Thanks. Also, your exact example is probably the main relevant reason, besides increased blood loss, of why larger calibers can be better (Ex. Doctor telling a patient a .380 bullet was just 0.5 inches away from your heart). A larger caliber could potentially give that little extra expansion for a completely different outcome. Also the same for penetration, a bullet could have penetrated 1 inch less than needed to hit a vital, for example.
My thing is tho, this comes down to shot placement, and "effective" vs "more effective". Yes, a .40 JHP to both lungs would be very effective, more effective than a .380 FMJ, but my thing is would .380 to both lungs still not be effective? .40 can do more damage than 9, but 9 is still enough. 9 can do more than .380, but .380 is still enough. My main concern would be, is there a point of "This caliber most often doesn't work". I'm ok with a larger caliber expanding more as long as my current caliber is still effective, ya' know? I'm ok with 9mm being more effective than .380, as long as .380 is still effective.
Like what's the bare minimum caliber, there wouldn't be a caliber wars if all calibers worked the vast majority of the time, right? Like are there statistics of like "Ok, anything below X caliber and success rate severely drops"?