[SvilleKid]

Ron, If I remember past studies, a flintlock causes massive damage vs modern firearms because 1) it was a large caliber (often a .50 cal) projectile; 2) it is a round shot that packs more trauma force because it's not aerodynamic. This type of projectile also tears, which makes wounds much more difficult to simply sew up. That's why there were so many deaths and amputations in the Civil War. Thus, I'd have to assume just about ANY injury in the torso area would be devastating, just due to the nature of the projectile. An injury to any limb would destroy that limb through tissue damage and shattered bones, unless it was superficial, which wouldn't fit your definition of devastating. Thus you are left with a shot thru the torso. The effect of thru-shot that misses any vital organs would still be massive and dramatic, as it would result in heavy tissue damage, possible lead poisoning complications, heavy bleeding and shock which could be as deadly as the actual damage. The shock might not on-set immediately, and could give you the 30-45 minutes after being shot you are looking for. The loss of blood, possible lead poisoning and recovery (in olden days without blood transfusions) would be a lead-in to a medium to long recovery. So, long story short, you don't really need a organ shot to have the damage and time sequence you are looking for. The simple ballistics of a .50 cal ball thru any part of the torso would give you a believable (and well supported by historic events) devastating injury with some possible time before collapse (with assumptions of a strong heroine and a strong reason for a burst of adrenaline to keep her going until blood loss and shock took it's toll.