I dont know!
I think your thread about the 1911 and the Glock was a good one but it did get of the point a bit. There was alot of intest in it and interestng input, however.
I have owned six different Glocks and have shot at least 100 more, for various reasons. I've owned a lot more 1911s, about 25 or so. The 1911 seems to feed very well out of the box when they are rack grade (loose fitting) and hardball is used but when using soft point/hollow point in a gun that is a little tighter they often have feeding problems, most get better after a 500-1000 round break in. It order for them to be extremely accurate, which they can be they must be hand fitted and tuned to feed everything, which they can be, they are very expensive. My first choice would always be a 1911. It will be hand fitted and tuned to feed every thing and put all shots into 3" at fifty yards, I have some just like that. The cheapest one cost $1500. Beautiful, reliable, rugged, dependable with a good source of pats to make them fully field repairable.
The Glock is cheap, ugly, reliable, rugged, dependable with a good source of parts and accessories but not generally field repairable.
Glock is the least likely auto-loading handgun to fail to feed. I have shot all of the available, and no longer available, pistols from the P08 Luger to the XD Springfield. There may be a couple of the Johnie-come-lately pistols I've missed, but you get the idea. Glock works better than all of them. The will feed any ammo, I've run about 100 thousand rounds of handloads through a few of them.
I've never experienced the malfunctions described in your original thread, I'm sure there have been some. There are a huge number of Glocks out there and many of them are in incapable hands.
One thing I've noticed about the Glock, it is not susceptable to the limp wrist failures of most of the other pistols. When we limp wrist a gun, that absorbs the recoil energy of the slide and usually prevents the gun from cycling, I've never even seen that with a Glock. I've loaned Glocks to students who could not cycle a M92, or even a SiG and they could shoot a Glock. Of course that's a piss poor excuse to buy a Glock, one should learn to shoot correctly, but the point is, the gun works in less than ideal shooter performance.
The low manufacturing cost is why the police departments bought them in the first place. The reason they are still in use is because the do work.
I really like the Sigs, but the Glock is a more relaible feeder. The CZ is a very good rugged design, but like the 1911, it requires a bit of fit and polish to be top notch. I have a Sphinx (Swiss made CZ clone) that is the best "CZ" ever, but here again quite pricey. (And no longer made.)
There is the Kahr T-9, one heck of a nicely made highly reliable pistol, I think it is still made if you want a nine. I just sold one which had 2400 rounds in through it since new and never failed to feed any thing. Truely the only rival for feeding for any Glock. I just didn't own the Kahr long enough to shoot it much. I would prefer the T-9 to any Glock or anything else, if I needed a nine.
The Glocks are striker fired. They are grab-and-shoot, one handed, either hand, pistols. The Kahr, the Sigma, and a couple others are in this category. (No manual safety lever, no visable hammer, no external "gear shift" required to shoot.) The 1911 is an entirely different animal and it defies logic to consider only the Glock or the 1911. It makes me think you need more education in the different types of auto-loader lockwork.
Which striker fired pistol is the best?
Which double action pistol is the best?
Which single action pistol is the best?
Which dual action, hybrid-lockwork pistol is the best?
What DAO system is best?
What is the differences and advantages/disadvantages of each of the different types of auto-loading pistols?
For all who care to comment feel free to answer these questions.
Bonus: What is the difference between the P-35 and the CZ-75?
Bonus#2: Where is the safety on a Kahr T-9?