[Sevens]

I agree with the many posts who say repeatedly and somewhat emphatically that the "extra" difference a .40 S&W may provide over the current top-tier 9mm loads is of very little consequence, if anything at all.

However, if we set the way back machine's dial to 1990, it is certainly true that the track record of the 9mm was quite spotty.

Back then, things were a little different.
We did not have NEARLY the bullet technology we have today.
We definitely did not have the propellant technology, either.

We also did not have nearly as many well done studies on handguns and their use in stopping people in the act of evil. We most certainly did not have nearly the level of training in 1990, and that goes for civilians even more than for LE, but it is true for both.

I firmly believe the gap between 9mm and .40 S&W was larger in 1990 than it is now. And you also have to wonder if .45 might not be quite as popular these days if the '94-'04 AWB didn't limit 9mm and .40cal handguns to 10-rounds. That certainly boosted the popularity of the .45 in this role.

There was a time in the late 80s/early 90s when my face would curl up at even the mention of the 9mm, and this was due to the fact that all of the "gun talk" there was in my world was gun magazines and the chatter I would hear in the skeet house, rifle range or over the pancake breakfast at the Sportsman's Club.

Some of the folks posting now that champion the current ability of the 9mm (and I'm with you) may not have lived through the era where anyone who knew ANYTHING believed that the 9mm was nothing more than a liability with a whole heap of ammo on board. It seemed to not only be a "bad stopper" but it almost seemed to reinforce REALLY bad shooting by not being near good enough, but by throwing a helluva lot more lead at the problem.

The 9mm that we know as capable today...
did not have that reputation for a long stretch there a couple decades back. And that era and those ideas SPAWNED the .40 S&W.