Kevin, I should have responded to your OP first, but got sidetracked by Dan's post and felt responding to it was a higher priority.
As you know I have been studying (and training people in the use of) the question of gunshot wounding and incapacitation for many years. I've accumulated quite a few gunfight/shooting stories over that time-frame, and while they might serve illustrative purposes from time to time, individual personal gunfight stories or opinions don't tell us much that we can generalize from.
A couple of examples come to mind. Let's consider two guys, both very very high-speed, low-drag, special ops guys. They've both got multiple years of experience, multiple wars, multiple weapons platforms, with just about any type of ammunition you could ask for. I know both of them passably well. I've done some range shooting with both of them, and have taken extensive training from one of them.
One of these guys has carried nothing but Glock 22's for years and insists that while "you don't need to carry a Glock, you've got to carry a .45, and please not a phuqqing 1911". The other guy carries Glock 19's and has no use for a .45 pistol other than the 1911's he owns and shoots recreationally from time to time. How could two guys with so much experience have such different opinions on the caliber question? Well, I guess it just proves that subjectivity is a really, really powerful factor in human decision-making. Personally, I wouldn't go up against either of these guys with anything more lethal than Nerf guns, not that this has anything to do with it, but you get the idea...
I've spoken at length with a lot of guys who've spent extensive time in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who have used their handguns in combat. Some swear that the 45 ACP 1911 is far superior, others are equally happy with their 9mm M9's. But when I get down to the nitty gritty of how many times they actually used their pistol as their sole weapon in an action, the counts were very, very low. That really takes the "punch" out of most of the first-hand reports of handgun ammunition performance in the Sandbox, I'm sad to report.
The military doesn't take or keep detailed reports on every shooting in a war zone. So you can't rely on military records to tell you if the 45 ACP's used by Marine SOCOM are truly better than the 9mm's used by Rangers.
Domestic law enforcement in the USA, however, does keep meticulous records on every officer-involved shooting. These records are kept highly confidential, however, and there's no way John Q. Public is ever going to see those individual records. In fact, in most LE agencies the number of people who can get their hands on those records can generally be counted on the fingers of one hand.
But there are a few agencies that have worked together to share their OIS information, which is harder than it sounds. Despite the many obstacles they've accumulated some good data, I believe, based on thousands and thousands of shootings. And the overwhelming conclusion from these data is that caliber is irrelevant when it comes to shooting people with service caliber handguns using modern JHP ammunition.
So my response to your OP, in sum, is more or less the same as I've written here and elsewhere many times. I don't think it matters a hoot whether you choose 9mm or 45 ACP. I think good modern JHP ammunition is superior to ball ammo, but if all I had was ball, I wouldn't throw down my gun and stick my hands in the air. I don't think the 9mm cartridge was ever as lousy as its critics have claimed, and I don't think the 45 ACP was ever as wonderful as its accolytes expound.
Last edited by DocRocket; 11/21/14. Reason: missed a couple of points...
