I'm talking from a medical standpoint, as in, if of two otherwise identical people, one was hit with a musketball, and another stabbed with a musket, who would be more likely to survive? I'm not asking whether in a battle you were more likely to be killed by one or the other.
I remember hearing somewhere that bayonet wounds were generally deadlier, in part due to the triangular blade, and in other part due to how dirty they were (fouling and such), to the point where some doctors, during triage, would not even bother with bayonet wounded soldiers, and instead focus on those shot, as they had better chances of survival. Is there any truth to that statement?
In the 16th century, gunshot wounds were considered much more deadly than pike wounds or sword cuts, though the source I have for that centers on a time before bayonets were even invented. While pikes and swords left wounds that would often heal soon enough, gunshot wounds could often cause internal bleeding, induce blood poisoning, or shatter bones; Early Modern medicine could not treat these conditions effectively, so they posed a grave threat to the soldier who didn't die outright on the field. From have I've gathered, triangular bayonet wounds aren't actually exceptionally deadly; they can be stitched closed by a competent surgeon. Early Modern surgeons were remarkably capable, though; out of a sample of 41 veterans of the Spanish Army of Flanders, one had lost both his legs, and three both arms. Five lost a leg, while thirteen were missing a hand or arm. Eleven suffered gunshot wounds, and four had lost a limb to artillery fire. What's really remarkable is that, given the state of science and technology of the time, that they survived both the wound and the surgery necessary to save them.
Geoffrey Parker's The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road has a nice section of military medicine in the 16th century.