The math does not bear out, as it turns out.
But you kinda skipped over 19 pages of posts so it's understandable.
Assuming the large end of projectiles, a .69 caliber musketball, traveling at 300m/s which is the average muzzle velocity of a smooth bore musket, is gonna have 1,440J of kinetic energy, but only around 9.7kg·m/s of momentum to impart on the human body.
Which is why bullets don't throw people backwards. Momentum is not at all the same thing as force, nor does it matter at all to the damage of a bullet, except that you might derive velocity from it, which can be a useful number.
While the temporary cavity of that ball at a blistering 414m/s carrying 2,793J and imparting 13.248 kg·m/s will be about 3 inches in diameter, the permanent cavity falls back down to 1.4 inches in diameter. Something with half the joules and 3/4 the momentum is going to do a commensurately smaller amount of damage. Sadly, the 414m/s is the only video evidence we have to go off of which also shows the temporary cavity.
We're back to the claim that flintlock pistols had half the velocity of the rifle, I see. I went back, after our last toss on this, and looked up where this entered the thread. The only provenance for this is that you said a friend messaged you and told you this fact. No source, no cite. It doesn't align with the actually sourced and cited data in the thread, which show a velocity of just below 400m/s, empirically tested. And, before the claim of "modern powder" shows up again, the flintlock muskets had about the same velocity you're claiming from whatever source you have, so modern powder cannot both replicate the muskets AND be the cause of supercharged pistols in the same study with the same methodology. I mean, they use half the charge in the pistol (they list all the pertinent data). So, no, half the velocity is a non-starter.
However, if we're looking at that 200 grain musket ball from the flintlock musket (which seems light, given the Brown Bess was over 500 grains), then the kinetic energy is 2,229 kgm^2/s^2 (I'm not sure where you get the above, are you using a different weight than 0.013kg? As I said, this looks very light, but I'm trying to stick to your numbers). To give a reference, the .44 Magnum pistol cited in your article has a
kinetic energy of 1147J at the muzzle. The flintlock pistol listed in
@Doug McCrae's article is 1071J. Seems we're absolutely in the danger zone with both!
Meanwhile the longsword traveling at a mere 21.4m/s will have only around 300J but impart 27.82kg·m/s of force, plus cutting with the draw... So... YMMV.
Also "Explode" is a terrible description of the compressive and tensile forces the organs and such will undergo in the temporary cavity. Your organs aren't watermelons.
Wrong units for force, and the force of the flintlock musket about is dramatically higher. The actual acceleration value isn't the same as the velocity, because it has to reach that velocity down an approx 1 meter barrel in about 4 milliseconds. Your previous calculations for bullet force are off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Acceleration is around 103,000 m/s^2, not 414. So it's not 0.013kg*414, it's 0.013kg*103,000, or 1,339N of force, in an area about 2/3 of an inch across (actually, this force will be transferred along the path -- it's not an inelastic collision so all the force isn't immediately applied).
Swords are nasty, but your evaluation of bullets is consistently very far off the mark.
I hope I've provided enough clear points, and addressed the previously cited counter-points, sufficiently well to avoid being accused of bad-faith and being blocked, again.