A lot of performance gripes are tied to ammunition. If one brand seems to hang up on ejection, try another maker's rounds. (But you still need to do your part in keeping the chambers clean.)
A real problem for some people who buy a 17 or Pre-17 is the exaggerated state of elation they find themselves in when they take it to the range. But self-medication with Guinness after you get home will usually restore you to a conventional level of misery and ennui.
Seriously, buy the gun. Almost everybody here will tell you that you will love it. If by some fluke it turns out we are wrong and you don't, you won't have much trouble selling it.
About manufacturing eras: Even the most excellent production company can put out a bad gun from time to time, and a company that is in a push to increase production can turn out an absolutely perfect specimen. Buy the gun, not the generalization. If there is something wrong with this one, you are very likely to see it and feel it before plunking down the cash. Among K-22 shooters, there is a kind of preference for early guns (say early 17s from the 1960s, or Pre-17s from the '40s and '50s, or even the ribless barrel guns from before WWII), but that doesn't mean those guns are necessarily "better" by some objective standard. It just means they are preferred, which is a measure of buyer psychology more than firearm performance.
