View Full Version : How Long As This "Break In" Nonsense Existed...?
I don't mean the shoot a round, clean the barrel, shoot a round, clean the barrel nonsense for "breaking in" an accurized barrel. That is another discussion.
I'm talking about the notion that semi auto Handgun A or Carbine B must be fired X number of rounds (usually 100 or 200) before it cycles reliably. Growing up in the late 70s, early 80s I don't remember any of that. Most guns were run right out of the box without any cleaning (although to be fair I think the preservatives used today has less lubricating qualities than what was used 40 years ago).
I think the first time I ever heard of anything like a break in recommendation was back in 1999 when Todd Bailey of Special Weapons suggested his SW3s and SW5s had to be "broken in" and that this was common of all HK guns and most other firearms. IN 1999 it was a great source of amusement but it seems to be an "accepted shortcoming" of many firearms these days and is offered as some sort of SOP for most new guns on many forums.
Is my memory selective or has a Special Weapons "excuse" become a mainstream practice in a mere decade?
I have no idea.
But this shit is all silly. How many other tools need to be broken in? Umm, hold on while I break in these new channel locks.... :sarcastic:
Retarded right?
OT: I have never heard of "Special Weapons" other than in the original Gecko45 thread which means that I completely wrote them off.
Belmont31R
11-27-12, 02:17
For me it's mainly an evaluation period to see if the gun has any defects which will show up right off the bat.
For instance bought a regular old Cold Series 70 1911 and on round 2 or 3 the little safety detent thing on the side just above the left grip popped off. Was never properly attached at the factory. So I think it's a good idea to test a new gun out with a variety of ammunition, and make sure everything was made right at the factory before you go out and use it in the field.
I wouldn't call a 'break in' thing where you expect the gun to not work right until you have XXX amount of rounds down it anything other than a gun that wasn't made right. Like I said just a test/evaluation period.
I remember years ago when we used to break in motors in automobiles. Never hear of that anymore. Wonder why that is?
I first started hearing about it when the 1911 market exploded about 15 years ago. A few semi-custom manufacturers such as Les Baer were known for having very tight fitting guns that may need a few hundred rounds for optimal reliability. However, the notion of a break-in really took of when Kimber became popular :rolleyes:.
Failure2Stop
11-27-12, 07:49
I had avoided this conversation for a few years (declining conversation with gun store employees generally improves my mood), but heard it again the other day when picking up some ammo from a local GS. I openly laughed at the guy.
Apricotshot
11-27-12, 07:52
Kahr Pistols seem to need it. The manual even states it there somewhere, 200 rounds.
Page 11 for reference:
http://stevespages.com/pdf/kahr_kp.pdf
There's no leather parts on any of my guns... Thus.. I've never had to break them in.
militarymoron
11-27-12, 09:11
I remember years ago when we used to break in motors in automobiles. Never hear of that anymore. Wonder why that is?
our 2013 subaru outback has a recommended break-in procedure for the engine. same thing when i bought my last motorcycle. essentially limiting the RPM and varying the driving speed for the first few hundred miles.
i think it's the same for any newly manufactured mechanical device with moving parts - there's going to some initial wear where sharp edges or rough surfaces smooth out. new brake cables on bikes may need to be adjusted after initial stretch etc.
For me it's mainly an evaluation period to see if the gun has any defects which will show up right off the bat.
I wouldn't call a 'break in' thing where you expect the gun to not work right until you have XXX amount of rounds down it anything other than a gun that wasn't made right. Like I said just a test/evaluation period.
This. More of a function verification period than a need for mechanical adjustment or settling.
Though the interaction of some surfaces will polish and distinctly improve with work. I can think of several J-frames that had distinctly different triggers after a few hundred rounds of dry or live fire.
Crow Hunter
11-27-12, 09:57
I have noticed that Glocks seem to get more accurate the more they are shot. So I don't shoot them for accuracy until they have 200 or so rounds on them.
Tight friction surfaces will need to "wear into" (burnish) each other if they aren't finished well and until they do, they will drag a little until all those microscopic sharp ridges get the edges knocked off or mashed over. Once that is done, the friction component will be greatly reduced.
I would imagine that over time one of the cost savings ideas proposed was why finish/lap in bearing surfaces when they will be finished by usage anyway. Just tell the customer it is "break in" and save that money.
Doesn't HK have a "break in" period on the P30? Expect ejection problems with US spec 9mm until after it has seen a couple hundred rounds.
I thought I read that somewhere.
Doc Safari
11-27-12, 10:08
I'm convinced the whole "break-in" myth was a marketing ploy to placate legions of angry 1911 owners in the 1950's and 1960's.
:rolleyes:
I'm convinced the whole "break-in" myth was a marketing ploy to placate legions of angry 1911 owners in the 1950's and 1960's.
:rolleyes:
No doubt. That Break in on the 1911 can take upto 100,000 rounds...
They're reliable after that though! :D
This. More of a function verification period than a need for mechanical adjustment or settling.
Though the interaction of some surfaces will polish and distinctly improve with work. I can think of several J-frames that had distinctly different triggers after a few hundred rounds of dry or live fire.
I'm thinking more this than anything else. Don't know exactly but I have heard "break in" for close to twenty years. Never put much into it except for 1911's. :smile:
El Pistolero
11-27-12, 10:24
Kahr Pistols seem to need it. The manual even states it there somewhere, 200 rounds.
Page 11 for reference:
http://stevespages.com/pdf/kahr_kp.pdf
This is true, yet nobody bashes Kahr for making junk handguns. They happen to be very tight when brand-new though and I noticed my CW9 got smoother the more rounds I put through it. It never malfunctioned but cycling it by hand was smoother. So the break in thing may be real on some designs but not others, I dunno.
I remember when I bought my first AR-15 the dealer told me how to break it in (you know, shoot, clean, shoot, clean, etc.) and I was like :rolleyes: because it's a chrome-lined barrel. Some people still believe it applies to everything. What I believe is gun shops don't know jack about guns.
For me it's mainly an evaluation period to see if the gun has any defects which will show up right off the bat.....
Exactly.
That and what some others have mentioned about the gun feeling a little smoother after a few hundred.
Due to the legions of problems I've had with darn near everything, I don't trust any gun until it's had about 500 rounds through it- after that, I think it just gets really subjective based on the owner....:p
That being said- when buying a new untested brand or product, I absolutely want to hear all about how it went 10 gazillion rounds with nary a malfuntion and no/minor maintenance, or how it bombed after 200.
Failure2Stop
11-27-12, 12:20
This. More of a function verification period than a need for mechanical adjustment or settling.
Though the interaction of some surfaces will polish and distinctly improve with work. I can think of several J-frames that had distinctly different triggers after a few hundred rounds of dry or live fire.
This I agree with.
Don't trust a blaster until you have run a few hundred (to a couple thousand) rounds through it.
I think what a LOT of you guys are talking about would be more correctly an "evaluation period" which should be done with most guns that are new to you.
But the idea that you have to put a couple hundred rounds of +P+ through a firearm to make it function reliably is IMO the mark of crappy production.
If a factory builds guns that tight, they should put them on a machine that runs the slide for two hours or whatever is necessary to send a functional firearm out the door.
Some guns, esp machine guns (and extra barrels) with rough machining need mating surfaces to wear.
Autoloading rifles and carbines benefit from the same, often by wear on the bearing surfaces; bolt, carrier rails, etc.
I do 3-500 rds through the weapon and however many mags I pair it with, before having any confidence in it.
In a general sense.. the rougher the machining and coatings, the more benefit.
Some guns, esp machine guns (and extra barrels) with rough machining need mating surfaces to wear.
Autoloading rifles and carbines benefit from the same, often by wear on the bearing surfaces; bolt, carrier rails, etc.
I do 3-500 rds through the weapon and however many mags I pair it with, before having any confidence in it.
In a general sense.. the rougher the machining and coatings, the more benefit.
I agree with that ^^.. Same with metal pistols and car engines.. The tolerances and accuracy of machining in my Toyota engine when new would be unthinkable in my old Chevy's or Jeeps. IIRC, the FJ had break-in recommendations in the owners manual.
That being said, I do think the "break-in period" is often overly dramatized. My Les Baer pistols rang as good at 100 rounds as 500 rounds. Just saying.. Ron
Some guns, esp machine guns (and extra barrels) with rough machining need mating surfaces to wear.
Autoloading rifles and carbines benefit from the same, often by wear on the bearing surfaces; bolt, carrier rails, etc.
I do 3-500 rds through the weapon and however many mags I pair it with, before having any confidence in it.
In a general sense.. the rougher the machining and coatings, the more benefit.
So by that logic wouldn't MAC 10s be superior to Uzis?
So by that logic wouldn't MAC 10s be superior to Uzis?
What do either of those have to do with the relevance of imperfectly surfaced metal parts becoming worn smoother via use?
Crow Hunter
11-27-12, 15:05
So by that logic wouldn't MAC 10s be superior to Uzis?
I think what Dano is saying is the rougher the initial surfaces whether because of poor finishing or thicker coatings, the more of a benefit of "breaking in" will be to the proper functioning of the firearm.
What do either of those have to do with the relevance of imperfectly surfaced metal parts becoming worn smoother via use?
Well IF I read his statement correctly it seemed like he was saying that parts with rougher edges that wear in are better than more precisely manufactured and fitted parts.
And IF that is what he was saying, the MAC 10 is certainly a rougher production SMG than the UZI. So I asked the question in that way to determine IF that is what he was actually saying.
I think what Dano is saying is the rougher the initial surfaces whether because of poor finishing or thicker coatings, the more of a benefit of "breaking in" will be to the proper functioning of the firearm.
OK, I wasn't quite sure.
I agree that poorly manufactured guns could benefit from a "wearing in." And that is sorta the point of my initial post that it didn't seem to be quite as necessary in the past and I think we tolerate a lot of crappy production these days and accept it as "standard."
Even the very roughly produced MACs still didn't require a "break in" period. Some of the later SWD manufactured ones could be unreliable but that was a production issue and they never really "broke in", they continued to be unreliable.
Crow Hunter
11-27-12, 15:36
OK, I wasn't quite sure.
I agree that poorly manufactured guns could benefit from a "wearing in." And that is sorta the point of my initial post that it didn't seem to be quite as necessary in the past and I think we tolerate a lot of crappy production these days and accept it as "standard."
Even the very roughly produced MACs still didn't require a "break in" period. Some of the later SWD manufactured ones could be unreliable but that was a production issue and they never really "broke in", they continued to be unreliable.
It is a big function on how much of a bearing surface that there is and the method of operation.
If it is something with a realtively small area of contact and/or there is a large amount of "excess" power available to operate the mechanism, the extra drag that friction causes probably won't ever show up.
Think about it like a person dragging a something heavy on a sled versus a pallet in the snow. Even if they weigh the same, the sled will be eaiser because it has a better "contact patch" and reduced friction.
Then compare that to a truck dragging the same thing. :D
There is so much power, the amount of drag is a pretty insignificant factor.
I have only picked up a MAC-10 one time, but since it is a blow back weapon, just reducing the reciprocating mass and the return spring would probably let it "overpower" quite a bit of friction. It might eventually beat itself to death in the process though.;)
I've only heard this recommended for top shelf / hand fitted 1911's...keep it wet and go shoot it if its a primary defense weapon.
Made sense as tight as some of them are and kinda dig watching how the wear fades in from the frame to slide...never heard of it needed on other pistols though??
I've only heard this recommended for top shelf / hand fitted 1911's...keep it wet and go shoot it if its a primary defense weapon.
Made sense as tight as some of them are and kinda dig watching how the wear fades in from the frame to slide...never heard of it needed on other pistols though??
I can "almost" buy into that as it makes logical sense. But I still think it should be done at the factory and be good to go out of the box.
Maybe I'm just getting old and can remember when people used to pump your gas for you, then clean your windshield and check your oil while they did it and now gas costs even more (even when adjusted for inflation) and you pump it yourself.
I can "almost" buy into that as it makes logical sense. But I still think it should be done at the factory and be good to go out of the box.
Maybe I'm just getting old and can remember when people used to pump your gas for you, then clean your windshield and check your oil while they did it and now gas costs even more (even when adjusted for inflation) and you pump it yourself.
No arguement here and never had any (albeit few) of the personal custom 1911's I am referring to have any problems out of the box.
I have had some customers have issues with them, but ended up being more of what i deemed a limp wristed shooting form / dry gun than the actual firearm after going to the range with them...funny, they were ready for a refund and curse my children for suggesting such an expensive gun.
1911's are not for everybody but you can turn them into fanboys quickly...you sure never heard about any of the this break in stuff on the 1911's from the wwii generation.
militarymoron
11-27-12, 19:19
It is a big function on how much of a bearing surface that there is and the method of operation.
If it is something with a realtively small area of contact and/or there is a large amount of "excess" power available to operate the mechanism, the extra drag that friction causes probably won't ever show up.
Think about it like a person dragging a something heavy on a sled versus a pallet in the snow. Even if they weigh the same, the sled will be eaiser because it has a better "contact patch" and reduced friction.
contact patch area is not a factor in how much friction there is. it's a function of the coefficient of friction and the normal force (weight in your sled case).
Suwannee Tim
11-27-12, 20:55
.......I'm talking about the notion that semi auto Handgun A or Carbine B must be fired X number of rounds (usually 100 or 200) before it cycles reliably. Growing up in the late 70s, early 80s I don't remember any of that. Most guns were run right out of the box without any cleaning (although to be fair I think the preservatives used today has less lubricating qualities than what was used 40 years ago)......
SIGs have to be broken in for 1 shot. I have a SIG 556 and it malfunctioned the first shot. Afterwards, several thousand rounds later, not one malfunction. ARs are better. They don't have to be broken in. In I don't know how many thousand rounds in the last four years, several tens of thousands out of several ARs, I have had exactly zero malfunctions that could not be attributed to a magazine or ammo.
Seriously, it gives folks something to argue about. The same argument about barrel break in has been going on for as long as there have been barrels.
I thought there was some truth to the break in rumors. My friend and I both bought G17's about 9 years ago. We both experienced 1 or 2 malfunctions during the first 5 shots. Then they ran flawlessly for thousands of rounds each. Glocks get those dimples on the slide during the first few shots, I thought "break in" had something to do with it.
SIGs have to be broken in for 1 shot.
Real SIGs don't need to be.
:D
Back in the day ran both 2 stroke and 4 stroke roadracers. The 2 strokes did need to be broken in after a rebuild but even the 4 strokes had "factory warnings" about break in period and oil use/change during break-in.
Running a brand new Japanese 1000 CC bike at a race in the Southern US, discussing "break in" with a "southern" bike tuner while getting tires changed. His opinion on Engin break in
"You can't tell me there a'nt no little Jap tuner at the end of that assembly line, starts that bi**h up, bounces her off the rev limiter a few times to make sure she's right then throws her in the crate. Don't be easy on, her skull f**K her right out of the box!"
Oh how I miss the south!
Crow Hunter
11-28-12, 07:15
contact patch area is not a factor in how much friction there is. it's a function of the coefficient of friction and the normal force (weight in your sled case).
You are correct.
I don't know what I was thinking.:nono:
Bathtub Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve)
This is why you should "break in" guns.
I don't believe that you break in something to even out function. I believe that you break in a gun so that you pass the infant mortality failures.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.