Breaking In A New Firearm--Necessary or Not

Shooting Illustrated tries to answer a reader's question about whether it is necessary to shoot a number of rounds through a handgun in order to "break it in." The question was actually about two issues: (i) should you have to "break in" a new handgun or should you expect it to run reliably straight out of the box, and (ii) the manual for the unnamed handgun recommended shooting 500 rounds through the weapon as a break-in period--was this excessive.

    I've noted before that today's shooters are pampered in that they expect a firearm to run straight out of the box, and generally they do. It wasn't always so, and I remember when it was pretty standard to expect a semi-auto firearm to have "bugs" that would need to be worked out with proper cleaning, lubrication, and shooting 100 to 200 rounds through the weapon. Many semi-auto pistols were well known not to function reliably with hollow-point ammunition, or be very picky about their ammo. The common advice as to 1911s, for instance, was to buy one and then immediately turn it over to a gunsmith for him to work it over to make it reliable.

    Should that be the case? I would say with better manufacturing equipment able to turn out more consistent products, firearms should shoot reliably out of the box. Nevertheless, if I'm going to bet my life on a handgun, whether it is a semi-auto or revolver, I'm going to first put a bunch of practice ammo through it and test my preferred defensive ammo for function, reliability, and point of aim.

    As to the issue of whether it needs 500 rounds for a proper break-in, I'm not going to contradict the manufacture, but my thought is that if it is not shooting reliably by the time you reach 200 rounds (presuming it was properly cleaned and lubricated to start with), there is probably something wrong beyond merely getting the parts to properly mesh together. If there is no obvious mechanical problem, I would start with checking to see if it is an ammunition problem. For instance, I have shot handguns that could run ball ammo all day but will choke up on hollow-points. I have a rifle that shoots most anything I give it ... as long as it isn't steel cased. And earlier this year I had the misfortune of getting a box of .22 LR where about every second or third round was a dud. Beyond ammunition issues, check for magazine issues, such as bent feed lips, or other less obvious mechanical issues. I had an AK that started jamming on me and I finally figured out that the screws attaching the stock had loosened. I tightened them down with a bit of loctite and that solved the problem. And I've written before about troubleshooting a buffer issue with an AR.

    But, beyond a mechanical break-in, there are other good reasons for some substantial test firing of a new defensive handgun. Most importantly, it allows you to become familiar with the operation of the firearm. If you are having to load the firearm, shoot it, reload, etc., you are going to learn the basic manual of arms for that firearm. And that is only the beginning as you will get to field-strip and clean the weapon after you get home!

     Additionally, it allows you to test out ammunition in your firearm. As noted above, some firearms just don't like certain ammunition, and you don't want to find out that you picked the wrong type when you need the firearm to defend yourself. Besides reliable feeding of ammunition, you will want to know where the ammunition shoots and whether it shoots to where you were aiming. Another anecdote: back when Black Talon ammunition was first introduced, I was out shooting with a relative that had purchased some in .45 ACP. While the regular ball ammo was on target, the Black Talon ammunition noticeably shot farther to the right as the range increased. It fed fine, but if it had been me, I wouldn't have selected it as a defensive round to use in that particular pistol because of the issue of the difference in point of impact from point of aim.