Is "breaking in" a weapon a meme /k/?

>>34177132
yes and no

>>34177132
I don't see the evidence to support that it's not a meme
I just lump it up to magic

>>34177132
Id like to break your face in.

>>34177132
Depends on gun.

For example Rossi Winchester replicas are not very well finished and you can fix it in two ways - one is to polish and oil the parts with friction marks after cycling it few hundred(~200-300) times(so you can see where the parts have contacted each other), the other is to just cycle it several thousand times and then just oil them, they should've grind themselves to shape by the time by themselves.

The .357 version may have feeding problems(smoothness related, it's going to be reliable anyway) too, but they are - again, gone after you burn some few hundred rounds through it.

Some automatic firearms tend to jam until you break them in as well and this is not because they're shoddily made. For example majority of M1 Carbines and their replicas have this problem when they're brand new, and here it's because some of those parts just have to grind themself to shape, it would be impossible to have them run like gold straight out of factory(well, M1 Carbine will never run reliably but w/e). I believe quite a lot of pistols as well.

Only for cheap crap made with wide clearances. Anything decent will have a break in period I.E. custom handguns.

Weapon dependent. Taurus for example has a 50 round break-in on all their pistols: You shoot it 50 times and it breaks.

File: KEK.jpg (119KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 517x768px

>>34177733

>>34177733
Kek

>>34177132
Depends, high end zero tolerance weapons yes, 99% of weapons no

>>34177962
But AW engineers found "breaking in a barrel" to have no measurable effect

A weapon will become gradually smoother in action after repeated use. It may be rough at the beginning.

But no modern production firearm should need to be broken in to function properly. What actually needs to be broken in with your guns is your trust in their ability to function, don't be that guy that buys a gun for defense and then never shoots it once.

>>34177976
I'm not talking about breaking in the barrel, I'm talking about breaking in the moving parts.

Guns with really tight clearances will cycle fine when feeling them in the store but adding in the vibrations from an actual round going off will cause the parts to shift slightly and rub. This can cause issues in cycling/feeding/ejecting until they wear down slightly to have a little extra tolerance allowance to them

>>34177288
Unless there's an incredible fuckup a custom job should perform flawless the moment it's handed off to you. Any gunsmith worth his salt is going to run the action repeatedly to make sure everything is smooth as butter.

>>34178034
Fair enough. It's really only breaking in the barrel that I take issue with because I trust Accuracy International more than fuddlore, especially since it makes business sense to promote breaking in a barrel (since they will wear out earlier for precision purposes, which means more sales)

Is lapping rings a meme?

File: hotgarbageRP9.jpg (112KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x450px

>>34177979
>and then there's Remington

>>34178089
Do you want irreversibly to destroy your barrel within 30 rounds?

>>34177132
everything is a meme when you're making meme posts

>>34178080
Barrels wearing out is a meme for the most part, the moa difference is negligible unless you're a competition shooter or shooting really long range

>>34178108
my mistake read that as "rounds"

>>34177132
Depends entirely on what you're talking about. The trigger on my FNS-9 smoothed out after the first couple mags. It was terribly gritty at first. My Mossberg Patriot shot dog shit groups with match ammo for the first ~60-70 rounds or so. What it comes down it is that there can still be imperfections from machining or assembly that can smooth themselves out through use.

>>34178122
>barrel wear is a meme
Uh, no. Not even close. Any high-powered cartridge is going to eventually wear the barrel out. You'll know when it happens because your 1-2 MOA gun will balloon out to 3-5 MOA. That's unacceptable for any application besides plinking at 25 yards and I question why you're using anything over .22 for that.

No. Working surfaces need time to wear together. You can do this manually with various stones and most custom gucci outfits *should* be doing this themselves.

Most guns off the assembly line will have stacked tolerances in both directions making things a bit tighter or grittier than normal.

>>34178390
>3-5 moa

Which is still kill zone on game and people. But even then must people aren't shooting loads that hot and most commercial loads are light if anything

If you shoot 223 out of your 556 barrel you're basically never going to wear it out

You're probably better off replacing a barrel every decade if you're honestly worried about it.

Yes on some firearms.

M45A1 was extremely tight when I first purchased if.

>>34178390
>>34178737
Also barrel "wear" is actually barrel corrosion, because lead and brass ate both significantly softer than the steel in your barrel, so it'll be minimized by cleaning after shooting

>>34178080
Barrels going smooth is an issue, but it isnt exactly common for people to be putting 10k rounds through a gun nowadays. MOST users wont see it, or will sell the gun long before then.

>>34177132
A well-made weapon should work out of the box, assuming it was at least lightly oiled. HOWEVER the action may smooth out a bit where the metal/polymer/whatever needs to grind down a bit. Plenty of guns may shoot rough at first, but after 200 rounds they may get nicer and smooth.

>>34178390
>3-5 only good for plinking @ 25 yds
That's why it's within milspec for a service rifle, right?
>>34178801
Not corrosion, erosion, caused by the extremely hot and high pressure gasses being forced down it.

Honestly? Yes and no.
Some guns are great out the box, some need a thousand or so round to get better.
For instance, my Ruger GP100 has gotten noticeably better after 1,200 round through it. it could just be me, though, i doubt it.

I had a rifle recently rebarreled by an old timer who is a master at what he does.
My rifle, along with everyone else I know who had their rifle rebarreled from this guy have guns that now easily group in a dime at 100 yards.
He said barrel break in is bullshit.
It's an excuse that gunsmiths who do not know what they're doing use.

>>34178390
Whoa guys get a load of this operator.

>>34177132

No, it's not.

The "break in" period is just the time it takes to loosen up parts that were made or fitted too tight, but made it through quality control anyway.

It's also the period that allows you to identify parts that are just fucked up and need to be replaced, or reshaped, like extractors and ejectors.

File: 1111.jpg (17KB, 78x209px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 78x209px

>>34177132

>>34177132
Break in isn't a myth, parts that come from the factory with rough edges, sharp corners, or too tight of tolerances(but still acceptable) wear against each other over time and smooth out. It's no more a myth than the rails on a handgun wearing over time.

What degree of break in should be acceptable for the end user is another question all together.

>>34178737
>>34179043
Well fucking SORRY FOR WANTING the best possible performance both in ballistics and economy.

No, but seriously 3-5 MOA? That might be fine for spraying sand people until they get JDAM'd, but if you've hiked ten miles to shoot at some asshole on hooves you're going to want a bit better accuracy than that. With some stuff even getting close is out of the question, you're going to have a two food spread at the range you'll be shooting at.

Unacceptable, especially when it's a freezer full of meat we're talking about.

>>34178801
Very, very rarely will barrel wear be corrosion in disguise. As said already it isn't a material hardness issue, it's metal being vaporized. Wildcats that are significantly hotter (and thus more powerful) than their parent cartridge are really notorious for this, wildcatters themselves acknowledge that their pet creation turns the barrel into a disposable part after a certain number of rounds.

Others like 6.5CM are notorious for it, you're just not going to get around the fact that it's at the upper echelon of what a 6.5mm round can do.

>>34178885
>it isnt exactly common for people to be putting 10k rounds through a gun nowadays.
>nowadays
????? What?

You might have had a real good point during the AWB era but now that ARs and the like have gotten popular and all the cheap surplus ammunition out there is freely available, well, nowadays people shoot a lot. Like, a whole lot. Ten thousand rounds through a barrel is not phenomenal, I think I've put 6-7k through my .30-06 Model 70 last year. Though, then again I do reload a lot, but I know others have shot more cheap 7.62x51mm and for sure they've passed the 10k mark and then some.

That one day I was testing some loads out on a public "range" (fucking giant pasture that was abandoned) and these two guys showed up with one of those big plastic tubs from Wally World full of 20-rounders and just mag-dumped at a futon with a dick drawn on it in duct tape.

>>34177132
Interestingly I finally got a taste of this after having about 17 or so different guns. I bought an Alpharms SA15, a Turkish semi-automatic AR-15 looking 12 gauge shotgun. With 00 Buck it performed very well out of the box, but the first 30 or so target loads I ran through it were really, really bad.

The action often simply jammed up tight after a round was fired and completely failed to eject. I was scared that I had gotten a piece of shit lemon but I had more ammo so I pressed on. I had 50 rounds of target loads on me at the time and by the time I had finished them off it was cycling them just enough to drop the shell out of the action and load another. So, I came back with another 100 basic bitch Winchester target loads and from the time I loaded up to the time I finished it was cycling them pretty reliably and well, it's night and day from where I started. It still has the occasional hiccup but it's a Turkish shotgun so what can one expect. I was just baffled and amazed because I had never experienced something like that with a gun yet, and I buy a lot of Chinese shit on top of that. So I would say definitely that in my case at least yes, the parts wore in and it's a good thing I gave it a chance before shipping it off for a refund or work.

>>34177132
I had to break in my ruger mark 3, damn thing was too tight at first

>shoot gun
>action becomes smoother

gee

File: 1491012205830.gif (897KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 800x430px

>>34177733

>>34177132
Barrel break in is. For handguns, it's not a bad idea to run about a 1000 rounds through just to work out any kinks. A gun is like a woman: you won't know all the idiosyncrasies and quirks it has until you spend a long time dealing with it on a day to day basis.

Newb question
I recently finish building a .223 AR does it have to broken in? Does home built guns need breaking in period?

File: 1476893631625.png (134KB, 323x241px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 323x241px

>>34177733
good shit