Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmr40
So I'm supposed to spend $300-$600 on ammo before I should trust my gun. This is just an excuse for shoddy workmanship. If a gun, any gun, does not work right out of the box it is gone. No excuses. I'd never trust it again no matter who worked on it.
|
No, it's not an excuse for shoddy workmanship. I'm a 1911 guy, and when I see certain high-end 1911 makers telling their customers that they
need 500 rounds through the gun to break it in, and that they shouldn't expect it to run reliably before this "break-in" period ... I agree with you completely. First and foremost, a firearm is a weapon, and it should function reliably out of the box. Period.
That's not the same thing as proving that a particular example of a Magnacorp Megablaster X27C is actually completely reliable. Firearms, like every other manufactured item, are built to tolerances. For 1911s, if built to original Ordnance specs, the tolerance is generally .005". (Not plus-or-minus .005" -- that would be a total range of .010". For the 1911, the tolerance for most dimensions has a TOTAL range of .005". Some parts have a smaller range.) Thus, it is possible to have two pistols, both absolutely within spec, yet one is as loose as a goose and the other is as tight as a new shoe. Even if Magnacorp doesn't consider a break-in period necessary, it is nonetheless possible that either tolerance stacking or, yes, a defective part could render a particular gun unsuitable because of reliability issues.
How can you check for reliability? You can't do it by inspecting the parts, not even with a microscope. The only way to prove reliability is to shoot it, and see if it's reliable. This is very different from a "break-in," because with the guns calling for break-in they are expected to jam during the break-in. So, with those, you have to shoot 500 rounds of "break-in" ammo before you even start to shoot however many rounds you consider necessary to prove reliability.