Some background info regarding my question was due to dinner discussion with a friend who stated that his $500 Glock is more reliable than 1911's.
The only weakness is incredibly stupid statements such as that.
It could be someone's life work to describe the variations in quality and design across a myriad of manufacturers to describe the '1911'. Folks ignorantly cram the good and the bad, the compact and the full size, the cheap and the expensive, and all manufacturers into one pattern that to them is somehow a "1911". It's as if we could take every polymer pistol ever made anywhere and call it a "17".
Then I could ask without any remote reference to Glock, "What's more reliable, a Colt XSE or a 17?"
Yup, the biggest "weakness" of the 1911 is it's been built by countless manufacturers around the world to varying degrees of quality and not always following the original 100+ y/o design.
Most of my 1911 experience has been with my grandfathers 1911, his sidearm during the great war. I don't recall how many rounds we put through it, but between some WWII surplus ball ammo and factory reloads it was 100% reliable. Not bad for a gun and magazines that at that time were ~70 years old, firing 40+ y/o ammo. The gun is now 98 years old and per my brother still functions flawlessly.
Glocks haven't been around enough for a proven track record
