1. I don't think that article is correct about that.
2. .22LR has an upper velocity of almost 1700fps whereas 9mm tops out at about 1400fps. Because of the matrix construction used in most ballistic armor, the .22 actually has a better chance at penetration than the 9mm in some cases because if it's small surface area and relatively high velocity.
You should see what 7.62x25 can do! We tested a ballistic glass panel with 7.62x51 NATO, 8mm Mauser, and several handgun calibers and nothing other than 5.7mm and 7.62x25 would make it more than halfway through. 5.7mm did well with probably 60% penetration whereas the 7.62x25 went through like BUTTER.
Hmmm... you have a good point about the velocity of the .22, but that's out of a rifle, not a pistol.
I guess what I was getting at was, .22 isn't the typical round you would be facing on the street. Particularly from a .22 rifle. 9mm, .40, .38, .357, .45 are more likely to be the bad guy's choice, so my thought was they should test using typical handgun rounds (calibers most likely to be on the other end, factory loads, wadcutters, ball, etc) rather than a rifle round.
Also, as you pointed out, 9mm is pretty close to that velocity, and that's from your typical 4 inch barrel pistol, not a long gun.
7.62x25 is a nasty mutha fucka for sure. Did you see what it did to a trauma plate in "Sons of Guns" ? The episode where they built an integrally suppressed AK? Evil.
disclaimer: I know very little about ballistics, so these are more just musings than an educated argument.