Pretty concise, accurate article devoid of the usual John-Moses-Browning-Is-God chest thumping. I own examples of both breeds. Both are excellent pistols -- the Beretta is far easier to take down in the field, feeds virtually flawlessly, and the manual of arms is simpler for green recruits to handle safely. The 1911 is easier to shoot accurately (IMHO), but they seem to have an unusual tendency for ammo sensitivity in tighter-tolerance specimens, perhaps because of the lack of a real feed ramp and inadequately designed mags (I understand the loose-tolerance GI ones were very reliable with ball, though). And Marshall and Sarnow not withstanding, I'll take .45 ACP over 9mm for stopping power every time.
The 9mm choice was made for both capacity and NATO standardization reasons. U.S. doctrine has tended toward smaller caliber, more rounds for several decades, for good or ill.
I concur about the feed ramp. I've had trouble with Hydro-Shock hollow points. I stay with the ball ammo. Was thinking of polishing the ramp to see if that helps.
I understand the loose-tolerance GI ones were very reliable with ball, though...LOL!!! Hell, we used to shake them just to hear them rattle...but, they always fired when you wanted them to, and the bullet always went pretty close to where it was supposed to!-)