I find it interesting when posters start changing the "goal post" when presented with objective test results or facts that contradict their postings. They start saying things like .......they want or need 18" or some other depth of penetration....that round is an outlier....etc. Lol...good for you!
The LuckyGunner lab results were based upon using the same testing methods of each caliber and when using various manufactured ammo. When it came to depth/penetration standards, they used the FBI published standard. Obviously, they measured expansion and velocity. I believe the whole purpose of their evaluations was to guide the reader to objective measurements so the reader can apply that information to their weapon and situation.
It is common specifically to carry "one particular brand, design, and weight of ammo".....
PH believes his meat test to be the definitive test. Again, his meat test used similar rounds. Using his word, the .40 "shattered" the ribs in the front and went through the ribs in the back. In my mind, the video with the .40 really wasn't that all impressive.
In his .45 test, using his word, the ribs in the front were "pulverized" and the ribs in the back were shattered. In my mind, the .45 meat test visually destroyed the meat, watermelon, and both the front and back ribs so much more than the .40 meat test. And this was using similar rounds...180gr vs 185gr! Just imagine the damage with the larger Win Ranger-T 230gr round.
Weapons to me are just tools to accomplish a specific task. So, I am perfectly fine with buying a .45 ACP that shoots a particular round that is ballistically better than the .40.....