GLOCKs are the simplest guns to operate. Simple is what is required when you're a little stressed out because there's a bad guy coming at you with intent to kill.
To fans of the 1911, keep in mind that GLOCK 21 owners get 14 tries to shoot something without a reload. You get 8. ;-)
I have operated both 9mm and .45 GLOCKs. The difference in recoil between them is very slight, and there ain't much recoil to either of them. To say that a woman can't handle a .45 is just wrong. I read an article somewhere where a female police officer specificially referred to her Glock .45 when filling a bad guy full of lead.
Every gun manual I have ever seen is VERY clear about the types of ammo that are appropriate to use in the weapon, and to use an unapproved cartridge type is asking for trouble.
The item about the ported barrel with non-ported slide is VERY interesting to me. I had not heard about that before. I'll be curious to see how it all works out.
What hasn't been brought up so far is the whole lethality controversy. I don't know exactly where I heard about it, but it's important to view the issue within this context:
Portland is anti-gun Moscow on the Willamette. The Portland Police have been under close scrutiny over the past sevearal years for some questionable (i.e. lethal) shootings of suspects. [WARNING - SPECULATION ALERT] I think I remember reading some local commentary about how the Department was essentially just looking for an excuse to get rid of their .45s because the round was TOO LETHAL. While there is some debate about the lethality of the .45 relative to the 9mm, I certainly wouldn't be too happy if I was a police officer and my department wanted to make me less lethal.
When you - police, military or civilian - point a gun at somebody, it should be with the understanding that you are prepared to kill that person, not simply wound them. And with all of the meth problems in Portland, I would want all the lethality I can get, right when I need it.