I think you made my point for me. The 4013 (any 3rd gen Smith) in stock form is utterly reliable. The same cannot be said for 1911s as a group. I do know what makes 1911s run. I fired my first one in 1970 and plenty more since. I bought my first 3rd gen Smith, a 4506, in 1988 and it ran rings around any pistol I'd ever fired. That one was stolen in 1990 but I replaced it and still own that one. I've handled and fired Glocks as well but have no reason to own one. My brother, retired LEO, owns two Glocks and loves them. But the Glock wasn't part of this argument. FNs, Sigs, I've owned most of them but none of them have approached the Smith in terms of reliability.
You don't need to know what makes the Smith tick. There's nothing finicky about it, no tweaking required - just load up with any bullet you like and go to work.
Still no way I'd buy the Smith - now. If I already had one, I might keep it for nostalgic reasons, or if someone all but gave it to me....maybe. But in reality, it is about as archaic a design as the 1911. More reliable than a lot of non-spec 1911's maybe, but still just as outclassed by many newer designs.
That is why my answer for the OP would be "neither".
