Sorry the glocks are not combat weapons...their rate of fire and accuracy does not come close to a 1911 or other external hammer weapons...they are designed as a ‘safer’ semi auto, high capacity replacement for service revolvers
You are apparently unfamiliar with 1911s as they were issued to regular troops.
Two words: barrel bushing.
As a combat weapon, I look at it in terms of the old AK-47 vs. M16 argument of reliability vs. performance. I tend to favor the performance of the M16 and its progeny.
However, when it comes to a sidearm, reliability is far more important as far as I’m concerned. If you need to use your pistol, you’re probably in a pretty desperate situation in far from ideal conditions, and you’re probably closer to point-blank range from whatever you have to shoot than at a range where the pistol’s accuracy is going to matter much.
When it comes to trusting the pistol to shoot when I pull the trigger in adverse conditions, I’ll take the Glock every time. The 1911’s accuracy and rate of fire won’t matter much if it jams or if haste or panic causes you to forget or miss the safety.
I’d also dispute the relevance of the difference between accuracy or rate of fire. Combat with a pistol is extremely unlikely to occur at ranges where the accuracy will make a difference. Also, assuming for the sake of argument that the 1911 has a substantially higher cyclical rate of fire (which I’m not sure I believe), I don’t think there is any difference whatsoever in effective rate of fire when it comes to controlled shooting, based on my own experience firing both weapons chambered for .45 ACP.