9mm a better round than 40 or 45?

Here is the reality: a pistol, as a offensive combat weapon, is weaksauce. The purpose of a pistol is to give you a portable, handy weapon that allows you to fight your way to a bigger, more effective weapon. ALL pistol rounds are anemic compared to a rifle or shotgun. The hitting power between a 9mm, .40 and .45 are marginally incremental at best. There is no huge jump. Where the differences in terminal ballistics come into play are the size of the holes they make. .45 makes a bigger hole than 9mm. Bigger hole = more tissue destroyed and faster blood loss. However, there are trade-offs when you choose a bigger round such as lower magazine capacity and more recoil (or at least perception of it). Personally, I like the .40. I don't shoot my pistols enough where the concern of excesisve wear becomes a problem, and I find the round a good trade-off between power, shootablility and capacity. But I understand where the FBI is coming from and the the logic behind their decision. However, one must be careful with extrapolations. This is a LAW ENFORCEMENT ballistic study and may not necessarily be applicable to situations outside of law enforcement. Example: 9mm is a great round particularly when modern JHPs can bridge the terminal performance gap. But in the military world where we are restricted to FMJ, a bigger round is better.

I think the real science is that a .45 round costs double a 9mm round. I bet this has something to do with it. .40 is a good middle of the road round.

I currently shopping for a new handgun and have been tossing back and forth the struggle between 9mm and .45acp. This is for home defense and though I love the low recoil of the 9mm which brings the pistol back on target quickly for the double tap, there is something to be said for the .45acp. Though in my experience with the Marine versions of the 1911 with a floating barrel, it was always not a where you hit but if you hit. I may have to go shot placement over stopping power.