I suspect that the first time someone gets shot, even at an angle, the fight will be over - either from them being hurt/dead, or running away scared. In either event, the immediate threat is stopped. Stats show the majority of instances where guns are used, shots aren't even fired - it is the mere presence of a gun that dissuades an attacker.
The 380 I will carry everyday is better than the .45 I leave at home most days - or so the saying goes.
This is where I am too. There is a lot of data that shows the 380 to be adequate. As many here know, I am very concerned with over-penetration of the shots that miss. Of course, some will smugly say something like "well, you should practice more so you don't miss." Some here are quite rude about it. However, that is what is called a false dichotomy. Here is a classic Example from another thread:
But I would much rather have a 9mm I am proficient with than a lesser caliber I am less proficient with.
It is an example of a false dichotomy because it ignores the third possibility, to practice and become proficient with a 380. In that case, one may ask, why should you have any concern for shots that miss? The answer is simple, when multiple shots are fired under stress, some of them will likely miss. We can reduce that likelihood, and certainly the number that miss, through frequent practice. Which can be done with a 9x17 as well as a 9x19; but the reality is still there, there is a high probability that some will miss.
Some will present a hypothetical scenario like "well what if the attacker is hiding behind a car, you need to be able to shoot through all of the bodywork and the engine block. To that scenario I say, "He is hiding behind something; great, that would be a great time to leave." In a civilian environment we are not advancing under fire, we are retreating with the purpose of disengagement.
I am not saying any thing against your decision to stop carrying a 9x17. After all, if you conducted the experiment in the first place, no matter what the method, it shows that you were having doubts about the adequacy of the 9x17. Certainly, if you lack faith in the efficacy of a pistol you are carrying for self defense, all other things being equal, then it is time for a change. However, decades of use show that both are adequate.
I currently carry a Kimber Micro 380. I practice with it quite a bit. Yes, it is possible to practice with a 9x17. No, I haven't taken any classes with it yet. That has more to do with my being too far from training facilities. So, yes, the last formal training was California POST, when I did that I was using a Standard 1911 in 45. However, many years have passed since then. (wait, stop, I used my Colt 380 Government model During training from the agency that issued my California CCW. . . the 380 Govt is very similar to the Kimber. . . almost forgot about that. That was before I went to KSA). I do use an electronic training Device (Mantis) and they have some very good training drills worked into the software.
I will admit, these 9x17 vs. 9x19 discussions, and there have been several recently, have had me reconsidering my resolve to stay with 9x17. For my next purchase I was really weighing between the Compact Browning 1911-380 and the Springfield EMP or Colt Defender (with the EMP coming out ahead). It will be a few months as I only make a single gun purchase per semester (this semester was a CZ 455 American). There is no magic to "one per semester" it is just where I have drawn my line.
All of this "9x19 is grossly superior" had me on the edge on the EMP. However, I see my self still leaning toward the 1911-380. Yes, I know there are platforms other than the 1911. This is a very long winded way of saying that I don't feel under-gunned with a 9x17; but, at the same time, I can understand a person coming to a different conclusion.
