hat is false, to say that it is irrelevant is just false. A handgun round does the same effect as hydrostatic shock, maybe if using high energy transfer rounds, you'll see that Newtonian physics exist.
a Hand gun round that penetrates 12 inches with 500ft*lbs is basically 500lbf exerted on the body, causing a massive TSC which damages or paralyzes nerves, causing someone to drop.
I choose ammo based on energy, penetration gets innocent people killed, its better to use physics and thinking, not false ideas
If you want to talk about Newtonian physics consider this. All that massive kinetic energy imparted to the projectile that you expect to do work, knock a person down, and cause massive neural trauma also does work on your pistol and you. In fact, it does somewhat more work on you because projectile velocity decreases with increasing distance from the muzzle, and kinetic energy decreases with the square of decrease in velocity. But does that .357 SIG projectile knock the shooter down and cause massive neural trauma to them?
And before you talk about "false ideas", do a few Google searches. Because, quite frankly, you are reinventing the false ideas of handgun effectiveness from years past.
First look up the kinetic energy theory of General Julian Hatcher. Hatcher's theory predicted that a .45 ACP FMJ bullet was TWICE as effective as a 9x19mm FMJ bullet. Then check out the energy deposit theory of the Dr. V.J.M. DeMaio. Neither of these discredited indices have any predictive value in determining relative handgun caliber effectiveness.
Finally, look into the Relative Incapacitation Index developed by the US Department of Justice at great expense to the US taxpayer. This masterpiece of misguided thinking which equated effectiveness with the volume of the "temporary wound cavity" in ballistic gelatin arrived at the conclusion that the 115gr 9mm Para was TWICE as effective as 230gr .45 ACP.
All of these models fail to have any predictive value because the only factors that are of significance when it comes to handgun wounding effectiveness in real life are the volume of the permanent cavity (or crush channel), which depends on the diameter of the expanded projectile and the depth of penetration, and more importantly, what that crush channel traverses (which depends upon shot placement). Parameters such as velocity and kinetic energy are only important insofar as they are sufficient to result in adequate expansion and penetration of the projectile. Volume of "temporary cavity" is meaningless in human tissue. Unlike ballistic gel, tissue has collagenous fibers that hold it together, and elastin fibers that render it elastic. Soft tissue temporarily displaced simply rebounds back into position without significant injury at the energies handgun projectiles are capable of achieving.
For any given depth of penetration and given identical shot placement, the larger projectile will be slightly more likely to impact a critical structure, and the permanent wound channel will be larger, resulting in greater blood loss. But unless the crush channel traverses a critical structure like part of the upper CNS, the heart, or a great vessel, immediate physiological incapacitation will not occur. Even with a hit to the heart or great vessels, incapacitation is very unlikely to be immediate. Multiple wounds which do not traverse critical structures may eventually result in sufficient blood loss to cause incapacitation through hypotension, but that takes some time.
If you are really interested in handgun wounding effectiveness read this post written by someone who knows what he is talking about:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4328-Basic-Wound-Ballistic-Terminal-Performance-Facts
Then read this article from the FBI:
http://www.pointshooting.com/1afbi1.htm
You can also look at Greg Ellifritz's study. Ellifritz collected all of the empirical data he could locate pertaining to handgun shootings over a 10 year period and recorded as much data as he could regarding factors he considered significant. His conclusion: really no difference he could find significant in the effectiveness of the common handgun calibers. He had to lump .357 SIG and .357 Magnum together because of the relatively small number of data points. But incredibly, when he looked at the data .380 Auto did about as well parameter for parameter as .357:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
You got a few to choose from.
