My Glock wasn't cheap! Cost was not an issue, though. I chose it because I felt it would require the least maintenance... meaning it can lie around without getting cleaned and oiled, collecting holster lint, and it will hopefully still work the one time I might need it. I dunno how true that is, but I think there's more than a myth here. It seems logical to me that shortened slide rails would need less (or even no) oil and still cycle reliably. The fact that it relies on a lot of slide mass rather than overstiff recoil springs or precision machined gizmos also bodes well for reliability.
As for the OP (which was probably posted years ago?): no second-strike capability is an advantage. 99% of the time, a second, third, or fourth strike will NOT ignite a primer. The primer has already been dented on the first stike, and subsequent strikes will not impart enough energy for ignition. By the second or third "click," whoever you have the gun pointed at is going to gain a hella lot of confidence in this confrontation. Instead of standing there trying to win the lottery, you should immediately chamber a new cartridge.
To get any chance of a "second strike," you need to eject the cartridge and reinsert it, so the striker impacts a new spot.
Personally, I like having no safety. And I think the trigger on a Glock is just about perfect for precision shooting. In fact, I think it's a little light for carry. And the grip angle is great. I don't understand how the 1911 became the gold standard end-all be-all of grip angles. It's ridiculously straight, noticeably raising bore axis. Also, try putting a red dot on a 1911.. you have to practically cock your hands backwards to use it.
For the record, I love the 1911. That was my first gun, and I might own another in the future. It's got a lot going for it, but I never liked the grip angle. I also abhorr the rounded slide. A flat slide or a sighting rib helps my acquisition speed.