If you have information about these guns that contradicts what's in the Forgotten Weapons video or other sources, I'd love to see it. I'd be happy to link it in the description or even mention it in a follow-up video.

@@gunbelievable Just get a 9X and take it apart. It's not an "aesthetic" upgrade nor the "tactical version". No links needed. Just do it as I recommend if you like, or not. Whatever you like. Nobody else has posted such a video yet they comment. You stated yourself that you don't believe the rubber bullet announcement. You asked me for links, where are your links that show the rubber bullet claim is false? So for evidence of skepticism on that matter, I will just point out your own video. Just sayin. You do videos. Just get a 9X and take it apart next to the TM-9. Completely apart. Seriously. The video you reference speaks of the tactical version. That exists outside the US. It had a threaded barrel. That was the only difference. Those barrels are available outside the US as an "accessory". Jethro Dionisio stocked them. I think he has one left. He was the rep for Tara in PI. There are still old links online showing and describing the tactical version and it isn't the TM-9X, it's a TM-9 with a threaded barrel. You can feel free to Google it yourself. These links are from firearm industry conferences and shows outside the US, mostly in Europe but some in the ME, as well as industry articles in various languages, not English. The issue I have is that the video you reference speculates on what the 9X is and/or repeats information gained elsewhere without ever examining one or firing it. This has led to fundamental inaccuracies on that matter. Also, as I said, there was another importer before the one marked on your pistol that this whole fiasco is about. I have one of those. I spoke to that importer years ago. The manufacturer definitely knew about the US importation years before this current matter hit the internet. It was a private conversation, so no such thing as links. There are many mysteries about all this. As someone who has been following it for years the current circus is amusing. I don't have any dog in the fight, nor do I think I have any special knowledge beyond two conversations with two different players not involved at all in the current fiasco but definitely involved with Tara and importing Tara pistols, both the TM-9 and TM-9X. So again, no links. I also talked to a Tara executive which I will address later in this response. As for trying the CZ mags, I again reference your own video. I can't recommend that people try using mags from another pistol of different design and manufacture. After examining two CZ mags myself, inserting them, dry firing, hand cycling, etc., I refuse to try it myself so far. Do I really need to provide a link for that other than your own video? I think it's simply sound advice. As far as the technical matters of the design of these pistols, there are more versions outside the US, including but not limited to the Schmeisser SLP-9 version. It's partly like a TM-9 and partly like a 9X, an intermediate design. That pistol was manufactured by Tara and branded for Schmeisser under contract. Schmeisser did not manufacture it. There was one SLP-9 in the US for ATF examination for import approval but I have no idea where that ended up, and I hear there may have been two. A company in Texas was working on importing those but it seems that never got off the ground and I have never seen an SLP-9 for sale in the US. There is a 2016 video on KZfaq of that SLP-9 being fired in the US titled "History is made!" which is the only video posted by Schmeisser USA. There is also a video from the 2016 Shot Show. That Shot Show video states heir US distributors were Texas Armament in Conroe, Texas. As for the TM-9 and TM-9X available in the US, I have communicated with Tara and was given the technical data and specifications for both pistols. I have it. It is not online. So, no links. How did I get it? I asked, nicely, several years ago, by email communication with an Executive Director at Tara. So, no links. I do find it interesting that I had conversations with a Tara executive about a TM-9 imported to the US that is on the "rubber bullet" list years before this current circus blew up, and there was no mention of "rubber bullets". I contacted them regarding parts availability and interchangeability, as a customer. That "rubber bullet" notification was posted publicly two years ago. Two years this month. You can check that link. And it's blowing up now? So yeah, I do say that people commenting are a bit behind on the matter, not just inaccurate. In my opinion they are more behind than just two years though, these pistols have been around outside the US for ten years. And I am skeptical of comments and comparisons of the TM-9 and TM-9X by anybody that has not fully examined and fired both pistols. Is that not reasonable? Do I need links for that? My concern is that there are no links, nobody has publicly made the comparison that I have seen. I have both pistols but I don't post videos online. You have an opportunity to compare them for real as I suggest, if you want to. There are problems with some of the TM-9 pistols in the US and Canada. As far as I can tell there are some weak recoil springs and weak/deformed magazine springs. There are also magazines damaged by "dimpling" to meet 10 round capacity regulations in some US states and Canada. I do consider those magazines damaged and do not consider reviews of the pistol's function legitimate if done with those magazines. I am unaware of any problems with the TM-9X and in fact they have had favorable reviews. In any case they are both best considered range toys and curios. Nobody should buy such a thing as their EDC or primary defense weapon. For that, get a mainstream well known to be reliable firearm. And that I confidently say about firearm without all this rubber bullet circus. With that rubber bullet notice out, I wouldn't advise anybody to fire real ammo out of a pistol on that list, but I certainly do. And I am confident people have been firing them for years. Where are the catastrophic failures? I haven't heard of a single one. Just some cycling and feeding issues.

@@gunbelievable I wanted to add that these pistols are on the IPSC as currently approved for Production Division, which I think is interesting since the rubber bullet notification is two years old.

​@@FernandoChaves ​My video doesn't mention the TM-9X a single time, and I don't have any opinions to share about the 9X. Even if Ian erred in his two small comments about the 9X, I don't currently have any reason to doubt what he says about the 9. If you can find fault with anything I actually said in my video, I'll correct it. And if you can find fault with anything in the Forgotten Weapons video about the 9 (NOT the 9X), I'll put up a disclaimer next to my recommendation of the FW video. But I'll need *real evidence*, and one random KZfaq commenter making unsubstantiated claims about conversations with unnamed Tara executives is not that. As for CZ magazines, I made it clear that I was discussing them as an option for people who cannot get OEM mags. Whether they work or not is no reflection on the gun itself and I didn't suggest otherwise. You claim you have "technical data and specifications" for the TM-9 and TM-9X. It'd be great if you could post it someplace and share it, I'm sure a lot of folks would be interested.

​@@gunbelievable I can appreciate that. No worries. I emailed with Tara Executive Director Ćorić Danilo, but somehow I doubt that will matter to you, nor would any of the other names I would mention I think. So we can focus on what is seen and heard in the video. After much speculation, which he admits is speculation, he proceeds to pry out the backplate with a screwdriver without depressing the spacer sleeve. Then says there is no disconnector in a pistol where the disconnector is visible in the video. I am confident he knows how to remove a backplate and knows what a disconnector is. So why did that happen? I don't know and will not speculate here. He does this while claiming it is a double action only trigger, and demonstrates it, of course without demonstrating the full function of the trigger. You have one, so you know it has a 3mm SA trigger reset. You say even if he made two small erroneous comments about the TM-9X, you don't doubt that he says about the TM-9. OK. Fair enough, you are not interested in the 9X. I would think that would make a great follow up. No worries at all. I have already said that OEM Glock Gen 3 recoil rod/springs and striker springs work perfectly. What else would people need to know? There is no use in releasing further specs. The TM-9 uses a plastic guide rod, and the 9X uses stainless. In addition the 9X uses a dual inner/outer spring arrangement. I pulled the following values from the tables I was sent and will post them here. I will call this "someplace". The TM-9 first gen striker spring specs Tara notes can be used for all versions: Length L Weight F (force) L1 = 27 mm F = 18 ± 1,5 N L2 = 17,5 mm F2 = 25 ± 2 N An earlier variant striker spring: Length L Weight F (force) L1 = 27 mm F = 20 ± 1,5 N L2 = 17,5 mm F2 = 28 ± 2,2 N Recoil spring for the TM-9 Length L Weight (force) F L1 = 79 mm F1 = 40 - 45 N L2 = 29.5 mm F2 = 75 - 85 N Recoil spring for the TM-9X Length L Weight (force) F Rod Recoil Spring IN L1 = 75.8 mm F1 = 13 ±1 N L2 = 28.9 mm F2 = 21.5 ±2 N Rod Recoil Spring OUT L1 = 75.8 mm F1 = 28 ±2 N L2 = 28.9 mm F2 = 46 ±3 N I am running Glock springs in my TM-9 and Tara springs in my 9X.