That’s a good argument in favor of 9 and .45. .40 has a very violent recoil.
I have a Springfield Armory 9mm, Glock 23 (.40) & a M1911. My Model 23 has the heaviest perceived recoil. But the thing I really dislike about it from the standpoint of target shooting is the heavy, long pull of it’s double-action trigger. It’s just more difficult to shoot accurately & takes more practice.
I think the Glock 22 with it’s longer grip might not feel as much recoil and be easier to control. I’m sure that Marine armourers would ‘lighten’ the triggers for their own use.
I have a Colt Delta Elite (10mm) which is the .40's big brother in the basic 1911A1 platform. I can assure you, even with full power loads (which come close the to .41 magnum revolver cartridge) perceived recoil is no more "violent' than a .45 ACP in the same pistol. For me, the perceived recoil is different, and it stands to reason given Newton's Third Law. The 10mm delivers a sharper, snappier recoil while the .45 comes in a slower, rolling wave, and again for me, it's actually easier to keep the 10 on target during rapid fire than it is with a .45 ACP.
My nightstand piece and range workhorse (the weapon I fire more than any other) is a CZ75B in .40, and the last adjective I would ever use to describe its recoil is, "violent." Having said that, it has a robust steel frame and excellent ergonomics (surprisingly so for an eastern bloc design, which admittedly borrowed heavily from the Browning P35) which both go far to dampening felt recoil. Of course in a plastic weapon with poor ergonomics, the .40's felt recoil will be substantially heavier.