The way I see it is this:
Yes, the Glock is a very reliable firearm. However, I think it's gotten too much credit over the years, probably due to the fact that it was one of the first autos on the market besides well made 1911's and BHP's that were reliable enough to stake one's life on. (Unless you count the BDA, but that didn't catch on till a bit later) However, it is not this unstoppable force that can never jam. I've seen more Glock malfunctions than revolvers, and 1911's for that matter. Specifically with limp-wristing. Does that mean it's unreliable? No. I own two Glocks which are very reliable, but it's still just a machine. It can jam. I've seen that G21 test where the guy threw it out of an airplane and all that assorted lunacy, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts a Ruger GP100 could give it a run for it's money. Not only that, but you must remember the old adage "things are not always as they seem". I'm not saying the test was bogus, but there are other factors that could've come into play, and it's not always the best idea to take an article on the internet as absolute truth. Let's do that test with 100 Glocks, monitered and controlled by a large group. That might give more of a statistical answer. And besides that, just when the hell are our pistols going to be thrown out of airplanes, stomped in mud, sit overnight in baby powder and grit, such things like that?
Bottom line on that, Glocks are certainly reliable, but I don't think they're "above and beyond" the reliability of other handguns.
And revolvers? I prefer them for a few reasons. First, if I ever have to use a handgun for self defense, there's a good chance I might be injured, on the ground, in a tight spot, etc... If I don't hold my lightweight Glock 19 with a proper grip, there's a good chance it will jam. If I'm not holding my revolvers with a proper grip, it will fire just fine. I'm also not a fan of Glock's "safe action", a relatively short trigger pull with no safety. But that's personal preference.
It's hard to beat a revolver in terms of reliability, simplicity, multiple calibers in one, and powerful cartridges (how many autos do you see chambered for .454 Casull?). Many will point out the "complex" internals of a revolver, saying it's not simple. That depends on the revolver. A GP100 is incredibly simple. A S&W is more complicated, but still easy to understand and not much can go wrong on a shot to shot basis. Is it as simple as the tupperware wonder? No. But it's not significantly more complicated than, say, a CZ75b, which is considered to be a simple design.
Some will point out that a revolver can go "out of time", bent ejectors, etc, and autos don't have these problems. This is the argument of "when a revolver malfunctions, it's out of the fight for good. When an auto does, a "tap, rack, bang" and you're back in the fight". While this is true, it's ignoring the more binding failures that autos can experience at ABOUT the same frequency as revolvers: worn out springs, extractors, slide stops, magazines, etc. Both revolvers and autos are susceptible to fight-stopping malfunctions if not cared for properly.
Anyway, now I'm just rambling, and am probably going to ruffle feathers with what I've said already. So I'll shut up now
