Pictures!
I couldn't take the time to funnel my way through the 20 pages or so. But a 9mm vs 45 argument is almost as good as a "what oil is best for my motorcyle" thread. So as Obama's chief hitman, Rahm Emanual says, why let a perfectly good crisis go to waste; why let a perfectly good argument go to waste. I will stir the pot a bit just to resurrect things.
The OP referenced a bunch of experts; the issue is generally whether one is better armed for self defense with one caliber or another. So with that in mind, some scanned stuff to throw into the mix:
In no particular order: 38 Spl, 9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP. All pictures to scale.
All bullets of common weights in the service calibers, no heavyweights/lightweights, 45 ACP being the only +P loading.
All penetrated 12" - 14" after being fired through IWBA heavy clothing. So which one is from the 45 ACP and which one is from the 9mm?
Hint: the bullet with the largest mean diameter is not the 45 ACP, and the bullet with the smallest mean diameter is not the 9mm.
And, some of the current marketing information regarding terminal ballistics currently being distributed by ATK and Winchester:
Drs Fackler (who I think we owe many of the improvements to, and who died about six months ago) and Roberts tested the Federal ammunition at the top about two or three years ago, except they tested the +P .45 ACP variant against that same standard pressure 9mm load. No pictures, but...
9 mm Fed 147 gr HST (P9HST2) at 1005 fps:
Bare gelatin: Pen = 14.0, RD = 0.65, RL = 0.41, RW = 147.6
4 layer denim: Pen = 16.5, RD = 0.60, RL = 0.53, RW = 147.5
.45 Fed 230 gr +P HST (P45HST1) at 936 fps:
Bare gelatin: Pen = 13.8, RD = 0.82, RL = 0.42, RW = 231.2
4 layer denim: Pen = 14.5, RD = 0.76, RL = 0.50, RW = 234.4
I suppose you can run around cherrypicking testing at any given ballistics seminar the way some hunters agonize over bullets as they compare ballistic coefficients. As I see it, the chance that an inch more or less of penetration, or a tenth of an inch more or less in bullet diameter, is going to make a difference is pretty much zero. That's before you even get to relative magazine capacities, recovery times, or whatever other metric you want to use. Even if only one shot goes where it is supposed to, rather than multiple shots.
For me, I no longer see any evidence that a different caliber and/or +P loads will offer performance improvements over a 9mm with premium service ammunition. The terminal performance of all the common service calibers with current service ammunition is remarkably consistent.
Living in Montana, I can and do carry there. After noodling around looking at this stuff for a while, I've settled on the standard pressure Federal HST 147 grain load. I would not lose any sleep if I were told I could only use Winchester Ranger or Speer Gold Dot, as far as that goes. In fact, I wouldn't lose any sleep if I was restricted for some reason or other to a 38 Spl with Federal or Winchester ammunition. All have gotten extremely positive comments from the scores of OIS reviews that all have been involved in since coming on the market. It is hard to find a negative review (other than price and availability for those who have to source and buy their own). I do have a couple of BHPs in 40 S&W and a Dan Wesson Classic Commander Bobtail in 10mm, incidentally, so it's not like I don't have various versions of heavier bullets going faster available to choose from.
There are a lot of people who still fervently believe that the only reason you should be carrying a .45 is because they don't make a .46, or that if the bullets leaving your carry gun aren't doing 1300 fps or better then you aren't really armed. For those people, the market has offerings that will make them feel confident in their choices. But the reality is, there are a good number of 9mm rounds that are not even +P, much less +P+, that have proven to be reliable and effective performers, that give nothing away to those choosing to carry their version of the nuclear option.
Double Tap, Underwood, Buffalo Bore, etc do make a good living selling self defense ammunition with the same or similar bullets loaded to the ragged edge of pressure safety. I am glad that those who need that itch scratched can get it done, but I don't really think they are getting any improvement. I'm not surprised when testing that ammunition under IWBA protocols results in degraded performance - the bullet is engineered for performance in a velocity envelope, and once you leave the reservation all bets are off. But nobody in North America ever went broke advertising their ammunition as the highest velocity stuff available.
Other than that, whatever anyone feels scratches their itch and satisfies their beliefs, good for them.
But no, this debate will never end. Especially if you expand intended use beyond self defense to recreational/competition use, which is the vast majority of use even in the US.
