I don't know about you, but I consider 20% greater destructive impact to be significant.
"Destructive impact"? Define that term, if you please. I've been a professional in the wound ballistics field and in LE firearms training for a lot of years, and "destructive impact" is not a term I've ever come across before.
You're talking about drilling a hole with a surface area 20% larger or smaller than another hole(actually, 16%, but let's not quibble, it's really insignificant). The actual energy imparted by both bullets is equal, and when compared to even modest rifle and shotgun loads, both 9mm and 45ACP are freaking pipsqueaks.
Let me repeat: there is NO empiric evidence that can lend a shred of credence to the assertion that a .45 bullet will "stop" a man faster or better than a 9mm. None. Zero. And if you start breaking down Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) anecdotal reports from multiple agencies, you'll find the same thing. There is simply no solid evidence on any front to prove that a 45 will do a better/quicker/more devastating job than a 9mm.
Fact is, pistols are damn poor manstoppers. The only reason we tolerate that is that they're damn handy! You can carry them almost anywhere without undue convenience, unlike rifles, shotguns, or real artillery. A handgun is a better choice than a knife or bludgeon in a sudden lethal force situation, but to ascribe some kind of mythical manstopping power to one caliber over another is just silly.
Now, that being said, I have to admit that I feel better carrying a .45 than I do a 9mm. My favorite carry/duty pistols are .45 ACP pistols, but my
Always gun is either a Kahr 9mm or a 38 Special J-frame. It comes down to personal preference guys, but you have to recognize that that is all it is. There is no solid evidence to prove that there is any superiority to the caliber that starts with the numeral "4".
