There are certain 9 loads that are every bit as effective as the .40 and .45.
I disagree. (then one can also boost the .45's and .40 to higher performance)
I agree that they have the 9's have their place as a back up piece.
I would agree that the .357sig or magnum is superior. I prefer revolvers for strength and accuracy over semi autos.
The perps that were hit with 9mm rounds stayed alive, long after they were hit in Miami. that is a fact. a subsonic 9mm with a heavy bullet might have done a better job than the light supersonic loads. you sometimes need the weight and inertia of a heavy bullet to take down a heavily muscled heavily clothed individual..the GI's who had shot japanese in WWII with the pipsqueek M1 Carbine in .30 carbine were surprised to see the same rounds not stop the bigger bodied North Korean and Chinese soldiers dressed in heavy quilted winter garb.
Just my $0.02
The fact is there are some people who will keep fighting even after suffering a mortal hit.
Energy is the most important thing and the 9, 40 and 45 are similar in energy.
All other things being equal I would choose the larger caliber but the difference is not great as long as energy is the same.
Please post the evidence that the guys in the FBI shootouts were hit with 9s first and not rounds by the other officers who had .357s and .38s. But even if you are correct, you are talking about events that occured in 1986 when most FBI agents didn't carry SA handguns.
You can disagree with factual information if you want, but its rather silly. If you know someone is going to shoot you with something and you have the choice of deciding either the round they use or their shot placement, the only sensible decision would be to go for the latter.
Check out this article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021230032300/http://www.sportshooter.com/gear/tlg_9mmadvocacy.htm