The problem I have with semi-automatics is that large reciprocating mass, plus the inherent sacrifice in accuracy. A revolver is still the superior handgun for me, and why US Army MPs abandoned the .45 semi for a .38 revolver.
Let me first state that I own several revolvers and enjoy shooting them. I also respect your opinion of what is best for you. That said, I own a 1911 that will print a 1.273" group at 50 yards
. Frankly, there are not many people alive that can physically shoot at that level of accuracy anyway, so I feel the point is moot. I have put about 11,275 rounds through that same 1911 and frankly I cannot remember the last time it malfunctioned. Revolvers are subject to reliability issues as well. I have personally witnessed (twice) in competition where a guy bent his ejector rod during a vigorous reload and the gun locked up. The hand can break or wear and stop properly indexing the cylinder, the bolt can shear causing the cylinder not to lock up (usually during rapid fire), and a small amount of dirt under the extractor star can jam the cylinder solid.
The Glock just isn't my cup of tea. They grip like a brick and the new rough texture frame is too little too late. They're a budget pistol in every sense of the word. The barrel chambers are oversize and they do not offer an extremely consistent lockup because they are not hand fit. The trigger is heavy, gritty, has excessive creep, excessive overtravel, and too much reset travel for impressive split times. With a stock 1911, I can get split times of 0.18. Tune it up and the splits drop to 0.13.
To me, a pistol should be a functional piece of art.