Interesting graphic. Too bad you stirred the hornet's nest and and drew out all the negatrons living on here. Some people can only be negative. And don't worry too much about all the Newton quotes on here, very few people have actually read his Principia anyway.
As far as temporary wounds, who knows? I guess it sort of matters what gets compressed. A collapsed lung could be a result, or nerve damage. When the one fellow on here said it doesn't do permanent damage, so what? With a handgun in a self defense scenario, the object is to end the fight, not to kill or put the bad guy in a wheelchair for life. So if temporary cavity does anything, anything at all, then all the better.
But what I noticed is that the bigger temporary cavities are associated with fast moving rounds. Rifle rounds. Fast handgun rounds. Slow 12ga. slugs have almost no temporary cavity (but we all know how effective it is). Now what I noticed in the pictures is that the 125gr. .357 has a huge temporary cavity. The 125gr. bullet is known as an almost magical round for defense when fired from a 4"+ barrel at full magnum strenght. But the bullet is no different than the 9mm, really.
So it must be velocity. Fine. But both rounds upon impact make a crush wound, and say that both bullets expand to the same diameter, then by virtue of what crush wounds and permanent wound channels are, we can agree that the wound delivered by the 9mm and the 125gr. .357 are the same, given similar paths and penetration.
Then the extra wounding ability of the 125gr. must be from velocity, and that is not that wound displayed as a temporary cavity? And even though this a temporary cavity, who is to say that some of that shock does indeed cause permanent damage? If you've seen a rifle wound vs. a pistol wound you know what I'm talking about. The rifle tears up the insides, it can split organs in half near the wound channel, and interestingly, along the temporary cavity.
Therefore, I have to assume that velocity is responsible for both the temporary cavity and the degree of permanent damage done along that cavity.
I think a lot of people may be overlooking something significant in the simplicity of these terms as well. "Temporary wound cavity" means that there was cavity created by the impact of a high velocity round that stretched the cavity and it closed back in due to pressure. It doesn't say anything at all, one way or the other, about the possibility of permanent wounds along the temporary cavity.
You know, a lot people will cite some bad work by a few people that wrote some academic looking papers on hydrostatic shock (the do indeed look academic, but that is abou it --the actual work done is not scientific at all). But I'm going to leave it at this and keep it simple: when you shoot a plastic jug full of water with a high velocity 10mm round, it blows it apart and splits it and just shreds it. That plastic is pretty tough, and we are made up of 70% water. I can only imagine what kind of damage that soft organs are receiving, but anything in there hit with a shock powerful enough to shred a milk jug is liable to be damaged to some extent, either temporary or permanent, either visible or not visible.
Just something to keep in mind. Don't bother attacking my opinion or asking me any questions on here, because I'm moving on. I just wanted to provide a thought other than a negative one.