I think a lot of it is the marketing of Glock engrained on the shooting sport's psyche. I have owned Glocks, and they are fine, fine weapons. Reliable, durable, and a proven track record of be serviceable and cost effective to shoot/maintain.
That said, any gun manufacturer worth being considered is producing a pistol that the average non-competitive shooter probably just won't wear out beyond maybe a recoil spring, and most of the time those are probably changed out based on religious principle of an arbitrary number of rounds as stated online rather than a performance issue.
I will admit, I'm not a seasoned shooter. I have only be delving into the world of firearms for the last 6 years. When I started looking at semis, I really believed that the Glock was the gold standard. Now, I still find them to be incredible guns, but I have moved on to picking a weapon based on different criteria other than "Will I wear this out" or "Can I pack this with mud and still shoot the 8 terrorists kicking in my door at 3am?"
My big gripe with Glock IS durability...their dang plastic sights. While I don't see a need for my gun to function unlubed with sand in the action, I DO know that it is going to see a fair amount of getting knocked around getting it in and out of the safe. It always irks me that I need to pay extra money to get a set of non-mushy steel sights for my Glocks when so many of them come with steel or even night sights right from the factory.
Other than that, I purchase a polymer firearm based on known track record, CS, comfort in hand, and features that I want on my gun.
In short, you could drop me into a TEOTWAWKI situation with ANY of the listed pistols, three loaded mags, and several boxes of ammo, and I would be happy to have it. I rotate my carry/range pieces so often that I don't think I'll ever wear one completely out beyond a spring kit of some sort.
.
