Just resurrecting this old thread to throw in my 2 cents. I agree with about everything previously posted, from old steel guns having a soul, to Glocks being the hammers of the gun world. I have owned various Glocks over the years, and while I don't find them sexy like nearly all the 1911s, BHPs, and wheelguns I've owned, I think that lack of feeling is largely due to the subconscious connection all the hype has created for the "nostalgic" guns. Case in point: my CZ 75 SA has more in common with the nostalgic guns than it does with the Glock, but it is feels like much more of a tool to me too. Don't get me wrong, the CZ feels like Excalibur in my hand, but there is no emotional connection to it such that I show it off or fawn over it or anything. Same with the Glocks. I love them, I trust them, and they work. I even drool a bit over ones I don't own, like the G40 and G41. But I bet that when I buy one, it will just be a really nice hammer.

As as far as the 9mm issue, I have confidence in the round. However, I shoot the .40 as well, and pretty much as fast (at least in the Glock), and I think the 13 rounds in my G23 is sufficient. More importantly, I feel much more comfortable with 17 in a 9mm or 13-15 in a .40 than 8 in my 1911, that's for sure.

Lastly, I think that after years of punching stationary paper at 7 yards or 15 yards and making nice, tight groups with slow fire, I developed a belief that the 1911, CZ, B92, and Glock were all pretty much the same for me. Then, after using a dynamic target system that presents a target for a second or two at a time, I realized just how superior the Glock was for me over the 1911. I have yet to try other pistols head to head, but I now know that I can accurately dump a ton more lead in a couple seconds with the G23 than with the 1911. It was quite the eye-opener, though it seems so obvious to me now, given differences in sights.

All in all, I think I'd choose the hammer if the chips were down.