*Can of worms alert*
This subject could be debated until the democRATs gain the whitehouse again and still not be resolved.
I've carried many sidearms over the years and have to admit, I'll take a lighter weapon over a thinner, heavier one. The advantage of the 1911 frame is that it's thin and less likely to print, but what you gain in conceilability (how the hell do you spell that anywho?) you pick up in frame weight. Plus, I like shooting those big rounds.
Now I carry a .40 for a couple of reasons. 1) I shoot it better. 2) The sticker price for my Glock 23 was lower 3) I don't have to worry about the loud *whack* my Kimber made sideswiping door frames or tables anymore 4) I'm convinced the .40 has better stopping power with the proper round.
Plus...I don't have to worry about sweating on the Glock.
Realizing most of those reasons were cosmetic and had little to do with kinetic energy...my personal opinion is go with the .40 but, do so with a frame you can shoot well.
That says it right there.
Any needed improvements can be built upon using that basis.