I had to send one in, and while the customer-service guy was gruff, they fixed it. Now, that was 15 years ago, and in the following decade-and-a-half, I have had no reason to return one.
My 97 was not just thick, but it was long in the grip. The steel fore-and-aft was long. That annoyed me, because I have never been a big EAA fan, but like Tanfoglio pistols. I have one product with EAA's stamp on it, but the rest of mine don't. My Springfield Armory P9 in 45acp as well as my own Tanfoglio P45 and Jericho, are all Tanfoglio pistols sans the EAA stamp. I picked up the 97 with the idea that I could get my CZ-based 45 and not have an EAA name on anything. But I just couldn't grip it well at all. Why that is, I cannot rightfully say. They use the same magazine after all - but Tanfoglio dispensed with the magazine brake, which could be where the needless bulk comes in. I disappointedly sold that 97 and stuck with Tanfoglio, despite EAA (not because of troubles with them, I just don't like their sleezy advertising that makes me think I have to rent their whiskey sodden, stale-cigarette filled rooms by the hour.
I realized with that experience that I really do prefer the Tanfoglios and stick with them despite EAA. In 9mm, it is nicer because you can get a small-frame 9mm Tanfoglio through Rock Island Arsenal as the MAPP series pistols. The Sarsilmaz guns out of Turkey are based on Turkey's Tanfoglio contract (but imported by EAA) and the failure of the AR-24 (if only Armalite had introduced a 45 version...).