I'm sure ther are those who are keeping track of effectiveness. There was such a study done after the first Gulf War and it found the two most "effective" US small arms were the M1911A1 and the M2 .50 machinegun. Predictably there was "effectiveness" criticism of the 5.56 cartridge and there was significant criticism of the 9mm NATO. There was also a lot of criticism leveled at many of our NATO partner's weapons, specifically the Brit SA80 and the French FAMAS rifles.
I have read one report on the effectiveness of US small arms in the current war(s) and it found the M4 to be pretty darned good, and the 9mm to be performing fairly well despite the criticism a decade earlier (I�m sure that�s because there were no 1911�s around for comparison this time). But I haven�t read anything as comprehensive as the report I read following the Gulf War Version 1.0.
If you Google around, you could probably find those reports. I wouldn�t have the foggiest how to find either of the reports I read as one was well over a decade ago and the other about a year ago.
Still, I'm a big believer in bullet placement. If you place your shots well, that trumps the "caliber war" every time. Well, almost every time.
