M9 does not = 9mm FMJ ammo unless you're entering into battle under the regulations of a NATO-sanctioned military force. I own an M9 (not a 92), and I don't plan on running FMJ in it other than to target practice. I'm of the opinion that NATO could revise the crappy Hague Conventions that require stupid "ball" ammo anyways (its not like any of the contractors or non-NATO alliance nations are following that convention).
My whole point is that when you move into self-defense rounds, the ballistic difference between .45 and 9mm is not nearly what the difference between the FMJ versions (not that 9mm is somehow better). That's not wildcat rounds or hot loads for the purpose of winning an argument (most of the 9mm self-defense rounds I've seen on the shelf in any gun store are at least +P - its a common load for all the major SD ammo makers). That to me is apples to apples in a "fighting pistol" as far as I'm concerned (self-defense or use by LEOs - granted, it is a military pistol as well, but I'm not in a military battle with it and I presume that a lot of folks typing in this thread aren't either).
No one said that shot-placement makes caliber irrelevant either - the difference between 9mm and .45 is negligible, but in my opinion, there is a "too little" and "too much" in the way of size/speed.
My personal opinion is that 9mm is on the low-side of acceptable size/speed (the +P+ rounds get it up to pretty acceptable speeds), and that .380 is about the low-end limit (I'm not a fan of .32ACP based on some of the results I've seen with subcompact guns in that caliber). I'd say that .45acp is around the top-end limit as I've seen the recoil, capacity, weight and size limitations of larger calibers and I wouldn't personally use anything larger than a .45acp (if you do, then great - not knocking anyone's caliber).
I'll say this - shot-placement is key, but as has been said in this thread already: under duress, you don't always have the proper shot-placement. Rather than relying on a larger caliber to "do more damage" when I miss the vital areas (i.e. center of mass), I'd rather have more capacity just in case I need it instead.
And if it doesn't stop them, I guess I'm comfortable with shooting them a few more times until it does. Just remember, when the Judge asks you "why did you shoot that attacker 5 times" you answer "because 4 wouldn't have been enough and 6 would have been too many".
I get that Beretta had some metallurgy problems and failing slides, but I was under the impression that those existed with the 92SB (or 92S-1) and were fixed by the larger hammer-pin design of the 92F model (which I assumed the OP was talking about) in 1989.
And if the comment about the magazines being made by the lowest bidder has to do with failures, Airtronic Services got the low-bid to deliver mags and over 900,000 were delivered with no failures (the failures in 03/04 were due to that crappy phosphate finish that the .gov required Checkmate to put on the mags for corrosion resistance) so the failures are actually not a result of the lowest-bidder thing (and yeah, I get the joke, I was in the military long enough to fully appreciate that line).
