The .45 has never been effective against armor of any kind. The bullet SD is not good for that. They tend to bounce of windshields more than fast, narrow bullets also. This is just physics. The FBI's quest for a better bullet moved them to the 9 because they worked better against early vests (so SF mag insisted when I was in college).
But, against living tissue, big, heavy, relatively slow bullets work well. We had a doctor in one CHL class I was in who had pulled bullets out of people's brains. He said he's pried out 9mm, 357, 22, etc. The instructor asked him about the 45acp and the Doc replied, "Never needed to, all DOA". But, Evan Marshall's stats show the 45 is less likely to penetrate the skull and 2% more likely to just bounce off of it than the 9 is.
I'll say this though, the last 2 times I qualified I outshot most of the poeple there and everyone that had a 40S&W. It was all about recoil. By the time the target was 25 yards and 40 rounds had been spent, they all were shooting pretty poorly. Not so with my 9 (and double hearing protection that really helps on closed ranges). The guy that outshot us all last time had a HK 45; in his hands, it was a laserbeam deathray.
So, for the 'average' shooter that puts < 50 rounds through their gun every year, the 9 probably has an advantage. If I were a trained LEO, I'd get a 40. As a target shooter, the 45 is better. For CC, a small 9 is perfect.
Also, the 357 is dim shadow of the 38 Super
Let's argue about THAT for a while!!