I tend to favor hammer-fired handguns, but it is not an absolute. An annoying aspect of strker-fired autos is that the relatively more-protruding rear portion of the slide, necessary to contain the striker and its associated parts, has long been my concealment nemesis. I soon learned, in 1984/1985, when I started carrying, that it was easier for me to conceal a longer grip, than a more-protruding slide. The S&W Model 39, as modified by Armament Systems and Procedures, ASP, was an early example of how a hammer-fired auto-pistol can be streamlined, by bobbing the hammer, sculpting the contours of the slide and the grip tang, shortening the grip, and reducing the overall length. Eventually, S&W created the Model 3913, a smaller-dimentioned, spur-less hammer pistol, based upon their Model 39-series, not unlike the rare, custom ASP.
Of course, the gun-writers of the early Nineties, who proclaimed that the 3913 was “as small as a PPK” were not nearly correct, but this was a early example of a truly compact DA/SA Nine, that remains relevant, though now no longer supported by S&W parts manufacturing, if something breaks or wears out.
The compactness potential of a hammer-fired auto-pistol is also demonstrated by the Seecamp LWS series of pistols, with spur-less hammers that are flush with the rear of the nicely-streamlined frame. The slide would have to be notably longer, toward the rear, to contain a striker mechanism. This sloped, streamlined rear portion of the slide makes the Seecamp pistol more amenable to being smoothly and successfully drawn from a pocket, than would be the case with most striker-fired pistols.
If deep concealment is not an issue, blocky Glocks are fine, with me. Not until Gen4 did Glocks fit me, but they are OK, now. If I am going to enter an extreme environment, which could cause submersion, or exposure to salty waves or spray, can be nice to have a pistol that better tolerate that, for longer periods. Parts normally do not require fitting by a ‘smith or armorer. So, Glocks can be very convenient. My accuracy with Glocks will never equal what I am able to do with a good 1911, or a Ruger GP100, or S&W K/L-Frame revolver. I often tell people that every training shot, that I fire with a Glock, makes me a better revolver shooter, so, the Glock will never catch-up. When I say that, I am not joking. I had to learn long-stroke DA, in the police academy, and I reckoned that if I wanted to survive, on the streets, with a then-mandated duty revolver, I needed to be both lucky, and good, so, I trained, diligently.
If I had to pick a favorite, well, the 1911 has seniority, and I will never shoot a Glock as accurately as a 1911. I could shoot my SIG P229R DAK, as well as a 1911, until the SIG’s high bore axis, light alloy frame, and energetic .40 S&W cartridge combined to really vex my arthritis. The 1911 design has a low bore axis, is normally available as all-steel, with 5” barrels, and, though .45 ACP has considerable total recoil energy, its relatively low velocity means less-sudden acceleration, so the full-sized 1911 is “orthopedic,” for my aging hands. The 1911 design is decently flat, which aids concealment. I can detail-strip a 1911, without referring to an instruction manual, enabling me to remedy a dunking in nasty/salty water, in the field, if I had to do so. So, my favorite auto-pistol would be the hammer-fired, full-sized, all-steel, single-action-only 1911.
I was really tempted to name the Seecamp LWS-32 as my favorite. It is a well-engineered little gem, and, the ones made in Milford were hand-built. I decided that a favorite should be something more versatile, and, also, let seniority be a factor. My first handgun, in late 1982 or early 1983, was a 1911.