Grayfox,
I have read many of your posts, so this reply to your .40 S&W comment is offered with respect. I simply cannot agree with your opinion that the .40 S&W is a poor round - and that the 9mm is clearly superior. My opinion is based on the following data and analysis.
I did a comparison using Federal ammunition information (from their Internet site), which provides some key facts:
Round Grains Muzzle Velocity (Ft/Sec) Muzzle Energy (Ft/Lbs)
9mm FMJ 124 1120 345
9mm FMJ 115 1160 345
.40 FMJ 180 990 380
.40 FMJ 165 1140 350
.40 FMJ 155 950 445
Based on these facts and assuming generally equal circumstances, I have concluded:
> Each of the three .40 S&W loads should provide equal or slightly better penetration than either of the two 9mm rounds, due to muzzle energy.
> Each of the three .40 S&W loads should provide somewhat better expansion than either of the two 9mm rounds, due to diameter.
> Most of the better semiautomatics (Sig, H&K, Glock, etc.) manufacturers have essentially the same "pistol family" available for the 9mm and .40 S&W, which means that all firearms parameters - like concealed carriage, intrinsic weapons accuracy and reliability, etc. - will be virtually identical.
> Currently ten round magazines are the legally constrained production limit (for non-LEO use), so my analysis assumes an identical "10+0" or "10+1" for either round.
I certainly realize the statistics used in this analysis can lead to other conclusions. In essence, however, the .40 S&W is a slightly bigger/heavier round with good muzzle velocity. In addition, I find it to be every bit as accurate - how many or us can actually "out shoot" the inherent accuracy of any bullet? - as the 9mm.
Please consider that many law enforcement agencies have recently changed from 9mm to .40 S&W. Maybe they've done this to obtain newer/better weapons, but I know of none that have gone from the .40 S&W to the 9mm.
Have a Merry Christmas and best regards.