Just because...

Just because I defend the design of the M1911; it does not mean that I automatically think other designs suck.

I am a Glock owner.  I was an early adopter of the Glock; or would have been if I had been old enough to buy one.

I bought the very first Glock 21 (1991 made by the serial number) I encountered and I have kept it.

While the Glock has given me more problems than any other gun I have ever bought new; the truth is I have fired it a lot more than any other gun I've owned.

To date:

It would not feed reloads from an ancient set of Lee dies.  Loads that the 1911 would.

The adjustable rear sight has died twice.  The stock Glock one when I threw it across the room after changing my mind about shooting myself (I feel better now).  The Pachmayr (IIRC) rears died from a fall of the bedside table and to the concrete floor.

And that's it.  Hundreds of rounds and the only problems have been non-design.

In almost twenty years it's never rusted.  Heck, I am still on my first set of springs; but I don't shoot thousands of rounds.

I don't like how it feels in my hand compared to most other handguns, but I can adapt readily to the change in grip angle and it shoots quite accurately.  I don't carry it because it's huge; not because I think it's not going to work when I need it to.

The gigantic flaw in the Glock design, to me, is having to pull the trigger to disassemble it.  That ranks up there with magazine safeties for "accident waiting to happen".

EDIT:

If the Glock sucked it would not have the wide issue it enjoys with law enforcement today.  It's been around long enough to have been replaced by another design if it had.

Please also note in the previous rant that I am not saying the M1911 is better than the designs that replaced it (in most ways, it isn't); I am merely saying the not being best is not an indicator of suck.