Originally Posted by MacCool

The terminal ballistics of 9mm just don't hold up to .40 S&W, but IMHO those are mostly laboratory findings. I agree with you that many, many people blame the round when tactics and shot placement are the real culprits. The superiority of .40 gets a little thin in real-world shootings these days, but the basis of .40 S&W of course was the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. The FBI's basis for switching to the 10mm round (then later the .40 S&W when they saw the negatives of the 10mm blast and recoil) was the medical examiner's report. His rather exhaustive analysis made mention of the very remarkable accuracy of the FBI agents, especially under fire, but that the 9mm rounds just weren't having the incapacitating effect that they would have expected from the shot placement. The thing that makes me a little skeptical is that the first gunman took a shot to the chest right off the bat which collapsed his lung and hit his pulmonary artery. That wasn't a survivable wound, but most of the injuries and deaths he inflicted occurred after that wound. I doubt that a .40 cal would have made him die any faster.