...pistols in extreme conditions - think sustained moisture, dust, or sub-freezing temperatures.

No personal evaluation but the military chose second strike capability over single strike. I don't know how they arrived at this decision. I also don't know the full extent of the decision nor their definition of "second strike capability".

 

I bought a Glock 17 in 1985 NIB. One of the most functional pistols I have ever owned. I’m a 1911 guy.
The only issue I ever had with the Glock was a failure to fire with Israeli 9 mm sub, machine gun ammo. I believe it had something to do with the hard primers loaded by IMI. All other ammo and bullet weights has fired flawlessly. Good question and a valid concern expressed by you. Standing by for more information.

Edit: it was Egyptian 9 mm sub gun ammo. Sorry I’m old.

 

I dropped a hammer fired in the dirt and it would not fire until I removed the slide and cleaned out the muck. I have dropped a striker fired in the dirt and picked it up and shot it. So there is that. I carry a hammer fired CZ P-01 and a S&W M&P Compact .45. I just try real hard to not drop either.

 

For a modern firearm, that you are pressing into a defensive use scenario, I'd focus on overall reliability first. I hunt in brown bear country and have simply determined that the Glock 10mm was a better solution for me versus a hammer fired option. Accuracy, capacity, and most importantly my ability to draw and put rounds on target with that platform came first. Users still have to clean and maintain their firearms (some are very bad about this). I spent 22 years on active duty with the last 20 in environment inhospitable to most mechanical things. The issued weapons performed well...when maintained.