I give the review a passing grade, but just barely. For example, I deduct grade points for the following:
1. "I’d run about 100 rounds through it with no failures at all except when shooting Aguila ammo. The R9 simply could not light off the primers of the Mexican ammo."
Response: Why anyone would elect to use Aguila ammunition in the R9 is quite beyond my comprehension. I rank that fodder right down there with some of that Russian stuff you occasionally see on shelves.
2. "I tried the Tulammo and found that, again, the R9 could not light off the primers."
Response: See response above. Plus, think steel cased, dirty, Eastern European ammunition -- Wolf under a different name.
3. "I ran through 60 rounds, alternating ammo, and did a couple fast strings, emptying the mag quickly. The pistol ran well, but I did have a failure to extract in one of the later mags, again with the federal ammo."
Response: Overheating comes to mind.
4. ". . . I don’t think I would want to put 200 rounds through the gun in a range session."
Response: Who would want to do that with a 13-ounce pistol chambered for 9mm Parabellum? There are target pistols, race guns, and full-sized combat handguns built for such activity.
5. "The R9 is as smooth as a used bar of soap, and would be about as slippery if wet I imagine."
Response: Right on the initial clause; wrong on the following phrase.
6. "I have a custom kydex IWB holster that allows for occasional belt carry."
Response: Kydex "eats" annodized finishes on metal slides and frames. (Here insert a shudder.)
7. "It does suffer some of the same flaws as other small, light, powerful weapons: Ammo preferences, difficult and or painful to shoot, reliability issues, and general lack of robustness.
Response: "Ammo preferences" -- correct; "difficult and or painful to shoot" -- not so, especially with a proper shooting grip; "reliability issues" -- not so with quality ammunition, proper maintenance, firm shooting grip, and avoidance of overheating from prolonged strings of fire; "and general lack of robustness" -- not so, as proven by some owners who have put more than 5,000 rounds through their R9s and/or carried them daily for the past 8+ years.
I give the review a passing grade largely because of the following comments in the Summary:
"It is a nice pistol clearly built well to tight tolerances. It is as accurate as its pilot. It is easy to carry." To that, however, I would suggest striking the word "nice" and substituting in lieu thereof the word "superb."
Further, the critic sayeth not.
[Edit: Corrected typo.] 
