Ah! I see, you want a rematch on the girlie
attitude again huh! 
Anyway its true, about suspects not going down after being shot by
a full clip of 9mm at a distance of 15 to 25 feet. And there are
alot of documented cases with regards to the matter. And 1 of the
most famous case is the shooting of an IRA terrorist by the SAS in
Gibraltar - March 1988. Which is why I prefer .40 to .45 ammos.
Now technical views on why 10mm is worst then 9mm. As I mentioned
earlier, 10mm is very much like .22 cal but the damge effects are
different. For .22 cal, the bullet ricochets within the body of the
target causing internal bleeding & damages that is usually
beyond repair. The 10mm ammo used by law enforcers are soft heads.
Meaning that, once it penetrate the target's body, it loose power
to even ricochet. Instead, it depends on the fragmentation of the
bullet to cause damge to the target but because the bullet already
looses it momentum power upon entry of the target's body, the
likely hood of the bullet fragmenting is not reliable. This is
especially if the target has alot of body fats. 
9mm ammo tends to over penetrate the body which results in the
intended target to still remain on his 2 feet. However, the damage
effects of 9mm is greater in the fact that the target's body have
an entry wound & an exit wound. And I know for sure that if you
shoot a target in the shoulder, he is not likely to be able to make
use of that arm for the duration of the fire fight.
So now you might want to counter by saying if 10mm is that bad why
the hack is the Feds using it? The answer is that the Feds want
their targets alive for prosecution inorder for them to show their
positive results in the press. But cops need ammo that not only
enable them to protect the public but also for themselves to
survive the fire fight. 
