Agree with many of your points but you are missing one important element: the combat environment. We never fight wars in vacation paradises (Grenada being the exception) and it's either wet and hot or dusty and hot, or North Korea cold. The Glock is a civilian pistol, made for light duty or desk drawers. The Browning, like its grandfather, the 1911 is made for the severest environments and the toughest duty. I had a radio operator in Vietnam who never cleaned his .45 and told everybody that he'd never fire a round during his whole tour just to prove a point. Ir was covered in scale rust and nasty looking but when a VC came running out of a house straight at our company commander, our radio operater drew and shot his .45 and nailed the bastard. It worked fine, despite all of his abuse.
It is true that you use a pistol in the same circumstances that you'd use a knife but there is no excuse for carrying flimsy item just because it isn't used often or it's cheaper to buy.
As a Vietnam Vet, I'm sick of risking our lives on "least bidder" weapons. If the Brits have to go back to the Falklands, they'd better keep a few Brownings available, just in case.
I’ve had my Glock for 26 years, and my understanding has always been that it is tougher and more durable than the other pistols, not the weaker, drawer-gun that you guys are trying to claim.
Most writing that I saw when the US went to 9mm, was that the rules that kept out Glock, kept out the best, toughest, pistol.