How many failures are "normal"

[Dolphin]

I took 2 handguns to the range today and fired 50 rounds each. The first is a S&W 642 revolver. As expected, it functioned flawlessly. The second is an I.O. Hellcat II .380. It's an LCP clone made in North Carolina. I.O. primarily makes AK's and they've stopped producing this pistol. It was unfired except in the factory. I fired 44 Federal FMJ rounds and 6 Hornady Critical Defense that found their way into the bag. I had one failure in each of the last two magazines. One failure-to-eject and one failure-to-feed. I've heard that sometimes handguns need a break-in period. What would be considered normal? Thanks in advance.

[RED333]

6 hours ago, Dolphin said:

I've heard that sometimes handguns need a break-in period.

Yes, to a point, might run a few more rounds (100) or so.

Do you know what brand ammo failed? Was the fails in just one magazine, how many magazines do you have?

[Moped]

For a .380, I 'd run at least 200 rounds through it.  And expect to have sero issues out of at the end.  .380s are notorious for that, new.

[peejman]

Less expensive option... manually cycle the slide a few hundred times, then clean it and lube it. 

.380's can be picky about what ammo they like. If the failures were the CD ammo, try something different. 

[Dolphin]

I only have one magazine and both failures occurred with the Federal FMJ.

I was reading about this last night and one site recommended 1,000 rounds before considering any handgun "broken in". I'll run another handful of rounds through it and see what happens.

I'm not sure how much this matters in just 50 rounds but I did not clean the gun. Since the two failures happened at the end of the box I just waited until I got home to clean. It was clean when I got there.

[Thursty]

I run at least 200 rounds through a gun before I consider it fit for carry, and I want the last 100 rounds to function flawlessly. I will keep shooting until I get a solid 100 rounds down range with no failures. I actually prefer 500 dirty rounds, I feel like that round count really helps smooth out all of the internals and does a sort of de-burr job. I don't know that I wan't to pay for 500 rounds of .380, so I would probably just shoot until I got 100 rounds straight with no failures.

[MacGyver]

Zero malfunctions is normal.

The reason we run a bunch of rounds through a gun is so that we have confidence in them - and our ability with them.  I'd argue that once you've had the failures, you probably know all you need to know about that particular weapon.

You might smooth it out and run hundreds of rounds through it flawlessly. But you'll still have that question in the back of your head.  You can talk yourself into it - but why?

[DaveTN]

15 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Zero malfunctions is normal.

The reason we run a bunch of rounds through a gun is so that we have confidence in them - and our ability with them.  I'd argue that once you've had the failures, you probably know all you need to know about that particular weapon.

You might smooth it out and run hundreds of rounds through it flawlessly. But you'll still have that question in the back of your head.  You can talk yourself into it - but why?

QFT

A quality weapon should be flawless right out of the box.

I’ve only had to send one back for failures and it was a Shield. I had good ammo and I wasn’t going to play the “maybe it’s the magazine” game. They fixed it quickly and sent it back; no more failures.

The only manufacturer I have seen that requires a break-in period is Kahr. They recommend 200 rounds. Like Mac said, to me that is for me to familiarize myself with the gun, sight it in, and be confident it is a quality product; not for me to finish their deburr and quality inspection for them.

Any manufacturer can have a bad product get out; some more than others. But lets be fair. You have to have a clean gun, quality ammo, and be using it properly. If it’s a carry gun or a home defense gun; your life or the lives of your family could depend on the quality of the gun and the ammo you choose. Not a good time to be swapping mags, banging, bending, dremeling or bubbaing a gun to get it to be reliable.

[felinesNfreedom]

On 5/8/2019 at 11:35 PM, Dolphin said:

I took 2 handguns to the range today and fired 50 rounds each. The first is a S&W 642 revolver. As expected, it functioned flawlessly. The second is an I.O. Hellcat II .380. It's an LCP clone made in North Carolina. I.O. primarily makes AK's and they've stopped producing this pistol. It was unfired except in the factory. I fired 44 Federal FMJ rounds and 6 Hornady Critical Defense that found their way into the bag. I had one failure in each of the last two magazines. One failure-to-eject and one failure-to-feed. I've heard that sometimes handguns need a break-in period. What would be considered normal? Thanks in advance.

I do not know much about their handguns but it they are anything like the I.O. AK's I would stay far far away. I.O. Has one of the worst reputations in the business, even below Century's US builds I.O. reputation is so bad in the AK world they stopped making them and now manufacture AR's and parts for AR'S.......I would pick up the LCP if that's what you are going for. I do recommend a 500 round or so break in for small guns like that but I also believe like Mac said is that Zero malfunctions are normal in a quality handgun, first round or 1000th round.

[Quavodus]

Sometimes it helps to polish the feed ramp some too. Also what the other guys said is good advice.

[tercel89]

I've been pretty lucky as I have only had one bad gun. Every gun I ever bought except one has ran well right out of the box. The exception was a CZ P-07 . I got it the year it came out. I couldn't get through one magazine without a malfunction. The trigger would not reset al the time. Then the frame began to "bow" outwards. I couldn't not trust it anymore. CZ sent me a new one but I traded it in for a used Glock 34.  I try to run at least 75-100 rds before I trust it will run correctly. In my opinion a good gun should not require a break-in period.

[dg370]

For me it’s about stupid reliability. If you can’t depend on 100% reliability then how are you going to depend on the weapon when you need it. Sure I understand that parts wear out and need replacement but if a new pistol has issues out of the box then it needs to go to a certified gunsmith for analysis. Don’t mess around and accept poor design and performance just because it’s your favorite brand. 

[Mamba]

Agree w/most others here....+200rds with the last hundred flawless, especially w/carry ammo, before I'd trust it. The wife's LCP II has been perfect out of the box, her previous (early edition) G42 was not; that one was returned for fix'n. Get enough rounds thru it that you would trust your life to it's reliability. Don't be shy about contacting the mfg if problems arise. Any quality company will make things right and while it's a bit inconvenient doing a return is a fairly easy process. 

[TripleGGG]

Zero for me to carry. 

[Mamba]

On 6/4/2019 at 12:47 PM, DaveTN said:

I’ve only had to send one back for failures and it was a Shield. I had good ammo and I wasn’t going to play the “maybe it’s the magazine” game. They fixed it quickly and sent it back; no more failures.

Yup. If it don't work out of the box or at least with a good clean/lube later, back it goes. QC varies a lot, and even at the best of times ain't perfect.
Well...ok... exception was my early KT PF-9. I knew going in that would take extra love'n on my part, but I viewed it as a challenge and it was fun to tune out.... it's smooth and reliable now. However my new Beretta misbehaved from the get-go, so I shipped it back. A Beretta should just work out of the box, no excuses.