In our February issue, we covered the subject of breaking-in a new handgun. George Harris notes that there are as many opinions about the efficacy of the process as there are handguns, and notes that most modern guns probably do not require breaking-in. He does, however, make a salient point regarding break-in: you need to break yourself in to the new pistol so you are comfortable with its operation. Read the whole thing.
My question is, how many of our readers agree with Harris that a lengthy break-in period is not vital for the gun itself, but absolutely necessary for the shooter/gun interface? I think he's largely correct, but would add that it depends quite a bit on the gun in question. For example, in my experience, most polymer-frame, striker-fired handguns do not require any break-in. Other pistols, notably some 1911s, do, however. That's not to say one is better than the other, just that certain types seem to need a bit more TLC before becoming an everyday-carry option. Once that period is past, they may even outperform the out-of-the-box champs. What I think is indisputable, however, is Harris' main point that you must shoot any new gun until you are familiar with its operation, to include stoppage clearance, reloading, etc.
What do you think?
