Yeah, but that sounds like every manufacturers deflection. "If you have a malfunction IT'S THE AMMUNITION, not our pistol."
Well, not every firearm has undergone extensive development, what designs are put on the market by commercial industry is often back of the envelope, hastily designed and the lifecycle follows the 1970's General Motors philosophy. (The cars of the 1970's were horrible and unreliable) A General Motors executive said
"Manufacturing builds it, marketing sells it, and Customer Service makes it work" So do not doubt that the latest
"end of history firearm", had a shoe string design budget and the most important developmental test criteria was to spend the least money possible.
And then someone else makes the ammunition.
Winchester rimfires dominated Smallbore Prone for decades. And so did Winchester Match ammunition. What advantage Winchester had, was that their ammunition could be tailored for their rifles, and their ammunition plant, could influence the design of the hardware.
At some level, a firearm dependent on functioning by F=MA each and every time, within a time period of milliseconds, will not be able to accommodate wide variations in brass dimensions, hardness, pressure curves, etc. We are actually very lucky, the most finicky mechanisms (hesitation lock,
R51 anyone?) have undergone Darwinian selection and are on the ash heap of history. But it is too much to expect what is left, is somehow immune to the laws of physics and mechanical tolerances. And then add what is likely to be a rushed design and a limited test program, and the user ends up frustrated with an unreliable firearm.
Even the military has a very difficult time ensuring reliable personnel sidearms even though they control the ammunition characteristics, and weapon characteristics.
At some level, it makes more sense to reload, tailor the ammunition you make, so your firearm functions reliably. And always shoot a new mechanism enough to have confidence in it.
And don't be an early adopter!
