rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
Avtomat-Acolyte said:In all seriousness, I just think it is a flaw for a gun to require break-in. That being said, I also own guns that require "break-in" to loosen up their inferior, computer-designed, robot-machined parts until the gun can safely knock itself into a looser, more reliable fit.
No argument on that point. My Shield required none, nor did any of my guns but a self-built AR with a purposefully minimum spec chamber. When someone says you have to shoot X rounds through a defensive arm before the trigger smooths up, that tells me that the trigger wasn't well made in the first place.
There is, however, a mental break-in period before I'm willing to risk my life on a gun. I'd like to see 1K rounds without a hitch, but 500 is usually enough to get me to carry something with some sort of backup.
Those rounds don't have anything to do with the firearm or manufacturing tolerances. They are merely for my grey matter, both in terms of trusting a mechanical device and in terms of muscle memory.
I'd be willing to give a pass to a gun built as a precision firearm, pistol or rifle, that had tight tolerances on purpose. Of course, that isn't a gun I'll carry to walmart, either. Some of my military rifles, for example, might have required some break-in. For all of them, that break-in was performed at least 50 years ago, so I think I'm past that.