My bro in law sold me his pistol that he said had only ever been fired 20 or 30 rounds and the the gun came with the rest of the original unfired shells in the 50 qty box. I just spent about 5 hours reading past posts here ( whew !) to get an idea ( would be great if the real meaty posts could be somehow be extracted from all the noise ) of what is going on with the pistol. I saw the list of differences when they switched over to the 2nd gen pistol but I never saw explanations as to why. There usually are two reasons. Improve the function or fix flaws, or decrease cost of manufacturing... while not necessarily improving the weapon and quite often decreasing the function in the interest of lower costs or higher profits etc. Well I dont know what to think about my new 1st gen gun. Was it flawed, or is the 2nd gen just cheaper to make or perhaps more pleasing in it's appearance ? I have to make a decision about these things as for security purposes. I want whatever has wound up being the most reliable. I dont care about difficulty of disassembly. I only care about reliability. If the 2nd gen has proven after many thousands of pistols delivered to be the better performer, then I wll sell mine and get a new one. What is needed is to hear from guys who have owned both models and shot both a lot over the years that can and have truly compared. What say you guys ?