Yes, I saw by the dimensions that the P07 and G19 appear "almost the same," but holding side-by-side, it's apparent that the G19 is considerably sleeker.
I'm beginning to see the benefits of that ugly, boxy, 110% utilitarian Glock design. Nothing to snag, no unnecessary bulk, lightweight, low bore, billions of aftermarket everything.
One of the major reasons I began looking at a hammer fired gun, was my desire to have a hammer to "ride" when holstering the weapon, especially AIWB. I believe there's real merit to that. And I thought the P07 was a fantastic gun when I held and shot it, but I did immediately notice the beavertail poking at me when I experimented with putting it inside the waistband. Glock has optional beavertails.
And then, yesterday, I discovered "The Gadget" on a bunch of forums and videos, that apparently replaces the plate on the back of a Glock slide and allows you to "ride the striker" similar to a hammer, using thumb pressure to detect resistance against the trigger, and prevent the trigger from being pulled. I have a Walther PPS with an exposed striker indicator, and I can ride that with my thumb. I always did think that was a simple and brilliant feature. Apparently, for about $80 I can do the same with a Glock....
The weight difference is considerable, as you say.
I have this feeling that, after a long process of searching for guns that "are the same size as a Glock 19, I'm going to end up with...a Glock 19???
I like the triggers and ergonomics better on the PPQ and 2.0 M&P, but both are "cocked and unlocked" and (comments about booger-hooks and bang-switches aside) I realize that I'm not a robot and the risk is real of something going wrong when it's pointed at my leg or groin. I like the feel of the P07 better, but it's chunky, and the aftermarket support appears to be fairly minimal. I like overall Springfield XD package, but I find it hard to control when shooting quickly...I do better with the Glock. Really liked the Beretta PX4 Compact, but the placement of the decocker levers just pisses me off.
I guess in short, I can say I "like" almost every gun I've tried better (in some way) than the Glock, but when I roll them all into one package that's 100% about training, carrying and self-defense with no time to worry about what I like better on a range, the Glock seems to beat them all simply by being mundane and absolutely reliable. They all do "that one thing" better, but the Glock does them all "well enough" and at the same time.
Maybe that's why nobody can ever beat Glock?