I would be very skeptical about such claims.  In order to have that kind of penetration, yet retain such wounding ability on soft tissue, you'd have to have a petty exotic projectile core.

 

First, the 9x19 NATO or 9mm Parabellum (or 9mm Luger) isn't all that great a round in the ballistics department.  In the standard 115 or 124 full metal jacket (FMJ) ball load, it tends to go through soft targets, unless bone is hit, and doesn't impart a lot of energy to the target.  (As one Israeli officer said of the 9mm when told the Americans were switching to it from the .45 ACP: "The 9mm is adequate for the job.  It seldom takes more than four hits to put the target down.")

 

Second, to be a good defense cartridge, the 9mm needs and efficient jacketed hollow point (JHP) that penetrates deeply enough and mushrooms efficiently to transfer the maximum energy to the surounding tissue.  This is a tall order for the 9mm, but the JHP projectiles are much more efficient than the military FMJ ball projectlies.

 

To get the kind of claimed performance -- penetrating a telephone pole -- you'd need to pack .308 Winchester ballistics into that 9mm FMJ and the physics aren't possible.  You'd need a solid ball projectile -- not a copper covered lead bullet -- and the powder charge is nowhere near that of a rifle's.  The other kind of claim -- a 5-inch by 5-inch wound -- would indicate an explosive bullet.  The 124 grain projectile is a pretty small package to cram such explosive energy into it.

 

According to the DRT website, the cartridges that they load have the most efficient powders and use a frangible bullet (that is, it breaks up) metal core.  The website is touting the bullet for massive wounding ability and safety from overpenetration.  This is quite the opposite from blasting through a telephone pole -- over penetration.

 

What the hype tells me is this particular round is similar to the Glaser SafetySlug used by Air Marshals -- designed not to overpenetrate soft tissue and do maximum damage.  Is it worth the cost?  I think you can get the job done just as efficiently (and cheaper) with more conventional ammunition.  I would like to see some side-by-side tests on ballistic gel with various 9mm defensive rounds to make an informed decision.  For now, I'm thinking there's a lot of marketing hype mixed into these claims. 

 

I also notice that DRT is only loading four calibers (three are rifle): (1) .300 Winchester Magnum in 175 and 200 grain bullets; (2) .308 Winchester in 150 and 175 grain bullets; (3) .223 Remington in 79 and 87 grain bullets; (4) 9mm Luger in 124 grain bullet.  The .223 Remington's heavy bullets will probably not feed through an AR-15 type rifle (length of the bullet would mean a compressed powder load to achieve the cartridge overall length that will feed from a magazine).  Also, the typical AR-15 barrel twist rate may not fully stabilize these relatively heavy bullets -- I know my 1-in-9 20-inch AR barrel does NOT like Sierra Match King 77 grain bullets -- the shot group is all over the map.

 

That's my $0.02 about the DRT ammo.  Without some real world testing, I'd question some of the claims based on simple physics.

any 9mm is a pos

The FMJ ball loading of the 9mm is pretty sorry, but this wasn't always the case.  When the original 9mm Parabellum round came on the scene around 1908, the German firm of DWM (Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfrabrk) designed it with a truncated (or steeply tapered, cone-shaped bullet, with a flat top).  The truncated bullet was accurate, but not stable.  When it hit its target, it flipped and yawed to dump all of its energy and create a pretty large wound cavity.

 

The Geneva and Hague Treaties made the DWM truncated bullet off-limits for military use and so the projectile was redesigned to the round nose FMJ in 115 or 124 grains that's with us to this very day.