Well, I am late to this argument. As an LEO I carried a .45 in a 1911, before the infamous FBI shootout in Miami. And, I carried a .45 in a 1911 long after, also long after they went through the recriminations and convulsions about caliber and platform. They originally adopted the 10mm because of round count and POWER. Then they downsized the frame to accommodate small hands. So, the .40 S&W was a compromise choice DICTATED by ergonomics of the entire range of agents' sizes. Everyone agreed, then, that it was better than a nine and was almost a .45. You know enough of the story.
Today, the nine is being chosen because it is almost ("basically", etc.) the same lethality as the .40 or .45. They are choosing to emphasize round count. This is not science, but opinion based on science. The report, when read, does not say the nine is as good as a .40 or .45. It says that given the lack of accurate hits in real application (around 20%) round count is more important than lethality.
On the street my needed round count was never more than two. No multiple assailants and a long history of IPSC competition and practice left me capable of effective use of a defensive handgun.
I can make a heck of an argument that a .22LR is capable of taking a whitetail deer, so a 20-30 round magazine and "spray and pray" tactics justifies its use. Get my point?
If S&W made the Shield in .45, my choice of a carry pistol would be a .45 Shield. They don't, so since my compromise priority is, size and weight (the Shield as a platform), i want the .40 because it is the biggest projectile I can launch in a Shield.
And, if it was a decision about a full sized carry platform, for me it would be a .45 and a 1911 because after 40+ years it has worked well. BTW, gains in ammunition (bullet) perfection have made .45 projectiles better, just like .355 bullets are also better. Not bigger... a nine or a .40 might expand, but a .45 won't shrink, and bigger is better at handgun velocities, especially with great bullets... I like Barnes solid copper X bullets.
Today, the nine is being chosen because it is almost ("basically", etc.) the same lethality as the .40 or .45. They are choosing to emphasize round count. This is not science, but opinion based on science. The report, when read, does not say the nine is as good as a .40 or .45. It says that given the lack of accurate hits in real application (around 20%) round count is more important than lethality.
On the street my needed round count was never more than two. No multiple assailants and a long history of IPSC competition and practice left me capable of effective use of a defensive handgun.
I can make a heck of an argument that a .22LR is capable of taking a whitetail deer, so a 20-30 round magazine and "spray and pray" tactics justifies its use. Get my point?
If S&W made the Shield in .45, my choice of a carry pistol would be a .45 Shield. They don't, so since my compromise priority is, size and weight (the Shield as a platform), i want the .40 because it is the biggest projectile I can launch in a Shield.
And, if it was a decision about a full sized carry platform, for me it would be a .45 and a 1911 because after 40+ years it has worked well. BTW, gains in ammunition (bullet) perfection have made .45 projectiles better, just like .355 bullets are also better. Not bigger... a nine or a .40 might expand, but a .45 won't shrink, and bigger is better at handgun velocities, especially with great bullets... I like Barnes solid copper X bullets.