Can someone please explain the mechanics/reason for a 'break in' period?

[TheRaskalKing]

I've wondered about this subject from time to time but haven't ever really gotten a straight answer. When manufacturers and such refer to pistols needing a 'break in period,' what are they referring to? It doesn't make sense to me- what about the gun needs to be worn out to a certain degree to function it's best? Are there certain parts where tolerances are too tight on purpose for some reason and so they must be worn in a little? or is the whole concept just an excuse for an unreliable, poorly built gun?

[Walt Sherrill]

With a lot of machines, and handguns are machines, the parts of the new machine, when assembled, must rub together and interact to get to the point where they'll fit most efficiently. There are often subtly rough surfaces left from the manufacturing process, or surfaces that will be "smoothed" by interacting with or parts rubbing against other parts. Until that internal-smoothing (i.e., break-in) happens, the machines don't work optimally. Other things, like springs, relax a little ("take a set") and everything just works a bit better with a little use.

With some very high-end rifle barrels, the process of the precision machining that goes into the creation of rifling in that barrel must be completed by a special, lengthy regimen of shooting and cleaning.

In the case of handguns, break-in seems more needed with the lower cost weapons, but that's not always the case. The "Fluff-and-Buff" routine you often hear mentioned with Kel-Tecs is just a manual process of speeding upthe normal break-in process. Similar practices could be used with most guns with good benefit.

[Slamfire]

Back in the 80's I remember guys bringing out their brand new customized M1911’s to an IPSC match and seeing the things jam. Back then gunsmiths peened frame rails and beat the slides on with grinding compound. They moved that slide back and forth until enough frame rail ground away that the slide would move without a hammer.

So, it made sense to shoot those things to the point that they wore.

Today’s stuff is so well machined I think you just need to shoot until you are convinced that your new toy is reliable. Break in is more of a psychological milestone than a mechanical one.

Personally, I shoot new guns at least a couple of hundred times with different magazines and loads before I feel comfortable with their reliability.

[mete]

I can say from experience that a burr of only .001-.002" can cause failures to function !! A rough surface can slow down moving parts enough to cause failures. 'Break in' and polishing can speed this but it has to be done properly especially triggers. [no Dremel]

[dahermit]

With some very high-end rifle barrels, the process of the precision machining that goes into the creation of rifling in that barrel must be completed by a special, lengthy regimen of shooting and cleaning.

Does that include "Button" rifling and/or "hammer forging" (non-machined), the rifling into the barrel? Or does your statement just refer to "cut" (machined) rifling? Also, can you link to some scientific proof ( not just a statement from a manufacturer), that a "...special, lengthy regimen of shooting and cleaning..."?
I think that you will find many here that would dispute your statement.

[Blue Duck]

A person should shoot their new gun a couple of hundred rounds or so, to know for sure it works, 100 percent or not. But In my opinion, a new gun should be reliable right out of the box, and If I get jams, I don't feel very good about any new purchase if it jams.

I don't believe in breaking one in, that's just an excuse for poor quality control, fitting, etc. You shouldn't have to shoot a thousand dollars worth of ammo through a new gun before it's reliable.

If a gun jams hardly at all, I start looking for something to fix, or trade the dammed thing off for one that does work.

[Walt Sherrill]

Does that include "Button" rifling and/or "hammer forging" (non-machined), the rifling into the barrel? Or does your statement just refer to "cut" (machined) rifling? Also, can you link to some scientific proof ( not just a statement from a manufacturer), that a "...special, lengthy regimen of shooting and cleaning..."?

I think that you will find many here that would dispute your statement.

Many here? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think you're making some assumptions that I didn't make.

Please note: I wrote about SOME high-end rifles, not all rifle barrels. A number of the precision shooting experts -- shooters and gunsmiths alike -- suggest that lapping is a required part of the normal process of manufacture, regardless of the method used -- followed by break-in. I had a link to an article by one of the renowned barrel makers, describing his recommended procedures; it was full of borescope shots. My hard drive died last year, and the article went with it. Hopefuily I'll find it again, someday. Google is no help.)

It seems that all of the break-in procedures for these high-end barrels involve opening up the bore a bit and polishing it, in one way or another, using different solvents or abrasive processes. That is apparently something that simply can't be done well in an high volume manufacturing operations. For the guns that most shooters might use for deer hunting or smaller game and closer distances, these methods arguably don't apply, as the level of precision called for isn't needed in those applications. And for handguns, even less so.

The first link, below, is a very good description of the construction processes and the steps needed to get the most out of a high-end barrel. The very LENGTH of the barrel on a rifle is part of the problem -- hard to keep things properly aligned during manufacture and while they're cleaned. As one writer notes, far more damage is probably done to rifle barrels during cleaning than from firing or copper buildup.

LASC Link
http://www.lasc.us/RangingShotBarrelMakingFeature.htm

Can I offer "scientific proofs?" No -- nothing here that seems to a come close to that standard, but you'll probably be hard-pressed to find anything that is truly "scientific" available to the lay shooter addressing barrel design or manufacture. And you'll also have difficulty find performance comparisons between run-of-the-bill button or hammer forged barrels and the barrels used in the high-end custom guns used for really long-range shooting. That's because shooters have no need for that type of comparison.

At the bottom of the second link, once you've read it, and gone to the end, you'll find a link that shows the internal differences between a custom barrel and the standard factory barrel found in a typical hunting rifle. You'll see a marked difference.

Barrel Break-in Link
http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.co...-break-in.html

Another link on Barrel Break-in with explanations and comparisons
http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Reso...le+Barrel.html


.

[Will Beararms]

Handguns are made by humans and therefore they are not perfect. I am not comfortable with any handgun until it has had 1,000 rounds downrange. I want to make sure all of those imperfect parts are working and working together.

[.40cal]

Walt Sherrill explained this pretty well. I work with machines with parts that have to hold tolerances of thousandths so with that level of precision, the slightest imperfection (even invisible to the naked eye in most cases) can cause a failure. These precision made parts and or gears have to "mesh" together through what some call a break in period.

Just remember, there is a lot of mechanical things happening inside of your pistol, just shy of a miracle

I do however understand where you are coming from though. Some manufacturers have less failures than others, so it makes you wonder. I have asked my self the same question time and time again.

[Will Beararms]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will start to tinker with a handgun inside of 2000 rounds. Too much metal is a good thing. You can take it off but you cannot put it back on. The differentials in Durometer hardness measurements of two surfaces comes into play as well ergo steel to aluminum.

[JED1177]

The well known and accepted practice of putting up with a poorly constructed tool to give you enough time to get used to its malfunctions. Most people, frustrated, either hang it on the wall or put it in a drawer and walk away from it. Time heals everything....Sad!

[Onward Allusion]

JED1177
Break In Period
The well known and accepted practice of putting up with a poorly constructed tool to give you enough time to get used to its malfunctions. Most people, frustrated, either hang it on the wall or put it in a drawer and walk away from it. Time heals everything....Sad!

It's not about being poorly constructed. It's reality. Tools and dies are not perfect, whether it's machining parts for a car's engine or parts for a gun. The wear mates the parts together. Same concept applies in changing your car's oil during the first 1,000 miles or so. Really no surprise.

[TheRaskalKing]

thanks for the replies everyone. I understand wanting to feel confident in your pistol and the way it functions, I'm definitely the same way. I like to put at least 500 rounds down the pipe before I feel I can trust my life to the gun.

I guess I just have a little too much faith in the manufacturing process? It feels to me a little bit like getting takeout and the guy at the restaurant saying ''yeah, so you're going to want to throw that steak on the grill for 10 minutes when you get home.''

In all seriousness though, I understand that some parts might just need sometimes to wear in. It just seems odd not to expect it to functions 100 percent out of the box.

[michael t]

GI 's of WWII went to war with guns that didn't require breaking in . They were made and held to strict Quality Control. If a manufacture wants me to break in his pistol I suggest he include the 500 rounds with the pistol.

I have several Colts. None required a break in . I had a Kimber decided it wasn't worth 500 rounds and traded for a Colt.

I think break in is manufacture CYA for poor quality control on their part.

[James K]

Some makers seem to recommend a break in period during which any failures will be attributed to the need of a "break in." The "break in period" extends up to the end of the warranty period.

I agree that a gun, like any other piece of machinery, will probably work better and more smoothly for a break in period. But it should FUNCTION right out of the box. Any maker who expects me to chance my life on a gun that won't work until I have fired some indefinite number of rounds will not get my business. I don't fancy the idea of dying because I only fired 500 "break in" rounds instead of the recommended 1000.

Jim

[Will Beararms]

Some types of firearms that are well made do require a break in. Since two that come to mind are not applicable to this forum, I will not discuss them here.

[thedudeabides]

1911s can have tight fitting match-grade barrels.

Anything Cerakoted may have excess crap on the rails. The rails fit may be too tight and crud up easily when it gets dirty.

Barrel bushing/barrel fit may be too tight.

You'd think that a gunsmith would fix that before sending the gun out, but that's not always the case.

I've had 2 1911s that needed breaking in, and now work perfectly after a few hundred rounds and snap caps.

I see it as a sign of laziness and crappy QC on behalf of the gunmaker. I try not to send a 1911 in just because I feel that if I let someone fix it, it may get worse.

Plastic guns don't get the same reprieve. That crap better work OOB.

[giaquir]

using the premise of a needed "break-in".
I wonder how many soldiers have died because their
weapons weren't broken it?

[thedudeabides]

using the premise of a needed "break-in".
I wonder how many soldiers have died because their
weapons weren't broken it?

That's why I used a "match grade" 1911 as an example vs plastic guns.

A target pistol doesn't need to be perfectly functioning when it's new, and if it's over tight, then once it's broken in it's super accurate... at least if you believe Kuhnhausen's pie chart of accuracy (and I do).

[giaquir]

Maybe so, but I believe with
all the tech we have no gun
should be on the shelf needing
a breakin. Especially a target pistol
that should be given "special" attention.
Shooters should demand this.

[ScottRiqui]

It's really pretty normal that close-tolerance parts aren't going to fit together 100% from the get-go. That's why it's normal for a new car's engine to 1) consume a little bit of oil and 2) not make full power during the first 1,000 miles or so, until the piston rings have fully mated to the cylinder walls. If you do a compression check on a brand-new engine versus one that's had a few thousand miles on it, you'll see the difference.

Where opinions differ is the length of the "break in period" for a gun, and what are acceptable failures during that period. Personally, I don't necessarily take it as a bad sign if I have an FTF or FTE during the first few dozen rounds. Just as I wouldn't take a brand-new car off the lot and immediately drive it across country or race it, I wouldn't take an off-the-shelf gun and immediately make it my carry gun, or try to compete with it. But the parts should mate well enough after that for the gun to at least be functional. It may continue to smooth out over the course of the next couple hundred rounds, but I'm not going to put 1,000 rounds through it before I expect it to "run right".

[giaquir]

The profit on handguns I believe is quite considerable.
I also believe this misconception of having to break a
handgun in was conceived and promoted by the
manufacturers.They know what parts have to be
"broken-in". A little stoning some 2 minute tweaking
by the assemblers and these issues would not
be common place. But it's all about money and if
they can have us do it,their bottom line increases.

[Walt Sherrill]

... A little stoning some 2 minute tweaking
by the assemblers and these issues would not
be common place. But it's all about money and if
they can have us do it,their bottom line increases.

But, not all buyers are as demanding or discerning as we are.. <grin>

What you describe, however, is the strength and weakness of the Western World's capitalist system and the profit motive...

That extra time spent tweaking may not lead to greater sales but might lead to lower profits. From a capitalist perspective, that extra tweaking might be like taking that first bite of apple in the Garden of Eden.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Maybe so, but I believe with
all the tech we have no gun
should be on the shelf needing
a breakin. Especially a target pistol
that should be given "special" attention.
Shooters should demand this.

You can "believe" whatever you want - this seems like something convenient for you to harp on.

I can tell you that I have a full custom 1911 built by Bob Marvel who has probably forgotten more about 1911's than most people will ever know. The gun he built for me had over 200 rounds through it before he shipped it to me and his letter indicated that he thought it should have at least another 400 though it before it would perform optimally.

I'll take Bob's thoughts on the subject as being far more relevant than your beliefs.

Since I bought the gun to shoot it, I don't find it a hardship to shoot the gun, get to know it and how it performs. I'm a bit surprised by the attitude that insinuates it is some kind of onerous task to shoot a new pistol. I have no problem running a gun for a number of rounds as it proves to me how the gun works and allows me to get used to it.

In the case of this specific 1911, the gun was tested in a Ransom Rest at 50 yards and printed two, 10 shot groups that are under 1.4-inches and is not a target pistol.

If the gunsmith who built a gun with that kind of performance advises additional shooting for it to reach its full potential - fine by me.

[buckhorn_cortez]

The profit on handguns I believe is quite considerable.

Beyond your "belief" - your proof of this is....? Products, no matter what they are, have a certain markup that the market will bear - and without that markup there would not be a product available as it would not be economically viable for the manufacturer.

I also believe this misconception of having to break a
handgun in was conceived and promoted by the
manufacturers.They know what parts have to be
"broken-in". A little stoning some 2 minute tweaking
by the assemblers and these issues would not
be common place. But it's all about money and if
they can have us do it,their bottom line increases.

Then I suppose you're also upset that the shoes you buy haven't been walked in for 3-4 miles before they're shipped too?

Stoning a few things and "tweaking" do not have the same effect as shooting the gun.