There exists a persistent school of thought that unlike firearms, ammunition does not need to be manufactured using high quality equipment and materials in order to be reliable, not to mention that quality firearms ought to be capable of feeding anything reliably.
Personally, I disagree with the aforementioned notions because they strike me as overly optimistic as well as utterly unrealistic. In a perfect world, those sentiments would be true, but unfortunately such is not the world that we live in.
Furthermore, I find such sentiments to be completely backwards. If anything, I feel that it's more likely to be the exact polar opposite, in which lower cost firearms are more likely to be reliable than lower cost ammunition because firearms are essentially fueled by ammo, thus making the ammunition the most critical component in the reliability of a firearm.
Furthermore, if a firearm is unreliable, then the owner could always attempt to diagnose the issue and have it fixed, whereas if ammo is problematic then there's really no way to remedy it.
Granted, I'm no expert on ammunition, but it seems to me that it honestly requires more quality control and higher quality materials in order to produce ammunition which will function reliably than firearms.
Consider the Hi-Point C9 for example, a bargain basement pistol composed largely of injection-molded ZAMAK, (a type of zinc-aluminum alloy) yet it is known for being extremely reliable. It's a big, bulky slab of metal for a slide balanced atop a terribly unergonomic polymer grip frame which typically sells for under $200, but it serves its purpose quite well.
Meanwhile, how often do you hear complaints about issues with value-priced ammunition like Aguila, ARMSCOR, Tulammo, Winchester USA Forged, etc?