First off, I apologize because I did not mean to imply your question was stupid. What I meant was just that we each have to live with the results of our actions and the results are that much more important when shooting against flesh. I chose my words poorly and hope I didn't offend you.
Ok, as to "not impressed", I meant that unless CNS or major bones were hit that prevented a target running away or continueing to fight, the rounds didn't have much effect of even slowing down the target much at all. Sometimes this meant them continueing to fight and requiring multiple hits to stop the attack, other times they would try and run away and we would pursue. The shortest chases were when the target was shot again and the shot was better placed to hit CNS or weight-bearing bones, wich resulted in immediate stops. Other times, we would pursue for over a mile before a capture, or in a handful of cases, not recovering the target. As to recovering the bullets, well, this is somewhat morbid to some people, but we attempted to recover bullets that passed through and with barricades and such creating a funnel effect along with a solid backstop to allow collection of spent rounds, we recovered quite a few. In the cases of the ones that did not pass through, we had doctors who insisted on trying to save lives even if they were enemy lives, so the ones that stayed in the target were also almost always recovered--unless the doctor thought he would endanger the life of his patient further by going after the projectile. As to hogs, same kind of performance except that the hogs tried to get away instead of attacking. Recovery was accomplished either during the cleaning/butchering process, or dug out of creek banks that acted as backstops when we would sit along the top of the bank and bait down by the creek bed and shoot at a downward angle allowing recovery.
Going by chronograph readings a few years ago, most of the rounds we tested (mostly handloads and a few factory) did get slight increases in performance in carbine barrels over what they did in handgun barrels. I no longer have the notes so please forgive me not being to give info for specific loads, but the handguns used were Glock 17s and Beretta 92s, and the carbines were MP5s and a Hipoint 995. The carbines usually got higher velocities, but not always, and the readings were usually 150-300fps higher for the same load fired from a carbine than a handgun. Not much, but enough to help expansion.
I'm glad to hear that you're an experienced tracker, as that skill is always a good one to have, especially since we're discussing handgun hunting here. I hope you don't need it, but it's a great advantage to you.
I have tested .22 side by side with 9mm, and as long as high quality ammo is used out of a good weapon, I have gotten more consistent results with .22 Match loads than I have with good quality defensive ammo. I know there's a different focus between the two, and that defensive ammo doesn't require the same level of accuracy as target specific ammo, but I personally disagree with the way that assessment, even though I have been told that by many people including a couple involved in manufacturing said defensive ammo. I personally would rather lose when shooting for a trophy than when shooting to live, but I'm picky like that. Now if we're talking bargain loads, bulk packs, etc, yes, they're serviceable, but not the best available. I hunt hogs with a .22LR handgun frequently, and always get pass throughs. Now I limit my shots to broadside, with impact being just behind the elbow, which results in the .22 HP going through both lungs and the heart, and exiting just behind the other elbow. I have done the same with 9mm, and get quicker kills and shorter tracking jobs with the .22. The .22 is always within 50yds, and usually less than 20yds. The 9mm was usually 20-75yds, with most being 50-60ish yds. It honestly surprised me a lot as I was expecting better performance with the 9mm, but I can't argue with what I see happen in front of me when I squeeze the trigger and then do the autopsy immediately after while cleaning. All I can figure is that the 9mm is at a marginal velocity for expansion with the common bullet designs available, while the .22 is made as soft as possible to allow expansion even in squirrel and rabbit, so it has the better expansion qualities, allowing it to kill out of proportion to what we would expect when looking at ballistic tables.
I don't know if you bowhunt, but if you do, you're very familiar with the tactics that will allow you to get close enough to get to within effective range. If you don't handload, and I should have thought of this before, but you could try one of the loads marketed for short barreled pistol use, as the bullets are designed to expand at lower velocity, which were not available, or at least not available to me, when I was using 9mms. Now that I thought of them, it's making me want to get a box, dust off my Glock, and find a hog. You're a bad influence, you know that?
