The main reason is probably that IRL the .223 round is pretty weak and easily misses vital organs, the real benefit of it is that recoil is minimal and a rifle can be kept on target fairly easily for follow up shots. Most people use the .223 for coyotes and other small pests like groundhogs.
Well the .223 is also only slightly different from and functionally identical to the 5.56mm NATO round used by the US military as their main battle rifle round and the round chambered by their light squad-level weapons. Though in that case it could be argued the motivating factor is armor penetration through velocity and the much lighter ammo weight than superior kill potential. When only 1 of 10,000 or more fired rounds actually hits someone ammo weight is more important than 1-shot-kill potential.
As to the 10mm, on the basis of the Strassburg Experiment and other studies of terminal ballistics I still stand by the idea that it's a viable combat pistol round, certainly more viable than the aenemic 9mm para and perhaps even more than the .45 ACP (gasp! the heresy! I know).
And that goes double in a post-apocalyptic setting too, the reason is simply that of armor.
In real life what makes a round attractive for defense is often low overpenetration and maximum frangibility and force transfer. That's why you see defense rounds like the glaser, which in some cases couldn't penetrate a leather jacket. But in a post-apocalypse, everyone is carrying around something heavier than a T-shirt. Whether it's boiled leather or prewar impact plastic or metal, it seems most everyone is armored to some extend. That makes low-velocity rounds like a 320 m/sec .45 ACP far less attractive than a 390 m/sec 9mm para or a whopping 450 m/sec 10mm auto.
a 10mm actually probably could punch post-apocalyptic armor.
Oh and to the original question: that extra powder in a 9mm +P is worth a speed of about 430 m/sec, an increase in speed and thus momentum of around 10%.