To test for reliability and POI, I’d should at least a couple cylinders of the ammo you decide to use for SD. More is always better, but not necessary.
Break in round count for revolver EDC
- Thread starter Grimjaws
- Start date
I've had a very few revolvers fail, but all did fail within 6 shots. A Ruger Security Six, new from a box, fired 6 rounds of Federal 125 grain JHP and the cylinder locked closed so rigidly that our armorer couldn't open it. Very used Smith M19s had either cartridge throw-by or failures to fire (usually timing issues) within the first cylinder I fired.
I've carried several duty revolvers that I fired 18 duty rounds through before initial carry, then followed up within a week or so with another 50-100 rounds. If they made it through the first 6 rounds and a reload, they've all been fine.
I've carried several duty revolvers that I fired 18 duty rounds through before initial carry, then followed up within a week or so with another 50-100 rounds. If they made it through the first 6 rounds and a reload, they've all been fine.
Break in
You just never know.
A buddy of mine was standing next to me at a training course, armed with a Model 65 he had just bought. He dry fired for an hour the night before, and at the class, he fired 12 rounds and the firing pin broke off.
Done.
BTW he finished the course using a Model 38 and some Band-Aids.
You just never know.
A buddy of mine was standing next to me at a training course, armed with a Model 65 he had just bought. He dry fired for an hour the night before, and at the class, he fired 12 rounds and the firing pin broke off.
Done.
BTW he finished the course using a Model 38 and some Band-Aids.
Pretty much what I do with a brand new from the factory revolver. If a used revolver, I generally don't do as many dry-fires. I am seeing if the trigger will smooth out a bit. I do something similar when I do a polish & spring trigger job, to insure ignition of my preferred carry loads.
Making sure that all parts work and funtion correctly is a good start.
Firing pin and spring tension are two things that might cause problems with a new revolver.
Most should be good for 10,000 rounds before a "Oil change".
Have fun.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
The downside to used revolvers is you never know if somebody did a poor job putting in a "spring kit". Usually the spring kit will get lighter hammer strikes as it goes along. Will the problem be discovered with five or six rounds or 50 or 100?
Another reason when I was a cop we carried two revolvers.
Another reason when I was a cop we carried two revolvers.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
My S&W 686 Plus has been almost perfect with 3800 rounds down range. The first 3650 were my reloads with Federal primers. The last 150 were with CCI primers and I had three requiring a second strike.
Puller
Member
Yes, Glocks are that much more reliable. In general, the folks who typically thinks a Glock needs an extensive break in period are 1911 aficionados, probably because they're used to breaking in 1911's after they've changed out half a dozen parts to get them to work reliably.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 10,961
How ever many you're comfortable with.
How many? As many as it takes for you to get good at hitting what you're aiming at with your new revolver.
Old topic still…
Back in the 90’s my department brought six new S&W Model 65 4” barrel. The R.O. issued them unfired to a rookie class and went to the range for qualifying. First stage was six rounds. One rookie raised her hand so R.O. went to see what her problem was. There was not a single bullet hole in the large B-27 target. Then he looked at her gun and the barrel had completely fallen off! Then he checked the other guns and found one that the barrel was canted at a downward angle about ready to fall off. R.O. later showed me the guns and asked if he should send all six back to the factory. My recommendation was to have them replace all six guns which they did.
My personal experience is the problem showed up in the first six rounds…
I brought a used S&W Model 10-6 4” barrel revolver. It was a law enforcement trade-in and had the holster wear to the finish that would be expected from being carried for over 20 years. The gun mechanically function fine and passed my safety checks.
I took it to the range and it shot the first three rounds fine. Then the trigger pull got progressively harder making the sixth round almost impossible to fire. I replaced the ejector rod, rechecked timing and b/c gap and it functioned perfectly. Back to the range and it repeated the same problem so I sent it in for repaired. S&W repaired it for a little over $100.00 and the repair ticket said “Fix ammo binding”. Gun looks like it has a new trigger and hammer and shoots fine now.
Another gun was a Colt Police Positive Special .38 with 4” barrel I brought for my wife. First range trip showed it was skipping a chamber leaving a unfired round. As the PPS has been out of production for many years so I shopped around on the Internet and found a gunsmith to fix it. It now functions perfectly and is easy to shoot.
Then I brought a Taurus .22 Magnum with 2” barrel. It keyholed the bullets so badly I gave up after only shooting half of box of ammo. I sent the gun to the factory. I got a telephone call a couple of days from them wanting what FFL they could send me a replacement gun to. Replacement gun functions fine and is accurate for a snubby revolver.
My problems with semi-problems have taken longer to figure out.
Last edited:
It all comes down your comfort zone. I do many dry fires. Shoot a cylinder full from a few different brands to see point of impact with different loads and call it good. I have never had an issue with a new revolver from a few manufacturers.
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 7,081
If a Police Officer shot the TV because he didn't verify that it was not loaded, maybe he was in the wrong profession. If the root cause was lack of training, then I submit that THAT police force needs some serious criticism.
I’m a lot more confident with a “new” revolver than Any new semi auto. If the round chambers and the hammer hits hard enough to bust a cap a revolver’s gonna fire. Semi’s? Not so much. A change in bullet profile, bullet weight, powder charge, an issue with a feed ramp, magazine spring or issue with lubrication can ALL cause an auto to hiccup with an FTF or FTE. For an Auto it’s 250 rounds (including whatever I’m going to carry) with ZERO issues. One flub and it starts over. A second issue and that weapon will NOT be one I use for serious work. Like NASA “failure is NOT an option”.
Had a new Kimber Solo a few years ago. Kimber recommended a break in with 147 gr rounds. I did exactly as they recommended. I’d get an FTE or FTF at least Once out of every two magazines. Put another 50 through (150 total). Still problematic. Tried numerous other loads/defensive rounds. After a total of 400 rounds I was still unable to make it through 2 mags. Sent it back to Kimber. Got it back “fixed” weeks later. Down to the barn. EXACT same problem. Dumped it the following day. Expensive name brand pistol, but it would NOT run. YMMV
So obviously there is no rule of thumb , only opinions . One guy says 250 rds , another says 2 cylinders worth . I bought a S&W 442 from a guy and I loaded it and stuck it in my pocket holster for the ride home . So I guess that made it zero ?
That's all interesting enough, but what do either of those have to do with "breaking in" a revolver?
We all know semi-autos require some break in - especially the small carry guns - because of the mechanics of way they work is so much more complicated.
Totally an apples and oranges comparison. You might as well discuss how many rounds to break in a rifle.
I've never seen or heard of any manufacturer recommending an extensive "break in round count" for a revolver, but it isn't uncommon for small semi-autos.
A few rounds to function test and enough more to get decently proficient with the revolver is all that is required IMO. Unless you're talking about durability testing, but that's a whole different discussion too.
Last edited:
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
We had a group of rookies check in from the Academy. So the first week in is Orientation. I like taking them to the Range and see what the Academy Staff taught them. Four of the rookie's revolvers each had six duds. (back then we shot 158 LRN reloads) To make the long story short; a "know it all" rookie gave three of his buddies revolvers a trigger job using them spring sets that was popular in the 1970s.
So that problem showed up with one round.
Anyways the "know it all" got fired on his first day working solo. His first Shift unsupervised he had sex with a hooker.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
Glocks work. My Department was true blue S&W, no pun intended. Glocks came to America 35 years ago and my Department avoided them for 20 years. But all the other local agencies had them and we eventually got them and they are good for the cop who is not a Gun Enthusiast.
Cops who qualify Master is going to shoot Master no matter what tool they have. But a cop who is only a Marksman or Sharpshooter with other pistols usually get Expert with a Glock.
Bill Lear
Member
I don't want to come off like a Glock fanboy, but I will say this: There is the time "Before Glock Pistols," BGP, and the time "After Glock Pistols!" AGP. I was in the heyday of my shooting career when Glock arrived to the United States, and of course I was already well-versed in the various brands and models that existed before. Before Glock you had a mishmash of WW2 era relics that worked well enough with ball ammo, then the early "wonder nines" and of course the ubiquitous 1911. In that time, the first thing most considered when acquiring a 1911 was a throating job to make it chamber hollowpoints - a new-fangled idea to be sure, and most ended up just carrying "hardball" in their 45 automatics. It seemed like no matter what you tried, semiauto pistols were generally prone to stoppages for various reasons.
When Glock appeared, they set a new performance bar. They fed hollowpoints, and they were as reliable as the sun coming up. They were also a true, clean sheet design that halved the weight of a handgun, and tripled capacity over revolvers.
The "secret" to Glock reliability is the ultralight frame with high-mass slide and modest slide return spring weight, combined with the ramped locking system and single lug lock-up into the ejection port. When a Glock is "locked up" it's tight, but the instant the action unlocks it goes totally "slack" and this is the reason they're so reliable. They also eliminated unnecessary rail surface area making them reliable with minimal lubrication. Glock also has the most advanced (even today) "drop safety" system which is the reason for the gun being partially cocked, then fully cocked as the trigger is drawn back. The cruciform sits atop a ledge that holds it in contact with the striker sear, from which it CANNOT disengage until the trigger is drawn back far enough so the cruciform passes off the ledge and is driven downward by the connector. An "ND" on a Glock is ALWAYS the result of a ham-fisted human snatching the trigger regardless of all the lies told to pretend otherwise.
Because so many have no clue as to how guns work - in general, they presume nobody else does and so they can't be proven to be lying, but the "tech-sperts" always know.
The bottom line is that Glocks are inherently reliable as long as the operator maintains the proper and expected strong hold, and of course keeps their twitching sausage off the trigger during the draw. I remember banging away hundreds of rounds without lubrication, without a single bobble and they weighed "nothing" compared to everything else on the planet! Sure my Styer GB was as reliable with it's gas-locked action, but it was also huge. My various S&W's of the time, begining with a Mod 39 I wish I still had and on to various versions of the 4-digit models that seemed to change on a daily basis. I did have a reliable FM High Power from Argentina that was 100% reliable with home-grown LRN, but then I also knew how to hold an auto to glean the best reliability. Hand that light-slide gun to someone with a fish-grip and it would jam like it was intended to function that way!
1911s have always worked well with ball ammo and a strong grip - and more importantly, a proper 15 pound - no more than 16 pound slide return spring, but in the hands of novices, they become jamo-matics.
Glocks changed all that. Even the novitiate could achieve reliable function with a half-way decent grip thanks to the high cycling mass over featherweight frame, and goose-loose unlock that served well to mitigate system friction and spring force.
Today it's popular to "diss" Glocks because they sit the throne of the pistol kingdom and there is always going to be factions in opposition of the status quo. It's worth noting that Glock handguns proliferate police holsters and even though the Army "officially" adopted an abortion called the M18, on the QT the Glock 19 has been quietly, unofficially adopted by those who tend to need a handgun in CQB.
These days I own a variety of handguns well beyond what anyone can ever "need" and I love them all for what they are - Colts, Sigs, S&W, SA, Beretta, Seecamp, FN, even Phoenix Arms, and of course more Glocks than I care to admit too, and when I consider what I will grab in an emergency, it's always a G17, or G19, or G20, or G29, or G30, or G21, and even G34. They just work and they're ergonomically superior with the lowest bore axis on the planet, light-weight, and they hold a "grip" of shots with even higher capacity spares if desired. One of my "go-to" guns is a G17 with .22TCM9R barrel stoked with 19+1 (Gen5 +2 mag) 5.56x24 armor piercing rounds that will punch a hole through 10 gauge steel like it's butter - a thickness the 9mm just leaves a smear on.
The Glock 10mm carried the water during the years when the Delta Elite was too expensive and considered too fragile, but the G20 handled - and still handles full power 10mm loads, and has been doing so since 1990 - LONG before all the "big names" dared dip a toe into the 10mm pond - and they assume you the consumer will just forget all that and get all jiggly-legged when they finally introduce an overpriced, less capable, less reliable turkey some 30 years later!
Then comes the 45 GAP. Glock found a way to shoehorn the power of a 45 ACP into a 9mm size action and deliver the exact same - and slightly greater terminal performance. Did anyone else do that? Anyone? No of course not, they simply started copying the 1911 and pretended they had personally found the Holy Grail! Granted the fickle consumer is part of the problem, but with proper endorsement the GAP round would have come to dominate.
While other makers abandon calibers such as the 357 Sig, the .45 GAP, and even the .40S&W, Glock keeps churning them out even though they already dominate the 9mm market and could simply rest on their laurels.
Last edited:
Similar threads
