Original 147 grain 9mm from the ... I want to say early 80s is not at all comparable to modern versions, which have done well.

Lots of interesting comments here, some of which are iffy. Legal issues will vary from state to state, and have changed a lot since Ayoob started writing 40-ish years ago. Lawyers are somewhat less ignorant about use of force (although most are still far too ignorant), and have learned that under the Evidence rules, the bullet/handload stuff should not be admissible. That does not mean they won't try; that does not mean that in certain states they won't succeed. It is conduct worthy of CR11B (frivolous pleadings) sanctions and a bar complaint and discipline, and I would go after opposing counsel's conduct with vigor.

Modern ammo, developed and tested with the FBI protocols in mind (let's say in the last 5, maybe 10 years) is by far the best buy in ammo in terms of actual performance when you need it. In a typical service caliber (9X19; .40 S&W; .357 Sig; 45 ACP) for auto-pistols (where most of that work has been done) those are my first choice. Links to Doc Roberts' testing and list have been posted in many strings by myself and others over the last few years. Buy a bunch; make sure it is reliable in your pistol, and drive on. I tend to also use those loads in revolvers in those calibers (9X19 M940 and .45 ACP), and also .44 Special. In other standard revolver calibers (.38 Special and .41 Magnum), I have gone full reactionary and prefer standard SWC loads at moderate velocity. If recoil sensitive, or when carrying a J frame .38 as a sole weapon instead of a BUG, a best quality WC is a very good choice. (I carry Black Hills.) HOWEVER, one also needs to remember that all pistol rounds suck. A pistol is carried because you son't expect a problem. If you expect a problem, the first choice is to make arrangements to avoid it. (Don't go to stupid places and associate with stupid people.) If you can't avoid it and are not taking a long gun (preferably a rifle), you are not very smart.

Placement is your first problem - all the nifty performance in the world is not worth anything if you do not know and hit the right places. Adequate penetration is the next issue.

More legal issues: As I said above, most lawyers are ignorant about issues related to use of force. Most lawyers practice in little niches and outside that area are lost. I'm a full time government lawyer in an office that does both criminal prosecution and government civil. Most of my background is on the criminal side, assigned to the civil division, and my civil colleagues are often confused by some of my references. (I stay in touch with some criminal issues by my private writing and consulting, and I had to write some appeals this last year for the criminal folks.) It does not mean that they are not skillful in their areas, but they have little need to consider things outside of what they do. Our criminal colleagues are usually boggled by what we do - most of them don't even know what chapters of Washington law control the things we do. It's just too much to know. One of the areas in which we see some big variations across the country is in defenses to civil suits for use of force; many states including my own have provided substantial immunities. An answer valid for one state (or Canada) may be completely worthless for another.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.