Frankly, as someone who carries the R9 more than any other firearm, I think this issue is downplayed far too much. Comments such as "it'll still hurt an awful lot up close" and "keyholing rounds cut wider wound channels" and so on divert attention from the extensive effort and science that has gone into refining various 9mm rounds to penetrate and expand in amounts that will produce the best effects. Keyholing (or even unstable rounds) will penetrate less as far as I know. All of the arguments about lesser rounds than 9mm that do not penetrate very well apply here: Questions such as "what if the round travels through a forearm, through a large torso standing sideways, through fat, through this or that...the round may do shallow damage but will not go deep enough to reach vital organs or to do cns damage" seem to apply to an unstable bullet that will not "drill in" and expand as the round is designed to do by manufacturers.
If I am wrong and research/tests have shown that these unstable rounds will indeed go deep enough, please let me know! I hope to be wrong (I am far more a kool aid drinker than a troll!). Its just that logically, given the very extensive R&D and testing efforts by ammunition manufacturers and the debate about penetration vs. expansion, etc. that is discussed extensively on boards like this one, it is hard to ignore the possible detrimental effects of unstable bullets. Does this not detract significantly from the effects of the 9mm round? What is the effect? Can we do gelatin tests to dispel this or, hopefully not, confirm the detrimental effects of an unstable round? Can we quantify the effects?
At the range, on my targets, there is usually evidence of 40% and more having instability using recommended ammo such as Gold Dot. However, the accuracy is excellent: The rounds arrive at POA very well. The gun fires reliably when clean and lubed. Otherwise, I would not carry it.
BTW, I have an early manufacture R9S on my hip right now.
