[Gaerek]

Actually, that is a good amount of ammo to test reliability for a 22LR rimfire pistol, considering the price. How many rounds should someone put through a Rhorbaugh R9 to make sure it is reliable? A few thousand?

I suppose for a non-carry gun, it's a good test. Guns that I want to be reliable are competition guns and carry guns. If the J22 is neither, then no test is even needed. For either of the categories I mentioned, 200 rounds is nothing, and means nothing. .22LR is also dirt cheap. 1000 rounds will cost about the same as 200 rounds of 9mm. And I woudn't carry or use a 9mm in competition unless I've put at least 500 rounds through, and I'd rather it be closer to 1000 (at least for a carry gun). I'll concede this to you though, as I believe we're talking in terms of different uses.

As for the R9, I'd never own one. They're expensive pieces of junk. The owner of the company says the gun isn't meant to be shot much. Just load it and shoot a mag or two through it every few months. There's several reports if you look them up of them breaking down after 150-300 rounds, and needing to be sent back to the factory. Any gun that isn't meant to be shot much is one that isn't meant to be carried. I put at least 400 round a month through my carry gun. If a gun can't take that, I won't own it.

I think a lot of people are just repeating what they've read about the J-22. So, I'll ask this again: What do you hate most about the J-22? Hint: It has nothing to do with looks, zamac, durability, reliability or accuracy. And, yes, if you have fired even 50 rounds through this gun, there is only ONE answer.

To be honest, I've never shot one, and don't have an opinion one way or another. I've seen several reports of them breaking after 500-1000 rounds. For the price, I suppose that's ok. There always needs to be some one making lower priced stuff in just about any industry.

One more thing, if the J-22 was that bad, it would have faded from production many years ago. As it is, it has been in production in one form or another about as long as the Glock 17 and Beretta 92. Contrarily, the Rogak was not in production for very long.

This is a logical fallacy. There are many factors that can keep a product to market, even if it's a crappy product. Customer service and price, to name two common ones. Taurus has a pretty bad track record (maybe not as much lately, but they're known for failures) yet, they've been making guns more than twice as long as Glock, they have a reputation for cutting corners and making substandard products, yet, they remain in the game. Why? They have pretty good customer service and their knock offs are about 20-30%, cheaper than the "name brand."

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the J-22 is a piece of junk. I'm just saying that the fact that it's still in production is NOT an indication of quality. There are many reasons why something can remain in production, even if the product is junk. Here's a great example...these are still being made (and they've been around since at least the early 80's, possibly the 70's) and anyone who's used them knows they're absolute junk...

https://www.ronco.com/products/pocket-fisherman.html