Well, that's easy! Those 160's going 1250fps would be the choice for most. I imagine they would damage a lot of meat (thinking like Hannibal here for just a moment). I prefer something like the 255's, because they should do a pretty fair imitation of a 45LC round (20% higher Hatcher Number than the 160, BTW).
I believe that people who shoot a lot of people say the 160 is EXTREMELY efficient. The 255 would require a bit more talent (aka PRACTICE) to deliver the goods.
People who do a lot of killing think that large caliber and high velocity add up to massive shock.
Tex Grebner walked away more embarrassed than hurt from shooting himself with what I assume was 230gr hardball moving at around 800fps. Seeing that made me wonder about the supposed stopping power of a non-critical hit with 45acp.
The Army tests done in 1904 came to these conclusions, which still hold, as far as I know (and support my belief in the biggest, heaviest bullet):
Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.
At handgun velocities there is little difference in the effect of different bullet materials (lead or jacketed) when traversing flesh. However, lead bullets will inflict more damage when they strike bone.
In flesh there appears to be little difference between a sharp pointed or round nosed bullet. On the other hand, a flat or blunt point does substantially more damage to blood vessels and bone and has less tendency to be deflected by bone or cartilage.
The weight of the bullet may be critical, it is to be noted that the most effective bullets were not only of large caliber, but also the heaviest weight.
The diameter or caliber of the bullet is important because at handgun velocities expansion of soft point or other expanding bullets is not reliable. The larger diameter bullets simply destroy more tissue and blood vessels because they affect a larger cross sectional area and attack it with more weight.