What we DO know, Rocketman--and what Dr. Jones didn't seem to know, from the parts of his book that I read--is that quite a number of single pellet strikes, and even some 2 pellet strikes, do NOT result in breaks. That being true, how does one explain the 100 straights shot at American skeet and 16 yard trap if a significant number of those breaks are supposed to be of the single pellet variety, according to his computer models? Sorry, but I can't get that to "compute". Fails the logic test. And it fails the "let's go pick up unbroken targets with one or two holes" test as well.
What Dr. Jones needs to identify is, in a particular clay target game (say, American 16 yard trap or American skeet) how often a single pellet strike results in a break vs a failure to break. Yes, he admits the obvious: not all single pellet strikes result in a break. But I think many of us here reached the same conclusion, which is that he believes it's much more likely to result in a break than we do. And of course there's the issue of targets struck by a single pellet that show no visible break, but do shatter when they hit the ground. Which means even more of them fail to break from a single pellet than we can demonstrate by picking up unbroken targets with one hole (or more).
