I think the comparison of military use and civilian self defense use of the .45 pistol is quite different. When it comes to to the "effectiveness" of the .45 in combat, in 1941 the U.S. Army R&D section had a pretty dim view of the .45 after WWI (which was an up close and personal war) when they published the following:Trilogy wrote:I believe that the popularity of the .45acp comes from the old military issued firearms. I talk to the guys at my local VFW hall regularly and .45 is still the preferred caliber for most vets. I prefer the combination of the ballistics and magazine capacity of he .40 s&w. On average, 92% of the power of the .45 but twice the magazine capacity. If the need to use my carry gun presents itself, nothing like a few extra rounds to make sure I don't have to reload.
“This weapon (the M1911) was primarily for defensive purposes since its effective range is limited to not more than 25 yards, except when handled by an expert. Its ineffectiveness was well proven by the amazingly small number of casualties it inflicted upon enemy troops during WWI as revealed by post-war inspection of German casualty lists and hospital records.”
Now again, I believe most civilian self defense encounters occur well within 25 yards, and the statement above might not apply. But the statement illustrates that pistols in military combat (at least in WWI) didn't inflict a whole lot of damage, regardless of caliber. If I were in combat again, my vote would be for a pistol that was the most accurate, with an acceptable caliber and capacity, not just caliber alone. The 1911s I carried in the military were usually old, worn, rattled, and far from the accuracy of modern 1911s. Your experience, and the vets at the VFW might be different though. Just MHO.