We see a lot negative feedback concerning the reliability of different "X" brands and "X" models of firearms around the net nowadays.

I often wonder how fair and accurate the average user review really is? I've seen a lot of issues with folks not following the factory recommendations for ammo and maintenance, but them blasting the firearm for malfunctioning?

 Should we expect a firearm to fire every brand/type of ammo made in the caliber including Russian, Mexican,USA and countless other foreign made ammo? Ammo   in all weights,bullet types/shape, brass,nickel,steel case and P/P+/+P+  and etc.

 Do we consider improper shooting form such as "limp wristing" or just blame the firearm of all malfunctions.

 Should we truly expect every firearm made to function 100% of the time, in every condition etc etc?

 Should we expect anything man made to never break or have a issue or even no defects in the raw material used such as the steel or polymer itself?

 I read over and over where a guy buys a new pistol shoots 100rds of ammo and it jams twice so he sales it as junk and trashes it on the net forever and ever. They try 2-3 different brands of ammo and don't consider breakin period? Is that really a fair review of a product?

Let's say a pistol does have issues and needs work or replacement. Does that make it a bad design or is there a reasonable failure rate in the manufacturing process for a company?


Anyway I'm curious to hear your thoughts?  Personally, I've bought a half dozen plus pistols people dumped price wise because they perceived the firearm to have a issue. I clean them,lubed them, worked the actions smooth and carefully selected ammo to match the pistol. All of them have ran flawless for me since buying them.

 
 

Most individuals are unreliable as they lack the ability to diagnose an issue, collect data appropriately, be held accountable for their report, or be unbiased. Most "professional" evaluations are ads for the product.

80% of what people say is BS, the other 20% is biased.  And now we have the tools to spread our BS far and wide, as much or as little as we choose and to whatever end we choose.  Be it singing the praises of "x" or speaking ill of "y."

I don't put much weight on the opinions or competence of random internet users.  

Yes I do expect a firearm to work with any factory ammo (assuming it's in spec for that caliber). Whether it's Russian or Italian or American, whatever.

No, I don't expect a break in period to be necessary.

Yes, I do expect a pistol to work 100% of the time.

That said, yes I do feel a significant number of problems relate directly back to the user. This is certainly why a lot of manufacturers require customers to pay shipping up front, then reimburse if a problem is found. Many shooters fail to strip, inspect, clean and lubricate any pistol new to them. Many limp wrist, don't understand sight alignment/sight image. Many have bad habits (poor grip, trigger control, riding slide catch, combat sight image, flinching, etc) that affect their accurate shooting and believe the pistol is at fault (goodness knows it couldn't possibly be them!)

No, issues that do crop up don't necessarily equate to design flaws. But it doesn't rule it out either.

Anecdote:  I recently picked up a PPQ M2 in 9mm. First 3 mags were flawless. First round of the fourth mag jammed it up so tight I needed a mallet and punch to open the action. Found out my normally reliable reloads were hourglass shaped. My dumbass forgot and jammed it up again next range session, even worse than the first time. Then I got some factory ammo for a good price. Had 2 stovepipes and one failure to cycle in the first 33 rounds. All with the PPQ. I could easily freak out that the PPQ is a lemon, but I did my troubleshooting and determined ammo to be the cause. The manufacturer made it right and the PPQ hasn't failed since. I think a lot of people these days would've taken to the forums pitching a fit and sent the pistol back to Walther, only for them to have flawless operation. Sometimes it's a mix of things. One guy in the SIG section somewhat recently blasted on about the 10mm P220 being a horribly flawed design and it's inconceivable such a product could possibly be made. He posted in at least one other forum too. Turns out, the mags didn't have a bevel to slide easily past the mag catch. SIG took care of him. He went back and edited, but I suspect not to save face for SIG, but himself for overreacting.

So I do expect firearms to work properly from day one. I do understand things can and will break. But a large number of problems attributes to firearms are actual user, magazine or ammo problems.

Revolver

I've had a legit issue a time or two myself which the companies made right for me. Most of the time it's been a bad magazine or ammo related issue in my personal experience which I figured out through trial and error.

  Prime example I bought a used Kimber Solo a few months back the owner came into the gun store said the gun was sh@@ and jammed all the time. He sent it back to Kimber they tested it and sent it back saying they couldn't find any issue. He's a good customer so the store allowed him to trade it in on another pistol even knowing the Solo would need repair before they could resale it.

 To make a long story short I bought the pistol "as is" at a serious discounted price taking a chance I may have to resend to Kimber and deal with the CS.

I cleaned the pistol relubed everything, read the instructions( yes I really did read them) and selected Hornady 135gr duty ammo. Now after hundreds of rounds fired I've still yet to have a single malfunction with that ammo /gun combo.

I ran into the original owner a few weekends back so I asked him which ammo he had ran through the pistol. All he tried was Corbin 95gr copper HP and it jammed once every mag he ran through. I have Corbon  95gr HP so test fired some. He was right it did jam about once every mag or two.

I always start with a couple of types of quality ball ammo. The weight and velocity the manufacturer recommends.




And at least 2 mags.

I try both mags with the ammo.

After seeing that it runs at least 200 rounds with ball, I'll try JHP.

If it runs 100 with no problem, I start trying to induce a stoppage.

Weak hand only, relaxed elbow rapid fire.

Before I trust it I've run 400 to 500 rounds without a stoppage.

I don't shoot reloads, or bulk ammo, or surplus during the vetting period. That's for after I know it works .

Everybody puts out lemons. Most makes have gone through serious lapses in QC(Glock, SIG, Colt, S&W, et al)

Buy a gun from a top maker, in a model that has been out at least a year...and test it, like you intend to shoot it.

And carry a BUG.

















 
 
 

That does generally eliminate issues with feeding and limp-wristing. However, revolvers are not infallible. Buildup of sediment in the cylinder can make ejection very tough, and if something like a primer binds between the cylinder and the frame, a revolver will seize up TIGHT.

And then there's timing and lock up issues...

I own and have owner or shot many different handguns over the years.  Most people do not shoot enough for one to accurately tell you if a X Y or Z pistol is worth a shit, two a lot worry more about scratches and holster wear, and three most modern pistols are considered reliable.

I am a Glock guy and I will tell you I would have zero issues if I woke up tomorrow in a SHTF situation and I could have any other modern pistol other than my Glock.  I like my Glock but they all do the same thing shoot copper coated lead.

Most of the time it's the user that's the problem, and not the gun
 

<ETA> not saying that manufactures don't put out lemons. I have seen plenty by all manufacturers, some more frequently than others. I noticed that a lot of the time when someone would bring me a gun that was "malfunctioning" it usually was a user level issue. Be that limp writing, using wrong weight/power ammo, improper maintenance, or (and this happened a lot) not having good fundamentals of marksmanship (I would test fire everything I worked on, on my dime).  I would tear the gun down and do a detail clean and inspection on it. Often times the guns were either filthy or not lubed properly. Fixing that would fix the problem. Occasionally stuff was broken or out of spec and it would be sent back to the manufacturer for repair/warranty or I'd fix it depending on who the manufacturer was and what their warranty/repair policy was.  

In addition to mentioning people who expect 100% reliability with no break in period using any available factory ammo, you left out:

- the clueless folks who take a new pistol home and immediately "upgrade" it with new higher or lower power springs, without understanding the role those spring weights play in the overall operation of the pistol,

- and the equally clueless folks who don't understand how to properly disassemble and reassemble a pistol, and then complain when something breaks.

As an example, Kimber 1911s get hit hard by those types.  

They generally have very snug slide to frame fits out of the box and require a couple hundred rounds to break in.  Once they've been properly broken in they tend to be extremely reliable.   Of course that depends on the owner maintaining them with the proper factory weight springs and replacing the springs on schedule.    Short slide 1911s in general are extremely sensitive to recoil and spring weight due to the limited slide over run distance and the critical nature of the that distance (and time) in the feed cycle.  But some folks feel they are qualified engineers who understand the spring wights that should be used better than the engineers who designed them.   Worse, many of them add a shock buffer as an "upgrade", totally failing to realize that installing one reduces the already limited slide over run even further.    

Then with all those upgrades they complain that their new Kimber won't run reliably.

A few of the graduate level upgraders make it even worse by incorrectly re-assembling the pistol a few dozen time failing to understand the differences between a Schwartz firing pin safety Kimber and a regular series 70 or 80 1911.  That difference is simply that the way many people put the slide back on a 1911 frame combined with this thing called "gravity" allows the pin for the Schwartz system to fall into the path of the slide, which is of course also encountering the now fully exposed pin from the wrong direction.   When the slide won't go on, they get a run at it and whack it harder.  Eventually the pin bounces up out of the way but eventually over the course of numerous reassemblies they manage to break it and then blame the Schwartz system as being unreliable, rather than properly identifying the problem of the operator being ignorant.        

Not to imply that any of the present company may be ignorant.

A random problem report here and there doesn't concern me - but if it becomes too common then I do take notice. Even though there is plenty of it out there not every single problem is operator error.

In this thread: All gun issues are user issues. Sounds legit. Is this how people justify buying/owing shit guns? Blame that they don't run worth a shit on themselves?

Trust me there are sh@@ guns out there I've sent a couple back to be repaired/replaced myself. There's nothing worse than paying hard earned money and have trouble with the product be it a gun, car or anything else. Anything man made can and will fail let's face it were not perfect. To me that's where customer service comes into play after a sale and how I judge a company personally if they stand behind their product.

 It think what you see above is owners aren't always perfect also. Sometimes we may rush to judgement and maybe even have  some unrealistic expectations at times. We have to do our part also and use common sense in our personal shooting,selection of ammo and etc etc.

 Guns will break, there will some that shouldn't have ever made it past inspection and so on its the law of percentages. Like most folks I read the forums,research products before I buy. That's a good thing but you need use common sense in using this information. Prime example would be company X has 5 bad reviews on AR15.com. Company Y as 1 bad review so company Y has the better product right. The real fact maybe company X produced and sold 1 million units and company Y only produced and sold 1000 units so Y would  have the highest  faliure percentage. Just use common sense and look at all the facts and make sure your doing your part.

 Many of the common mistakes listed above, heck I made myself many years ago we all learn through experience. We all know a lot of folks buy a new gun,a box of ammo , loaded it and say it's ready for self defense without any real thought or testing.

In the end we all have different likes and dislikes with everything from guns,women cars and so on. Buy what makes you happy and enjoy life and the freedom our grandfathers have given us all.

The GAO report on the M9 pistol trials has some info relevant to this discussion:



Basically every manufacturer makes a bad gun from time to time and even good designs will vary in their performance from lot to lot.

Absolutely.

Having agreed with that, here is my experience over the last 35 years or so.

Colt 1911 - on malfunction due to shell with damaged brass
Colt Combat Commander - feeds/fires/ejects everything that goes in the magazines
Browning BDM - just does not like (not reliable feeding) with 147 grain bullets.
Glock M31 - only one failure to eject
XDMs (2 9MM guns) - feed/fire/eject everything that goes in the magazines.
M&Ps (one 9MM and one .40 S&W) - lots of issues with failures to fire in the 9MM, first with the factory parts, then a year or so later with the APEX parts.  Finally went back to new factory parts and it seems to have fixed the original issues.  Put a S&W .357 SIG barrel in the .40 S&W gun and it keyholes every round even at 10 yds.  Gave up on both of them.
CZ P07 and P09 - so far, they feed/fire/eject anything that goes in the magazines.

Anything that goes in the magazines means, factory ammo, my reloads, 115 to 147 grain jacketed, plated and lead bullets in 9MM, jacketed and lead 135 and 140 grain bullets in the .40 S&W guns.  185, 200 and 230 grain jacketed and lead bullets in the .45 acp Colts.

Yes, you can get "bad" guns.  I eventually got the M&Ps to be reliable (350 rounds so far with no issues) but the CZs are so much more accurate besides having zero reliability issues since new, that I've made the switch to CZ's and will not go back to the M&Ps.  Did find another issue with the .40 S&W M&P a couple months back - the thumb safeties had stopped working.  The trigger bar was riding up over the thumb safety on the right side of the frame/gun.  Found it during function testing after a cleaning/lube session.

I clean and lube my guns every time I shoot them.  I use only factory magazines (except in the Colt 1911 guns, they don't seem to care what magazines I use as long as they are for .45 acp.  By far most of the ammo is my reloads.  The .40 S&W CZs (P07 and P09) have never had factory ammo through them.  The 9MM (P07 and P09) have only had a box or so of factory reloads shot through them and the rest is my reloads.

While many gun malfunctions can be traced to the user or his choices, many can't. Some guns just suck, and some will run forever on the barest of maintenance.

Only thing that is 100% is death and taxes.  My guns are primarily for my pleasure at the range.  The only guns I own that I've not remembered giving my any issues are my Mossberg 500 Persuader 12 gauge shotgun and my Smith & Wesson Model 686 Plus 4" barrel revolver.  I expect all my firearms to work reliably when I need them to but shit happens and hope it won't be at the wrong place and the wrong time.

I don't blame a gun if it can't shoot ALL ammo.

I do blame a gun if it ahs 'limp wristing' issues that are easy to demonstrate. That tells me a company went too far in trying to make felt recoil too soft.

It seems like most guns will have the occassional hicup and I'm fine with that. Sometimes planets align, but all my modern pistols have all been right near 100% (if not perfect). Great guns are easy to get these days.

But there is definitely junk out there. Generally Keltec, Taurus autos, Armscor, etc. I'm not afraid to throw some names out there.

Every manufacturer can put out a lemon from time to time. EVERY one (FN, SIG, Beretta, Glock, HK, etc.) It will happen eventually despite the best efforts of the manufacturer to maintain QC and perform mandatory tolerance checks and so on. Some manufacturers seem to do a better job than others in making sure defective guns do not go out. I usually am more skeptical about "accuracy" concerns or complaints than I am about basic function related ones (feeding, firing, extracting, ejecting, etc.) because in many instances people don't even clarify the distance at which they are shooting, and under what conditions.

I personally don't expect every gun (especially every handgun) to feed, fire, extract and eject reliably 100% of the JHP  ammo out there, but most modern 9mm pistols should have no problem with common JHPs like Hornady Critical Defense/Critical Duty, Speer Gold Dots, Federal Hydra Shok's, etc. Also if a gun has a problem with feeding/cycling properly made (no obvious defects/abnormalities seen) brass cased FMJ rounds like Winchester 9mm NATO or something like that, to me that's a no-go. If it can't handle plain brass-cased FMJ rounds reliably there is something wrong.

Limp wristing is a real phenomenon, and it does happen, but there are plenty of instances I have seen personally where legitimate issues/problems like BTF (brass-to-face) were happening consistently with more than one firearm (a late Gen 3 G17 was one of them), and it had nothing whatsoever to do with "limp wristing". According to some people though, (i.e. James Yeager) BTF does not--can not--happen with a Glock unless the operator is "limp wristing" . Yeah, right. Other than BTF, I've personally only seen seen about one limp wrist issue or malfunction (a stovepipe) that was not intentionally induced. Doesn't mean they don't happen, I'm just saying I don't see them all that often is all.  
 
I do not buy the whole "break in" period thing. What exactly needs to be "broken in"? Are there burrs or unpolished parts or something that need to be worn down or de-burred? If so, why? Did they test fire the gun at the factory before they shipped it out? I know some manufacturers do not do this, but ones like Ruger do. If the gun needs to be "broken in", why was it allowed to leave the factory in the first place? The gun either works properly out of the box or it does not.

(Now, I will say I don't think just because the gun has a hiccup or two after being bought new that it means the gun is bad, or necessarily needs to be returned or anything, but if a gun needs 200 rounds to be "broken in" with even regular brass cased FMJ ammo that to me is pretty ridiculous).

Many manufacturers these days if a gun is indeed defective out of the box will provide you with a prepaid shipping label for you to ship it back to them for repair, but some will still require you to pay to ship it back to them, even if it is under warranty and there is a legitimate problem. It can take 6 weeks or longer sometimes for you to get your gun back also. Pretty big pain in the ass if you ask me. If the gun had just been built right in the first place none of that stuff would have to happen.

So anyway, yes, there are going to be pistols/firearms from even the best manufacturers and companies that are going to be sent out slightly out of tolerance here and there enough to cause problems, and one faulty pistol does not make all those pistols, or all of those guns from that manufacturer bad, or of a poor design necessarily...the internet I will admit does seem to exaggerate the extent or the gravity of certain problems or issues that SOME people will have with their guns from time to time.

However, on the other hand, in my opinion, these days fanboyism  has had a way of trying to downplay the legitimate issues some people have experienced with factory out of the box guns (Glock, SIG, Beretta, Springfield, etc.).  It is not ALWAYS the operator that is at fault when pistol, or rifle, or whatever, does not function the way it is supposed to out of the box. If I have a pistol that doesn't work the way it should brand new, I don't care what it is--I want it fixed, or I want my money back.

Some good threads on this fine Sunday morning. I enjoy a good read with my coffee!

I generally do a lot of research before a new gun purchase. Some reviews will scare the crap out of you. It's really hard to get a full picture on reliability from the web.

I've only had 2 problem guns. One was a stainless ppk. It just wouldn't feed well no matter what I did. The rounds would nosedive into the feed ramp. That gun went back 3 times I think. Then years later, it had a safety recall. I did shoot it alot, but I didn't trust it, so I eventually sold it.

The second was a custom 2011 that I waited almost 2 years for. It had a light primer strike issue with anything other than federal. I knew the mainspring was the problem and assumed the gun was geared towards competition rather than hd which was my intended purpose. A call to the owner of the company confirmed this and a new spring was sent out. Replaced it, problem solved.

There was no way I would have sold that gun because it didn't work right out of the box. I wouldn't sell off any gun for that matter untill I determined that it was a truly unfixable problem. I think that patience has left some when it comes to guns these days. If you get a gun that is really a problem, so be it. But don't be so quick to write them off.

My experience, and those of my acquaintances, is that new handguns are among the least reliable of all consumer products.  They make lawnmowers and weed-eaters look positively dependable.     Even big-name handguns routinely fail out of the box, and gun-merchants take zero responsibililty;  and so they  have to be schlepped to UPS, and sent back to the manufacturer, who tries to make them into something that will shoot, and sometimes tries, and tries again . . .

It's scandalous.

I'm going to pick on 1911's for a moment. Or more accurately 1911 owners. If you read the posts here on Arfcom, you would be left with the opinion that 1911's are finicky beasts that are unreliable and prone to failure.  I on the other hand find them nearly infallible. I have owned seven 1911's in the last 25 years.  Four of them Springfield Armory's and three of them Kimbers.  Six of them in .45acp and one in 10mm.  Most of them have at least 5000 rounds ran through them. A couple have 20,000 + down the pipe.  The only low round count 1911 I own is my 10mm, because I haven't owned it very long.  All this said, I have never ever had one break during use. Not once! I rarely ever have a malfunction. When I do have any sort of malfunction, it can always be traced back to a problem not associated directly to the gun.  For instance a damaged magazine, or perhaps a bad primer or badly out of spec ammo. I have on occasion witnessed my wife limp wrist my Kimber ultra carry 1911 and induce a malfunction, but it hasn't ever happened to me. All these stoppages could have just as well happened to a Glock or a Sig. Bad primers or damaged mags are not a fault of the handgun itself.  So why do people have such problems with 1911's?  I can only assume it has something to do with maintenance of the gun, or user induced problems. I replace my recoil springs before they fail. I keep my pistols cleaned and properly lubed.  Maybe others do not?  I don't know what the answer is for sure, but I can tell you that my results are nothing like the results that many here post. Maybe I am just that lucky?  To be fare, about half of my 1911's are not in stock configuration.  These guns have had Wilson Combat bullet proof parts replaced in them.  Including items such as hammer, sear, disconnector, slide stop and safety levers.  I replace these parts because I want too and I enjoy doing it. Not because the factory parts have broken. Like I said, half of them are still box stock. Including a long rail SA Operator, a Springfield GI and a Kimber TLE.  But these guns do not give me any more trouble than the modified guns do.  

On a broader scale, I really haven't owned any handguns that have been "jam-o-matics" or otherwise problem guns.  I have never had one break during use.  Now I know guns do break. I have seen other folks break their guns at the range. I seem a guy break two Beretta 92's on the same range trip.  Don't know what he was doing wrong, but I can't help but think he might have assembled them incorrectly or something. I'm not sure because I haven't ever handled a 92, but I know from what I had seen that day, that the trigger bar looking thing on the right side of the gun just above the trigger that travels under the right grip panel broke or otherwise fell apart on both his 92's.  Maybe that will make sense to someone who is familiar with Beretta 92's.  Then just yesterday, I watched my buddies Sig 1911 22 rimfire break the recoil spring guide rod while firing it and jam up the action.  However , these are a known problem, and if it was mine, I would have likely replaced the stock guide rod before ever taking it out to the range.   TL;DR

In my experience all modern quality handguns fed with decent ammo & not abused are reliable. Some are more reliable then others when fed cheap ammo or maintenance neglected, & some are also more or less reliable because of design or ammo type however.
I will put out my 1911 has had more stoppages then any other gun I own. It's a Springfield GI from 2004 before they changed their production.

Things like finish wear, recoil, ergonomics, all are subjective qualities.

I work in an industry somewhat similar to the firearm industry (not remotely related, but similar style of customers, most over the age of 30 with a little extra money than those living paycheck to paycheck), and we typically aim for <3% return rate on our products in comparison to what we sell. We have a ton of QA processes in place, both incoming inspections into our warehouse, and source inspections at the factory (usually in Asia), and we are usually well below that 3% for returns. Also as a note, that 3% of returns is not always an issue with the product...we see many times we get good product back, and we've actually used a lot of returned product for demonstration purposes, which is funny, as people say it doesn't work, yet we demo it as advertised. Regardless, true failure rates are below 0.5% of product sold.




 

New member so can't post it all....




Cont'd:



Each industry has their own forums for said "hobby", and based on my experience in our industry, most of the time people complaining have a product that is no different than 99% of the product out there, and they just don't know how to properly use it or prepare it for use. Of course, there are issues every now and again, and we don't discredit those, but most of the time, we get flamed online for crappy product X, yet we sell a crap-ton of said product, and usually for quite a long time. We've found out by doing a little market research that the forums (all of the popular sites combined) are around 10% of our actual customer base, and not more than that. Not saying that this directly represents the firearm industry, but my bet is similar.

 
 
 
 

Yep, pretty much. Take things people say with a grain of salt. Welcome to the internet.

Over the years I've had to send back a Glock 19 for a spring that was too heavy and causing constant stove pipes; a Ruger 1911 which  had issues feeding, and a S&W Shield that had an extracter that would pull off the casing lip half way through ejection.  All these issues presented themselves in the early days of ownership.  All three companies had top notch customer service, fixed the issues promptly, and sent me back guns that have been issue free for many many rounds.  Not all guns come off the assembly line within design spec.  I'm willing to give any malfunctioning new gun a chance as long as the company backs their product.  I've had plenty of guns that were flawless right out of the box, but experience has taught me that even the big name guys don't make them perfect every time.

My experience--new handguns from reputable makers are some of the least reliable consumer products made.  It's scandalous.   You're buying a lottery ticket.  Get used to making trips to UPS to send it back, and back, and back . . . .

There are no defective guns; any problems are ALWAYS either ammo or user related.
There are no questionable designs.

Because politically, firearms owners and the firearms manufacturers are politically embattled, so we all need to circle the wagons and defend the manufacturers no matter how bad their product no matter how questionable the design (single action pistols with cocked actions and no external user operated safety, for example).  

Firearms manufacturers may expand their product line just to pander to unknowledgeable firearm’s purchasers for the sole purpose of moving more product and that’s “okay”.  It’s capitalism at work and the manufacturers and the rest of us are embattled so….circle the wagons, no constructive criticism allowed.

And then there’s all the emotion; I bought this/paid $500, $700, $900 for it so it’s great because I have to defend my crappy, unknowledgeable decision now that I’m out all that money.

(sarcasm rant; off)

I agree.  After getting burned by Glock a few years ago, I will only buy new handguns from manufacturers that cover shipping costs both ways in the event the gun has to go back.

Ruger and S&W have been as pain free as possible when I have had to ship back some rifles. I have a 10/22 going back to Ruger as I type this

I don't know what happened to Ruger but it seems their QC has been terrible lately. My 10/22 has been a disappointment.

On the OP's topic...if you want to do internet research you have to go for a large sample size. I'm not going to trust some random guy on some sight but if you look on multiple sites all over the place you can get a general consensus for a gun. FWIW I've never heard of a CZ-75 not working. Sure there are complaints about its heft and the trigger, but I've never heard of them having malfunctions or being inaccurate. Other guns people are very divisive about, such as XDM's, Bushmaster ACR, even Glock.

Look at overall trends to get the most accurate story on a gun.

As far as CZs go, some of their first trys at calibers that begin with the number 4 had issues, mostly functioning with JHP ammo.

I had an early CZ 97 that the factory could not get to function properly with JHPs, any of them that were available at that time, so I sold it.  Same for a 2075 RAMI in 40 that I had.

People say that the new 97s now work with JHP and I hope that is the case, as to the RAMI in 40, well I no longer have any 40s as I have standardized on 9mm and 45 ACP.

My personal advice is still to buy CZ pistols only in 9mm.  In their original chambering they are excellent arms.