OK, so you have "eliminated" .45 vs. 9mm perhaps because you have finally realized what I have been saying about relative tissue disruption, namely +60% or so in favor of .45. Congrats!
Fine, if they train with 9mm most probably will not make it with .40. However, it seems that you can't realize that there are quite a few, some in this forum actually, who shoot a more capable caliber just as well as they shoot a 9mm -- even out of a subcompact! Obviously, 9mm is it for you as far as your shooting ability -- copy that.
No, what I am saying is what I have been saying: .45 crushes about 60% more tissue (meaning tissue volume or weight as well) than 9mm does (suitably chosen rounds in both caliber).
It's not just a few grams of tissue -- even per shot. Losing any tissue can be traumatic -- you never know when 30+ grams of more tissue disruption will persuade an attacker to call it quits. If I slap you on both cheeks, it may not be enough for you to cease and desist your attack. If I break both of your zygomatic arches with slaps -- you will likely reconsider further aggression. Neither case is physiologically incapacitating. But you like 9mm no matter what and -- as far as I'm concerned -- FANTASTIC!
Get a .22 then (more capacity for you that you deem so important) if you don't count on "slow bleedout" -- just hit the CNS/heart/aorta that are so vital. Nothing to it, with some "gunfighters" here -- and you seem to be one of them as well. LOL.
It seems you are not able to interpret those tests in an objective matter -- after penetration, the next important wounding factor is the amount of tissue disruption, which even you realize it's not the same across calibers.
Sure, as a loyal 9mm adherent, evidence of "modern" 9mm JHPs penetrating less than 8 inches, and even just 5 inches, in just body soft-tissue is nothing. There's a lot more, but, I won't bother to try to shatter your illusions about 9mm effectiveness.
Ok, if a "modern" 9mm JHP, RA9BA, penetrates less than 8 inches in a body soft-tissues is a "success" to you then 9mm can indeed be a "success."
RA9BA was developed in '80s? You sure like straw-man arguments and it's patently obvious why.
No, because I don't want to disturb you ignorant bliss.
Stop the irrelevant nonsense. That shooting occurred through cars and under cars and were not direct hits. Yes, .40 cal will not defeat any barrier and penetrate 12+" into a body. I admit it. Look, if you like your 9mm terminal ballistics or you don't think it matters -- I get it. I will cease and desist in any efforts to show to you that 9mm is inadequate in any way. I promise, so don't worry be happy.