.'

Navy buys a Quadzillion dollar boat (ship, dory, whatever), what's the first thing they do? Take it out on a shakedown cruise to see what was done wrong, could be done better, needs getting used to, etc. Do we complain the Navy shake down cruises a new destroyer, or the Army test drives their new tanks or test fires a new cannon? Your break in period is the same thing, for the same purpose. Sometimes everything works just perfectly. Four or five or six hundred specimens later you encounter one that can't make that claim. Really, really, best to know about that before grabbing that unit for something serious.

__________________
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 01:01 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Greenacres,Florida / Palm Beach County
Posts: 124
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superc View Post
Change the words. Substitute 'shake down cruise' for 'break in period.'

Navy buys a Quadzillion dollar boat (ship, dory, whatever), what's the first thing they do? Take it out on a shakedown cruise to see what was done wrong, could be done better, needs getting used to, etc. Do we complain the Navy shake down cruises a new destroyer, or the Army test drives their new tanks or test fires a new cannon? Your break in period is the same thing, for the same purpose. Sometimes everything works just perfectly. Four or five or six hundred specimens later you encounter one that can't make that claim. Really, really, best to know about that before grabbing that unit for something serious.
Like I stated previously, I agree with most of what has been said about a so called Break in and I always shoot more than several hundred rounds through a gun before I can trust it to carry. What annoys me is that these companies using this Break in period as a crutch for their Pumping out these guns without doing a quality job just so they can make a huge profit. I guess there are good and bad companies with all products. Buyer Beware!
__________________
SK2344 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 12:47 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FCross7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SK2344 View Post
Like I stated previously, I agree with most of what has been said about a so called Break in and I always shoot more than several hundred rounds through a gun before I can trust it to carry. What annoys me is that these companies using this Break in period as a crutch for their Pumping out these guns without doing a quality job just so they can make a huge profit. I guess there are good and bad companies with all products. Buyer Beware!
The problem isn't their profit. As states before, there are companies such as Nighthawk, Ed Brown and Wilson, who hand lap and hand fit all parts of their pistols. Not only are these pistols considerably more expensive than your average 1911, in most cases there can also be a considerable wait time to get one. As with anything, craftmanship of the finest degree takes time, time that most people wouldn't be willing to wait when buying a new pistol.

As far a break-in's go, the only pistol I've purchased new is a CZ 75 SP-01, which has performed flawlessly. However, I've got a DPMS Lr308b(AR-10), which did require a break-in period. For the first 300 rounds or so, it would not eject reliably. Now, I haven't had an FTE in a few hundred rounds.

iMag, I could be misreading your posts, but it sounds like you're saying people are blaming malfunctions later on down the road on not breaking a firearm in in the beginning. This I don't believe, however, I do agree with a few hundred round break-in period.

-Fred
__________________

"Breathe when you can, shoot when you should."
-Rob Leatham

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem"

FCross7 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 01:01 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Rick1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Clifton,Colorado
Posts: 4,259
Liked 1905 Times on 1060 Posts
Likes Given: 1257

Default

I have a S&W 642-2. It is a 5 shot 38 snubby. A J-Frame. When I first bought it new, I had a couple of failures with the first box of ammo. Twice the round did not go off. There was not even a dimple in the primer. I decided to go ahead and break in the gun with a few boxes of ammo and a bunch of dry firing. I have put several hundred rounds through it after a lot of dry firing. It has never happened again. I believe break in is very important.

__________________

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Rick1967 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 02:57 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SK2344 View Post
...What annoys me is that these companies using this Break in period as a crutch for their Pumping out these guns without doing a quality job just so they can make a huge profit. I guess there are good and bad companies with all products. Buyer Beware!
Well, with experience we learn there are certain companies whose products we simply avoid. Malfunctions and failures are normal for their cheaply made products and we all hope their products are what the other guy has. Used to be, in big city law enforcement those were the products the dead guy on the ground trusted his life to. After you saw 4 or 5 corpses with brand X products, misfired, or jammed, laying alongside their corpse you realized you didn't want to buy that brand. For civilians there used to be a magazine called GunTests with a Turkey of the Month award. It was actually a fairly good magazine, but once they took on the big boys, the magazine was suddenly no longer on the store shelves and passed into history. Telling a lemon before you buy it is a lot harder today,

Gun magazines live off of ads and commissions to write favorable articles. You see a magazine with a cover story about brand Y's rifle and two or three articles about how great it is, you need to understand that every part of that is paid advertising which is then sold to unwary magazine buyers as a 'fact finding article.' There are some magazine publishers who try to avoid this, but in order to avoid lawsuits and ensure continued 'samples' and writing awards they usually simply won't write or publish an article criticizing a companies product.

Hardly anyone machines a gun out of a billet of solid steel anymore. It's way too expensive. Neither the Bridgestones nor the machinists to run them are cheap. Stampings, investment casts and plastic are the path almost all the manufacturers now follow. Sadly, this includes the previously hallowed names of S&W and Colt.

Another nasty trend is sub-contracting. We have brand name companies of previously impeccable reputations that decided costs would be lower if they made nothing, hired someone else (often overseas) to make it, then upon receipt, stamp their name on it and sell it to the unwary. Yes, sometimes the magazines do pick up on what has happened and actually casually mention the substitution in an article. Unfortunately they rarely do this before the production and sales run are finished and thousands of people got stuck with junk they thought carried the quality of the brand they were buying. [Can you say, Colt Pony?] Even more common is the sub contracting of parts manufacture. Sometimes even the contractor subs out the work too. So there you are with your brand T pistol. Bet you didn't know the ejector was made in Pakistan, the firing pin was made in India, and the springs were made in Hong Kong. Legally, as long as it is all slapped together here, we can still stamp "Made in the USA" on it. You will find the quality control in the various places of manufacture varies widely. Can't really fault the inspector. To save costs the company may have 1 instead of 100. Tuesday morning the ejectors arrive. 14,000 of them. What does the inspector do? He randomly samples. Depending on the company, maybe one per 1,000, certainly not more than 1 per 100, because the hammers are coming in this afternoon and they have to be inspected also. What does the contract say? Maybe there are no procedures for rejecting the lot. Did the company even give the inspector the authority to reject anything? What are the issues? If it is something (often not tested) like hardness, or the number of iterations before a spring fails, hey, it will sell, 90% of the product purchasers will never use the product enough to tell. This is where the aftermarket spare parts market flourishes. Replace the tin parts with steel ones, etc. Of course this usually voids warranties, but when you read the fine print on some of them, so too does almost everything else.

The days of one company casting their own steel, machining and inspecting the parts themselves, assembling the gun themselves then inspecting and refitting any part just a hair out of alignment, then test firing a full magazine and reinspecting and cleaning the gun all in the same factory are pretty much long gone. As a consumer, your best hope is that you picked a product from a company that is still concerned with building brand image (vs. market share) and actually rejects lemons before they leave the factory floor. Which company is that? Sadly, it depends on in which month and year you are asking the question. Attitudes, like stock options, change. So do personnel and their assignments.

I won't name the brand, but about a decade ago I had a friend who owned a gunshop that had landed a contract with a distributor to inspect small shipments into the US of period reproductions then send them to the distributor as okay to sell. All guns had supposedly been inspected and test-fired by the maker and many came with targets to prove it. Yeah, right. Let us just say the Distributor had received some feedback that all was not well and had hired my friend to help that company minimize problems. My friend's contract tasks included running a cleaning patch down any barrels needing one. Sometimes they did, sometimes (depending on which factory made the shipment) they didn't. I was with my friend in his shop when we opened a small revolver shipment. One of the boxed 45 revolvers had a target with holes in the box, supposedly a test firing. The gun was lovely. All pretty blue with case hardening. Pretty grips. Crisp markings. A lovely action. Snick, snick click. We only found one thing wrong with it. The barrel had never been bored. So much for the fraudulent target stuck in the box. Thinking it through we realized it had to be intentional and involve multiple people. One guy bores the barrel. Another one plugs the barrel and blues it, then someone at a different step fits the barrel, roll marking, final inspection, etc. Much, much, later we learned of labor disputes at the factory. How would you like to have been the person dropping a cartridge into that pretty chamber and doing the first shot? Moral of the tale, perform a visual inspection before loading anything.

Years ago you could do that at the store. Plunked your money down and walked out 5 minutes later with the exact gun you inspected. Times have changed. Approve the gun, the clerk takes your money, then you come back 4 or more days later and he gives you a box. Maybe the gun you looked at and carefully selected from the samples present is inside, maybe it is a different one. Maybe it now has lots of scratches and dings on it that weren't there 4 days ago. [Check before leaving the store.]

The days of being to say all products from company U, regardless of the year of manufacture, can be trusted, was over by the 80s. Today you very much have to be wary of both name brands and off brand names. A good example is the 1911 world. It has been up for grabs for 20 something years now. It isn't enough to make a perfect product if you have a lousy business model. Tweaking one against the other results in product control variations. Look up Randall, or AMT to see what I mean. I had two Detonics once. One (1st year of manufacture) was perfect. Right out of the box I could fire anything 45 in it without any bobbles. Bullets hit where aimed. No machining marks inside the slide, all polished, even behind the mainspring. Three years later I bought another one. Jammed every third shot with any ammo (slide kept locking back), regardless of which magazine was used, bullets hit 2 feet low at 7 yards, visible machining marks behind the mainspring housing and on the underside of the slide, etc. A year or so later Detonics disappeared. By then I had gotten rid of them both. [Swapped (something that used to be legal) with a coworker the good one for a Colt 1917 AND a Thompson Contender with three different caliber barrels.]

Actual US military surplus firearms are an obvious exception of course. That is because regardless of how a company messed up, the military had their own inspectors there and a gun didn't get the US Property stamp until after it arrived at the depot/arsenal. It has been over 40 years since US Military surplus firearms were last sold to consumers from the arsenal doors. Your odds of finding one unaltered are low. The more unaltered it is, the more it will cost you. Even the NRA DCM stuff has been altered from when the weapons were US issue. Most of it is coming back as 'lend lease used' with foreign parts, worn out stocks and questionable springs. If you find something that is US military surplus and less than 40 years old, unless it is a General Officers Model pistol, the odds are it is stolen (some of the General Officers Model pistols are to stay in Govt hands too, so don't assume without paperwork), so I wouldn't advise accepting it.

Would it be very lovely if you could say, oh I will buy a brand V pistol because they are so highly rated I know no test firing or break in period is required? Yes, it would. Too bad that hasn't been true since 1935 or so.

As you say, Caveat Emptor
__________________

Last edited by superc; 08-30-2010 at 03:26 PM. Reason: added a paragraph
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
380 break in info adjohns3 Gunsmithing Forum 1 04-03-2010 01:41 AM
Anybody Break one of these ? anm2_man Ammunition & Reloading 11 01-27-2010 04:57 AM
Muzzle Break Dude AK & SKS Discussion 2 07-22-2008 11:37 PM
Barrel break in??? dragunovsks AR-15 Discussion 9 07-03-2008 03:07 AM
More on that top-break revolver........ Bob Wright Revolver Handguns 2 05-28-2008 05:35 PM