Energy is a measurement. I suspect the question that the OP is trying to ask is: Do you believe energy correlates strongly with effectiveness of a handgun round, or is there a better predictive measure?
Energy is out of fashion right now along with fast-and-small bullets. For a long time, people engaged in some magical thinking about "energy dump" by itself being the primary incapacitation or killing mechanism of handgun rounds. The debunkers assembled empirical data suggesting that the primary method of forcible incapacitation is, instead, intersection of the wound channel with something immediately required for survival/aggression/action.
Many who are drawn to debunking and/or who crave a definitive and simple world-view went on to conclude that this is the ONLY meaningful mechanism of incapacitation. If one takes that view, then energy is important only to the extent that it predicts the dimensions of the wound channel. There are other calculations and experimentations that predict the wound channel better than energy, so energy is not viewed as being the most important number at the moment.
I have my suspicions that things are more complex, and that there are some shock/pressure/cavity incapacitation mechanisms that sometimes come into play. There are still a lot of "one shot stops" to explain where the CNS wasn't touched if a bullet is nothing more than a loud hole-punch.
Only a fool would take Wikipedia to be the gospel truth, but some of the controversy is laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
In the end, nobody yet KNOWS the truth of this matter. There are competing theories, each of which has some evidence. Keep an open but skeptical mind.
Energy is out of fashion right now along with fast-and-small bullets. For a long time, people engaged in some magical thinking about "energy dump" by itself being the primary incapacitation or killing mechanism of handgun rounds. The debunkers assembled empirical data suggesting that the primary method of forcible incapacitation is, instead, intersection of the wound channel with something immediately required for survival/aggression/action.
Many who are drawn to debunking and/or who crave a definitive and simple world-view went on to conclude that this is the ONLY meaningful mechanism of incapacitation. If one takes that view, then energy is important only to the extent that it predicts the dimensions of the wound channel. There are other calculations and experimentations that predict the wound channel better than energy, so energy is not viewed as being the most important number at the moment.
I have my suspicions that things are more complex, and that there are some shock/pressure/cavity incapacitation mechanisms that sometimes come into play. There are still a lot of "one shot stops" to explain where the CNS wasn't touched if a bullet is nothing more than a loud hole-punch.
Only a fool would take Wikipedia to be the gospel truth, but some of the controversy is laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
In the end, nobody yet KNOWS the truth of this matter. There are competing theories, each of which has some evidence. Keep an open but skeptical mind.