What does the size and capacity of the gun have to do with whether the round is anemic or not.
Nothing, 750 to 850 fps does.
Are we talking about the round or the platform it's fired from?
It kinda morphed that way, as these discussions tend to do. Nothing is black and white, every decision has factors that influence other factors. Size, weight, capacity, shootability, accuracy, ease of carry, safety etc.
of course the 24 ounce Glock holding 10+1 45 ACP rounds is so anemic, and under powered compared to the 36 ounce 12+1 capacity Sig 229 in 357 Sig!
That 2 extra rounds certainly makes the Glock 30 a useless, and anemic SD firearm.
Compare apples to apples. That is the first time you mentioned a Glock 30,
I ASSUMED you were using a cut down 1911. You still lose 100 FPS or so over a 5" bbl which the 45 cannot afford. Compare that to a Glock 33/27 using 32 mags and and you have 14 shots of 357 Sig or 40 S&W in a 20 - 21 oz package.
If the first round does not accomplish the task then having 15 more in a magazine is not going to make very much difference. Facing multiple threats alone with only a sidearm is a tactical problem, and will probably not be resolved by just having a high capacity magazine.
Absolutely correct. That is why training and practice trump everything else. Shot placement is king, but you are unlikely to accomplish that on a wing and a prayer. Tactics and mindset are what will win the fight. The bottom line is that the bullet/caliber/platform is a very minor part of the equation, however, we obsess over it. My reason for picking the best, irregardless of emotion is I want every edge I can get. IMHO, the 45 ACP is not the cutting edge any longer. Taking a contemporary 45 and sooping it up takes a toll on the gun and is more difficult to shoot which is counter productive.
http://ncggasgun.com/barreldetails/
Now, enter this company, you want a 45 to sing?