The data I have linked to is not "outdated" or "antiquated" unless you can provide better/newer/more complete data. Hypothesis, theories and speculations aside - that's how science works.
Sure it is. One just has to apply a little critical thinking, I'd also like to add incomplete as a description to said link. Ballistic gel doesn't represent the body accurately as a whole. Naturally, it's a start, but definitely not complete in terms of addressing variables. Fackler was always big proponent of crush areas being the significant wounding factor of handguns, he never defined that critical period pertaining to temporary cavity as to where it translates to anything significant in wounding potential. Why is that? Is it linear? or why does that critical period create a threshold in which tissue is damaged?