Why the 250 round "break in" for a Kahr

[tjschul]

Well, I've owned at least a few dozen pistols in my life, but this is my first Kahr. I was attracted to the brand after shooting my daughter's PM-9.
After reading many threads here, and elsewhere about Kahrs, I struck by one thing...the obsession with the "250 round break in". Its routinely asked "if the 250 round break in" has been completed, anytime there is a malfunction.
One of my favorite carry guns is my .32 Seecamp, its functioned perfectly from the first shot (as have most of the quality firearms I own).
Here's Larry Seecamps view of break in requirements:

http://www.seecamp.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1152142987

He seems to think its total B.S., kinda like Chevy telling you to drive your backfiring car a little futher before you bother them with it.
Why is he wrong? Why is Kahr a different animal?

[isecobra]

chevy does want you to break in your car for the fist 1000 miles. read your manual.

[Javelin]

I have never understood it either. I just know that some firearms need to be fired to become reliable. Kahr is not the only one. Kel-Tec seems to need a break in period too. Still no clue.

[tjschul]

chevy does want you to break in your car for the fist 1000 miles. read your manual.

Not while its malfunctioning! That's the difference, if its messing up they don't tell you to drive it some more until it heals itself.

Question remains why is Kahr any different than Seecamp or any other maker?

[isecobra]

my mk9 nine has never one single problem at all, i believe that these pistols are very tight, maybe to wear in to the tolerances, i have spingfield loaded that the first 200 rounds i thought what have i bought this piece of crap, it would not shoot a complete mag with jamming somehow. but after those first 200 or so round it smoothed right out, now i could roll it in mud and this thing would fire alday without a problem.

[ddc]

I don't believe they are different from "any other maker". Kahr is just more upfront about "breaking in" than many manufacturers.

I have been lucky enough to never have a pistol that required "breaking in". That includes a K9 and a MK9 along with several Browning HiPowers. They all ran well right from the start.

And I'm certainly not a pistolsmith either… so my only experience with the concept of "breaking in" a gun comes from reading the experiences of others.

Having said that it appears to me that firearms, and auto-loading pistols in particular, are kind of strange in that what is in actuality a quality piece can sometimes have issues early in its existence.

This is typically with mass produced pieces, custom gunsmith jobs usually go bang right from the start but there are stories on issues there also.

Once that "break in" period has passed there are typically no more issues. I wouldn't consider that a malfunction, more like an idiosyncrasy.

On a somewhat related note some custom, or semi-custom, auto-loaders, such as a Les Baer, are notorious for having a tight slide/frame fit when new. So tight that there are complaints from people who are having a hard time working the slide. But after the "break in" period has passed these same people offer up glowing reviews of "slide that feels like it is running on glass" or similar sentiments.

So it just seems to be the nature of the beast. Obviously all conjecture on my part... maybe someone who actually knows what is going on can supply a technical explanation of why this seems to occur?

[tjschul]

This quote from Larry Seecamp's view of break in sums it up pretty well:

"Semi autos ought to work straight out of the box with no break in period. I never understood the mythical break in period. I’ve worked on some 50,000 guns and crap guns never got better by shooting those pistols more."

While Kahr is certainly no "crap gun" generally speaking, a crappy gun or two probably makes it out the doors of most manufacturers.

While some custom guns do indeed have tighter tolerances, and these clearances growing may indeed cause a pistol to function better, Kahr is not one of them.
I think its Hocus Pocus to think problems unrelated to overly tight clearances
"heal themselves" with more use.

[isecobra]

i'm sure if you look into it mr.seecamp has some bad reviews uot there, sounds like you really like your seecamp, which are bvery nice pistols, but wouldn't take 3 seecamp for my mk9 elite.

[ripley16]

This break-in question is a very good question and it's one Kahr never really answers adequately IMO. I tend to believe the break-in routine exists for some reason other than attaining reliability. The next logical question is why can some manufacturers produce guns that need "adjustment/ break-in" and others produce reliable guns from round one, such as Heckler Koch.

I've asked the question "What actually changes in the firearm during this break-in period?" Most answers revolve around triggers smoothing out, burrs being reduced, slides and frames seating (whatever that means) and the common "springs breaking-in", which of course is hogwash. I tend to agree with Mr Seecamp, at least until some authority comes out with a logical explaination and reason for break-in.

[JohnJak]

Minimum 300 rounds through the pipe(reliability) for personal carry which also serves as a break-in period for any gun.

[Bruce Foreman]

I picked up a CW40 that had only had a few shots fired. Average of two malfs per mag for a hundred rounds, then some mag loads went through without a problem but I still saw occasional failure to feed.

At about the 150 round mark it settled down and began feeding flawlessly. Shoots to point of aim and is an easy gun to carry.

My MK9 was purchased used so I have no idea how it behaved during it's break in period but it hasn't had a single failure in over two years now.

[sharpshooter]

My P9 has never malfunctioned.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/benclawson/c6538562.jpg

[mecenas1991]

I completely agree with Larry Seecamp, and incidentally I also carry his 32 daily. I also have a Kahr MK9 that was superbly reliable right out of the box.
I think that "break-in" period is more psychological than a real improvement in mating of moveable parts.
It basically allows you a period of time after which you will do one of four things: you will get use to it (whatever indiosyncracies of a particular model you encounter), you will get discouraged and put the gun in the safe, you will sell it or trade it for a different model, or you will send it to the factory to be fixed. The chance of that latter event is probablt less than 25% so the manufacturer can live with it.

[harrydog]

I've owned two K9's and both of them were 100% reliable from the get go. I don't know why Kahr stresses the 200 round break in period. I do know that it's common for many folks to feel comfortable about carrying a gun only after it has gone at least 200 trouble free rounds. Tht only makes sense.
Some guns, like Les Baers, are overly tight and they actually expect people to shoot them about 1000 rounds before sending them back for reliability issues. At least I know they've told some people this. That's ridiculous in my opinion. The customer is doing the final fitting of the parts that should have been fit properly to begin with. Can you tell I don't like Baers?
The Kahrs are definitely not overly tight guns so that isn't the reason for the recommended break in period.

[tjschul]

I do know that it's common for many folks to feel comfortable about carrying a gun only after it has gone at least 200 trouble free rounds. Tht only makes sense.


Now there's the only reason I shoot a gun plenty before I carry it, (with carry ammo)....to prove reliability. Its certainly not to "make it work better".

[BillHickock]

OOPS! Sorry for the duplicate....

[BillHickock]

Its sounds to me like a good cost cutting measure. If I owned a handgun company today I would rather the customer do the beta, quality control testing, pay for ammo and call it a "breaking in period". :rofl: Then I could tell them to send it in. That really weeds out the ones my quality control people missed. It sure beats the cost of testing every individual handgun.:wow::supergrin:

[KharToon]

Its sounds to me like a good cost cutting measure. If I owned a handgun company today I would rather the customer do the beta, quality control testing, pay for ammo and call it a "breaking in period". :rofl: Then I could tell them to send it in. That really weeds out the ones my quality control people missed. It sure beats the cost of testing every individual handgun.:wow::supergrin:

Do you really think Kahr is using their customer, who just paid $750 for their product, lets say a PM9 with night sights and a DLC slide, which has been on the market for at least five years, as "lab rats"? Seems unlikely to me. I think the reason for the break in period is simple. This design is unique because it has to be in such a small 9mm. In order to cram that caliber into a small package, Kahr had innovate quite a bit, thus breaking away from the standard auto loader designs that had been proven to work for almost 75 years. In doing so, especially in the polymer models, this created a lot less room for error in the slide and cycling action. This causes two things to happen. Any burr or imperfection can have one of three effects: 1) it can file itself down with the break in period and thus rectify itself after an initial effect 2)it can continue and not rectify itself leading to continued problems or 3)it can deteriorate and get worse leading to failure. Larry Seecamp can talk crap about the break in period all he wants however, Kahr did something he hasn't been able to do: Create a high quality, lightweight 9mm pocket pistol. He might say that he wouldn't put out a product that didn't work perfectly every time and that micro 9mm designs are inherently flawed and not possible (hence no truly micro "Glock Perfection" pistol was ever made ..."if it can't be perfect don't build it" is what I imaging Gaston Glock would say.) I can't fault him for taking that stand but I am sure am glad that Kahr stuck their necks out and created the PM series and will continue to perfect it over time.

[aldo]

I own an MK9, its my second one. The first one, bought brand new, was a jammer, i put well over 500 rds thru it, just kept on jamming and kept getting worse, nothing smoothed out over time. After a few unsuccesful repair trips back to Kahr, they replaced the pistol. The brand new replacement has only jammed maybe 3 times in 1000 rds, all jams occurring during the first couple hundred rds, same ammo used.

[harrydog]

Do you really think Kahr is using their customer, who just paid $750 for their product, lets say a PM9 with night sights and a DLC slide, which has been on the market for at least five years, as "lab rats"? Seems unlikely to me. I think the reason for the break in period is simple. This design is unique because it has to be in such a small 9mm. In order to cram that caliber into a small package, Kahr had innovate quite a bit, thus breaking away from the standard auto loader designs that had been proven to work for almost 75 years. In doing so, especially in the polymer models, this created a lot less room for error in the slide and cycling action. This causes two things to happen. Any burr or imperfection can have one of three effects: 1) it can file itself down with the break in period and thus rectify itself after an initial effect 2)it can continue and not rectify itself leading to continued problems or 3)it can deteriorate and get worse leading to failure. Larry Seecamp can talk crap about the break in period all he wants however, Kahr did something he hasn't been able to do: Create a high quality, lightweight 9mm pocket pistol. He might say that he wouldn't put out a product that didn't work perfectly every time and that micro 9mm designs are inherently flawed and not possible (hence no truly micro "Glock Perfection" pistol was ever made ..."if it can't be perfect don't build it" is what I imaging Gaston Glock would say.) I can't fault him for taking that stand but I am sure am glad that Kahr stuck their necks out and created the PM series and will continue to perfect it over time.
You really shouldn't be talking crap about Larry Seecamp. Do you even know anything about him? Do you really think he couldn't build a high quality, lightweight 9mm pocket pistol? The fact is, his father built prototypes of small 9mm and .45 pistols way back in the 80's. They've never been built because Seecamp is basically a small one man shop that builds each pistol by hand and is selling as many as they can build. In fact, they can't even keep up with demand. Seecamp has no interest in expanding their production because of the time and money investments that it would entail, not because he couldn't create a viable product. Did you know that the double recoil spring design that Kahr uses is licensed from Seecamp? Probably not.

[mecenas1991]

KharToon has absolutely no idea what he is talking about so you have to forgive him. There is nothing unique about Kahr design, otherwise Khar Toon would surely point that out to us. Double recoil spring is a Seecamp invention, polymer frame is really a Glock fame, Kel-Tec is just as small as Kahr and Rohrbaugh is smaller - so lets not give all the credit to Kahr.
Having said that they deigned a good pocket pistol with its share of complaints and problems but for the high price they demand, I would expect a bit better quality.

[KharToon]

You really shouldn't be talking crap about Larry Seecamp. Do you even know anything about him? Do you really think he couldn't build a high quality, lightweight 9mm pocket pistol? The fact is, his father built prototypes of small 9mm and .45 pistols way back in the 80's. They've never been built because Seecamp is basically a small one man shop that builds each pistol by hand and is selling as many as they can build. In fact, they can't even keep up with demand. Seecamp has no interest in expanding their production because of the time and money investments that it would entail, not because he couldn't create a viable product. Did you know that the double recoil spring design that Kahr uses is licensed from Seecamp? Probably not.

The question on this thread is why the break in period with some quotes from LS saying Kahr is full of crap for having a break in period. Nobody is talking crap about anyone, just stating facts. So ease up on the mancrush....

[KharToon]

KharToon has absolutely no idea what he is talking about so you have to forgive him. There is nothing unique about Kahr design, otherwise Khar Toon would surely point that out to us. Double recoil spring is a Seecamp invention, polymer frame is really a Glock fame, Kel-Tec is just as small as Kahr and Rohrbaugh is smaller - so lets not give all the credit to Kahr.
Having said that they deigned a good pocket pistol with its share of complaints and problems but for the high price they demand, I would expect a bit better quality.

Kahr holds six U.S. patents for their unique designs including the offset barrel, self cleaning extractor and the cocking cam trigger system that gives Kahr's the sweet trigger we all love.

As far as the Kel-Tec being smaller... ummmm yes but only their .380 and .32 not their 9mm pistols.

Kahr 9mm (9 x 19 mm)
Frame: Stainless Steel
Operation: DAO; Slide Lock
Capacity: 6 +1
Overall Length: 5.6”
Height: 4.3”
Width: 1.10”
Weight Empty: 24.0 oz
Weight Fully Loaded 27 oz.

Kel-Tec PF-9 9 x 19mm
Frame: Aluminum/Polymer
Operation: DAO; Slide Lock
Capacity: 7 +1
Overall Length: 5.9”
Height: 4.4”
Width: 0.98”
Weight Empty: 14.7 oz.
Weight Fully Loaded 18 oz.

Kel-Tec P-11 9 x 19mm
Operation: DAO; Slide Lock
Capacity: 10 +1
Overall Length: 5.9”
Height: 4.4”
Width: 1.30”
Weight Empty: 15.6 oz.
Weight Fully Loaded 20 oz

[user]

Actually, Khartoon has the right idea. Since Kahr uses high-precision industrial robots to mill the metal parts, as opposed to investment casting like Ruger, or metal injection molding, like Taurus and S&W, the parts are made to extremely fine tolerances. But there's still a range of deviations, and when the parts are put together, they need a bit of wear in order to get them to work together smoothly. It's like installing a new valve in a cylinder head. Both may be machined to very precise tolerances, but they need to be "lapped" together with abrasives in order to be sure of the fit.

That's unlike SigSauer, Glock, and others that are designed to have a lot of sloppiness in them, so that they'll still work after having been drenched in salt water and dropped in the sand. Don't do that with a Kahr, it's not designed to be forgiving of that kind of abuse.

The break in period also sets the recoil spring; it needs some cycles of compression and decompression to "set". New springs have greater resistance to motion, and need to be set in order to relax into the proper amount of "give". Wolff Gunsprings' website has a good discussion on that latter issue.

[isecobra]

in the post above seems like a kahr bashing, seecamp while being a neat little pistol ( size and caliper), from a defensive stand point its just a shinny toy. until they make a real caliper for ccw you can't compare the two pistols, if i was ever put into a spot where i had to defend myself with a .32 acp ...... well it's kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight, while it MIGHT work why would i want to. MR. SEECAMP MAKE A DEFENSIVE PISTOL IN 9MM , 40 CAL OR 45 ACP. AND WHEN YOU CAN PRODUCE FOR THE MASSES AT A REASONABLE PRICE THEN TALK B.S.

[harrydog]

in the post above seems like a kahr bashing, seecamp while being a neat little pistol ( size and caliper), from a defensive stand point its just a shinny toy. until they make a real caliper for ccw you can't compare the two pistols, if i was ever put into a spot where i had to defend myself with a .32 acp ...... well it's kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight, while it MIGHT work why would i want to.
Just a shiny toy? That's just plain ignorant. Sure, given the choice I'd rather have a .45 with me when I actually needed it, but many, many people do not want to carry something that large. Even the smallest 9mm pistol is not as concealable as the Seecamp, which is so small that it can be carried with you at all times, regardless of how your dressed. That's important to me and to many others.

[harrydog]

Actually, Khartoon has the right idea. Since Kahr uses high-precision industrial robots to mill the metal parts, as opposed to investment casting like Ruger, or metal injection molding, like Taurus and S&W, the parts are made to extremely fine tolerances. But there's still a range of deviations, and when the parts are put together, they need a bit of wear in order to get them to work together smoothly. It's like installing a new valve in a cylinder head. Both may be machined to very precise tolerances, but they need to be "lapped" together with abrasives in order to be sure of the fit.

That's unlike SigSauer, Glock, and others that are designed to have a lot of sloppiness in them, so that they'll still work after having been drenched in salt water and dropped in the sand. Don't do that with a Kahr, it's not designed to be forgiving of that kind of abuse.

The break in period also sets the recoil spring; it needs some cycles of compression and decompression to "set". New springs have greater resistance to motion, and need to be set in order to relax into the proper amount of "give". Wolff Gunsprings' website has a good discussion on that latter issue.
Actually the receivers on the all steel Kahrs are investment castings, just like Ruger. But even investment castings require some machining. The slides are machined from billets, just like most every other brand out there. I'm not saying that a break in period isn't a good idea, just to let the parts mate together so that the action smooths out a little, but there is really nothing unique about Kahr in that respect.
As to Larry Seecamps assertion that a break in period should not be necesary, I think it comes down to the amount of attention a gun is given before it leaves the factory. If it is fit properly to begin with, it will run well right away. If not, it will require a break in to smooth out.

[isecobra]

i guess your right, next time i go to the beach in my speedos i'll carry my seecamp ( yes i have one), all other cases i'll carry my real defensive pistol, if a person can't cover a pm9 or even pm45 in normal clothing then they need to look at the various holster manufactures closer.


i don't want to shoot a drugged out crack head with a bb gun when i can put them on there ass with a real caliper.

[harrydog]

i guess your right, next time i go to the beach in my speedos i'll carry my seecamp ( yes i have one), all other cases i'll carry my real defensive pistol, if a person can't cover a pm9 or even pm45 in normal clothing then they need to look at the various holster manufactures closer.


i don't want to shoot a drugged out crack head with a bb gun when i can put them on there ass with a real caliper.
Like I said, ignorance. Or maybe stupidity in your case.

[isecobra]

harrydog, i guess that your right,,, i'm stupid, personal insults to me just shows just how childish you are. my problems isn't with seecamp or his pistol, my problem is with a 32 acp as a defense round, get off your high horse and look at the data, if you want to use a 32 acp to defend yourself and your family go right ahead. for myself i'll take a real caliper weapon. i use my seecamp, tomcat and ppk on the range and enjoy shooting them.

[KharToon]

in the post above seems like a kahr bashing, seecamp while being a neat little pistol ( size and caliper), from a defensive stand point its just a shinny toy. until they make a real caliper for ccw you can't compare the two pistols, if i was ever put into a spot where i had to defend myself with a .32 acp ...... well it's kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight, while it MIGHT work why would i want to. MR. SEECAMP MAKE A DEFENSIVE PISTOL IN 9MM , 40 CAL OR 45 ACP. AND WHEN YOU CAN PRODUCE FOR THE MASSES AT A REASONABLE PRICE THEN TALK B.S.

:perfect10:

[harrydog]

harrydog, i guess that your right,,, i'm stupid, personal insults to me just shows just how childish you are. my problems isn't with seecamp or his pistol, my problem is with a 32 acp as a defense round, get off your high horse and look at the data, if you want to use a 32 acp to defend yourself and your family go right ahead. for myself i'll take a real caliper weapon. i use my seecamp, tomcat and ppk on the range and enjoy shooting them.
Yeah, I'm childish. And your sarcastic remark regarding the speedo was so very mature.
No one is arguing that .32 is equal to a "real caliber" (how mature) like .45acp. But to say that the .32 is completely ineffective as a defensive weapon and is a "toy" is pure and utter ignorance.
And you have a Seecamp but you don't ever carry it. You only use it as a range gun. Now that's funny stuff. You need to post that over on the Seecamp forum to provide them with some laughs.

[isecobra]

don't need to carry it i have a pm9 and a mk9 elite 2003, WHICH BOTH HAVE BEEN 100 % RELIABLE, don't sell the seecamp cause i like it and i don't need the money, when i'm at the range with my buddies i say hey look at my little TOY! :tongueout:

[tjschul]

Actually, Khartoon has the right idea. Since Kahr uses high-precision industrial robots to mill the metal parts, as opposed to investment casting like Ruger, or metal injection molding, like Taurus and S&W, the parts are made to extremely fine tolerances. But there's still a range of deviations, and when the parts are put together, they need a bit of wear in order to get them to work together smoothly. It's like installing a new valve in a cylinder head. Both may be machined to very precise tolerances, but they need to be "lapped" together with abrasives in order to be sure of the fit.

That's unlike SigSauer, Glock, and others that are designed to have a lot of sloppiness in them, so that they'll still work after having been drenched in salt water and dropped in the sand. Don't do that with a Kahr, it's not designed to be forgiving of that kind of abuse.

The break in period also sets the recoil spring; it needs some cycles of compression and decompression to "set". New springs have greater resistance to motion, and need to be set in order to relax into the proper amount of "give". Wolff Gunsprings' website has a good discussion on that latter issue.

I hope you're not saying I'm supposed to fire another 200 rounds after a recoil spring change before its reliable again...didn't think so.:faint:

[kahrshooter]

until they make a real caliper for ccw....



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/OutsideCalipers.jpg/180px-OutsideCalipers.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/OutsideCalipers.jpg/180px-OutsideCalipers.jpg

These calipers are all quite concealable. I hide one in a Galco ankle holster all the time. I then use it to take careful phrenological skull measurements to confirm criminal intent on potential bad guys before I plug them with a .45.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[harrydog]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/OutsideCalipers.jpg/180px-OutsideCalipers.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/OutsideCalipers.jpg/180px-OutsideCalipers.jpg

These calipers are all quite concealable. I hide one in a Galco ankle holster all the time. I then use it to take careful phrenological skull measurements to confirm criminal intent on potential bad guys before I plug them with a .45.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:perfect10:

[mecenas1991]

...and I carry a very small caliper in a pocket holster in case I encounter a really small "drugged out crack head"

[kahrshooter]

I've heard that some people carry their smaller calipers using a smart carry system. I do not recommend this. You may measure something much smaller during the draw phase. If you do choose to use this method, I am not responsible for the results. Some may prefer to switch to a micrometer for this purpose.

:animlol:

[harrydog]

I've heard that some people carry their smaller calipers using a smart carry system. I do not recommend this. You may measure something much smaller during the draw phase. If you do choose to use this method, I am not responsible for the results. Some may prefer to switch to a micrometer for this purpose.

:animlol:

You're on a roll!

[user]

now, children...

[blindluck]

now, children...

Calling them "children" is an insult to children everywhere.:sad:

[KPrime]

Calling them "children" is an insult to children everywhere.:sad:

I would have to agree, most children I have talked to sounded more intelligent than most of these posts!

I was also waiting for someone to post a picture of a caliper, as after one mention it could be a spelling mistake, after 4 mentions, its just someone who needs more edjumucation.

[blindluck]

I would have to agree, most children I have talked to sounded more intelligent than most of these posts!

I was also waiting for someone to post a picture of a caliper, as after one mention it could be a spelling mistake, after 4 mentions, its just someone who needs more edjumucation.

As somebody who has 3 graduate degrees, I've learned how moronic it is to belittle somebody for anything, but the last thing I would target is their spelling. Similarly, I sure as hell wouldn't be presumptuous about any correlation between intelligence and spelling. Plenty of my physician friends are spelling impaired and have significant trouble with mathematics but clearly aren't lacking in any edjumucation or intelligence.:dunno:

[KPrime]

As somebody who has 3 graduate degrees, I've learned how moronic it is to belittle somebody for anything, but the last thing I would target is their spelling. Similarly, I sure as hell wouldn't be presumptuous about any correlation between intelligence and spelling. Plenty of my physician friends are spelling impaired and have significant trouble with mathematics but clearly aren't lacking in any edjumucation or intelligence.:dunno:

hehe... they say sarcasm doesn't work in written form, and I am beginning to believe that to be true.

I am a horrible speller, but I rely on spell check to make up for my deficiency. I am also pretty decent at phonetically spelling, as most people are, which makes someone repeatedly calling a caliber, a caliper, a bit a amusing.

I was also not implying any link between education and intelligence, as there are often people with one that completely lack the other.

[blindluck]

hehe... they say sarcasm doesn't work in written form, and I am beginning to believe that to be true.

I am a horrible speller, but I rely on spell check to make up for my deficiency. I am also pretty decent at phonetically spelling, as most people are, which makes someone repeatedly calling a caliber, a caliper, a bit a amusing.

I was also not implying any link between education and intelligence, as there are often people with one that completely lack the other.

Sorry if I jumped the gunn.

[Mrs. VR]

Surely a bunch of presumably grown men can disagree without name calling?