Chrono data, with a Garmin Xero, these were done in December on a cool (50s F) drizzly day:

G9 9mm 124gr Woodsman from a USP Compact (3.58" barrel) = 1121.3 mean fps, SD = 11.9.

G9 45acp 165gr Wooodsman from a USP45 fs (4.41" barrel) = 1145.9 mean fps, SD = 22.8.

General comments: I like the 9mm load because 1) it's the only factory 124 gr non-lead load I'm aware of, most others are lighter; 2) there are in general few large meplat non-lead options in this caliber; and 3) it was accurate and hit close to point of aim through my pistol.

Not as sure about the 45 offering, because the velocity was well under the advertised number and the light/fast for caliber bullet perhaps not surprisingly hit several inches under POA at 25 yds. My USP has adjustable rear sights so yeah I could sight it in, but then every other load I use would be off. There are other non-lead options in 45 including Cutting Edge Solids at 200gr, so I'm not quite as sold on this G9 offering in the absence of more data.

I'm mildly concerned by inconsistent reporting, for example the G9 website says 1200 fps for 9mm, the box also says 1200 fps, my actual was slightly under that but about what would be expected from a shorter barrel. So OK for 9mm. But the website says 1230 fps for 45acp, the box says 1250 fps, and actual chrono data from a full size pistol is about 100 fps less than advertised.

I downloaded and read the gel testing pdf from the website and didn't find it particularly helpful. No info on the credibility of the outside testing firm, have not heard of them which does not necessarily mean anything. Again though there are a couple of inconsistencies between the penetration numbers on the G9 website and the outside report results. These strike me as sloppy marketing QA/QC rather than intentional misleading but any lack of rigor always makes me wonder what else wasn't double checked.

So in summary I like the 9mm load, am undecided about the 45acp load.