Cabela's SUCKS!!!

[beltbuckle]

Since when does first hand experience not equate to actual knowledge?



Our argument stems from you eluding to the fact that the weapon does not need to be inspected or wiped down and that is where I disagree. (Although I saw where you had a change of heart on that) I may have pushed to the other extreme with my thoughts that it should be taken completely down. In reality I'm going to pull the slide and give a good visual inspection and wipe or clean anything I feel needs it.



I also don't think it's good practice to have inexperience people not familiarizing themselves with their firearms before use. Cleaning and disassembling is a good way to do that. (although I am aware this can be the problem at times too)



I'm not worried about rust or corrosion issues with a new firearm, but I am concerned about foreign material that could in turn produce undesirable effects.



CIP proofing isn't without it's merits but I hardly think it's something to be solely relied upon.



Where did I say Mr. Wilson is and idiot? Custom hand crafted firearms are a different breed from the rest. I hardly think you can compare them to a run of the mill production gun.



Greatness in any form, ok, but why YOU? I'm willing to listen if you want to tell me why your so great! I wont argue that you have spouted alot of information on the pages here. Most all of it I even believe to be factual but to have an elevated sense of greatness because of it?



Maybe your arrogance is getting the better of you.



One last thing. You asked someone to give the reason that a slide and frame are made of different materials. There are a hundred reasons that this is done. Your looking for one, save us some time and give us your reason and explaination. I'd rather hear that than you attack someone that didn't give the reason you have in mind.

[whitehood]

You're nitpicking. The question was about whether a modern pistol needs to be disassembled prior to break in. Simple inspection of a weapon is a given. It's not part of the debate. Dissimilar materials are used in slide and frame because of two effects on metal. The first is that of galling which can act like cold welding upon the surfaces. The need for lube in this circumstances is markedly reduced. It's a reason older autoloaders had looser tolerances and needed lube. The second is that of cohesive forces between dissimilar materials. This is a the molecular level and the manufactures mate materials to decrease these forces. Firing the gun prior to disassembly reduces these forces as well and makes stripping easier. It's one of the forces involved in break in. Sig is a classic example of how the German/Austrian engineers used these principles in their weapons.

[beltbuckle]

That's where your wrong. Inspection of components is a crucial part of this debate. Inspecting for damaged components, foreign material, or any number of other abnormalities. Rust preventatives from the factory such as grease or oil should be removed as well as any other contaminates. In order to do this, the pistol is going to at the very least require some dis assembly, such as a field strip. That's what this whole debate is about.



How can you believe that proper dis assembly and reassembly of a new gun is going to damage it?



Aside from liability issues (which there shouldn't be any if your correct) why do most manufacturers including Sig mention it should be disassembled and cleaned?



Although what you said with the dissimilar metals is technically correct. You are talking more or less about hardness correct?

Using dissimilar materials such as aluminum, carbon, stainless, other alloys or any combination of the above is more so they can offer other variations on a successful theme with relatively low R&D or start up costs than anything else.

[whitehood]

Wrong again beltbuckle. PET film either inside the weapon or more usually covering the box is going to be the standard if it's not already for rust prevention. Like I said before grease is only used in special cases and for practical purposes and for good quality firearms will never be used again.

The fact is that the only firearm manual that suggests complete disassembly before firing is SIG. Someone also stated Springfield Amory XD and that's already been proven incorrect.

I'm also not talking about hardness issues regarding the metals but adhesive issues which take place after the weapon is cycled. I've already told you the principles involved and why it may actually benefit the weapon. The previous ideas of lubrication and disassembly are from another generation of weapons.

[beltbuckle]

Wrong. S&W does, The XD in fact can be read in a way that certainly says it. Kimber does. I'm sure I can find more examples.



I actually don't know any manufacturer who still uses grease. I'm just using it as an example of lubricant's and rust preventatives. Cosmoline or somthing like it is still used today





Here's what they say:



Under "To avoid Malfunctions" in your XD's owners manual it does say this:



Thoroughly clean breech mechanism of pistol.

Use a bristle brush and solvent to remove grease

and fouling from breech face, extractor, chamber

and feed ramp. (See CARE AND CLEANING

section for detailed instruction.)



This is directly from Kimber:



Before firing the pistol for the first time, Field Strip

and clean the firearm following proper procedures

(see DISASSEMBLY, CLEANING and

LUBRICATION and ASSEMBLY Instructions in this

Manual)



And from S&W:



MAINTENANCE BEFORE USE

Before using your firearm, it should be cleaned. (See Cleaning

Instructions) Your firearm has been treated with either a preservative

or oil to protect it against corrosion. Before using it, all

excess oil should be wiped from the bore, chambers (charge

holes), and exposed areas using a clean swab or patch. A light

coat of high quality gun oil should be applied to the outside surfaces

and mechanism. Care should be taken not to oil the

mechanism to the degree that dirt and powder residue may be

trapped by the oil. There are further instructions in the cleaning

section of this manual.

[beltbuckle]

I understand the principles behind your argument of why it's "harmful" to take it apart before shooting, but it's a moot point and certainly not a practical line of thought.



I would love for you to find me an example of a pistol failing or damage caused because it was properly dis assembled, re assembled and properly lubed prior to firing it with the sole cause of premature failure caused by the dis assembly.



edit; In my previous post I shouldn't have said "hardened". What I meant was using different grades of the same metal so that things such as gulling can be prevented. Like using 304 stainless for the frame and 630 stainless on the slide. (btw thats an example, I'm not 100% sure which specific type they use where without looking)

[judgeparker]

Most of the fire arms that I have purchased over the years ( my first in 1967) have been new. I never cared what the manual said I have always field striped cleaned and lubed them before ever shooting them. Some have been very gunky some have been very dry but it did not matter because I cleaned and lubed them all. A clean and properly lubed weapon is a dependable weapon.

[whitehood]

Contrarily I could say the same thing to you about providing evidence where not performing a complete strip and clean will harm a weapon. If you guys want to use anecdotes like you're doing then I've followed this principle for years over a couple of dozen weapons and have never had a problem with any of them. Not one, not ever. Let someone else say that. I've provided my evidence which is substantial in this regard.

[beltbuckle]

Oh, OK. I got it now. I'm doing it wrong, I've been talking theory just as you have but I haven't called it fact or evidence yet.



The only real proof there is to any of this comes back to the manufacturers recommendations. I've provided examples from several reputable companies that support my argument and opinion. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen where you've shown any examples of them saying otherwise excluding custom builders.



Just as you, I don't have any direct first hand evidence that my methods save me from damage, failures or performance issue's any better than your methods. However, in theory my methods should ensure that I don't have any of the above whereas yours leave it to chance.



Here's an encounter I heard the other day. This person did not inspect their pistol for damage, contaminates or anything else prior to use. They were complaining about some damage they found after shooting their new pistol. (When they took it apart to clean it) He found scratches on the slide and a damaged or marred ejector. This person then when on a tangent about how terrible the pistol and customer service was.



Were the scratches and other damage there before it was fired? Where they caused by one of the things I mentioned earlier? Maybe it was a burr on the slide that worked itself out, who knows. It's also possible his concern was there already.



What I do know is that a proper inspection and cleaning might very well have prevented his entire issue. It would have also given some insight to a potential underlying issue.

[whitehood]

Once again you're using anecdotal heresay. I've looked at the Smith manual and it's not in the red and is certainly not critical. The fact of the matter is that we're not going to agree on this subject, nor or we likely to in the future. As I have stated before, these weapons, at least the premium ones have been designed to avoid failure at very high levels, the police data provided in previous posts on this subject a case in point. Higher end weapons with the proper proofs are very unlikely to fail taken out of the box and CIP certified weapons aren't going to have a bit of problems. What I have heard is a whole lot of crap about weapons packed in grease or cosmoline when we both know this doesn't happen or Beretta's that fail within 50 rounds because of fouling when we know this is BS is well.