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. YOU don't have any way to quantify that "quite a number." Also, I'd expect that some of the single strike targets break on ground impact. We have no estimate of those. So, I can say for sure that picking up targets with pellet holes in 'em only tells us that not every target hit is scorable; nothing more, nothing less.
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". First, I don't agree that it is true. Second, if I hit 100 of 100 targets with one pellet each and all shed at least one visible chip, then I have a score of 100; we score 'em, we don't grade 'em. Jones's work stems from the seeming improbability of maintaining the required aiming accuracy to statistically hit 100/100 targets with 2 pellets or more, let alone 3, based on what he knows statistically of patterns. I've watched a few 25/25 with a critical eye for the tell-tale single pellet breaks and usually see a few. Some guys can smoke 25/25 and, I suppose, 100/100. But, I'd be willing bet that many/most 100/100's have few single pellet breaks.
Fails the logic test. Only if your logic ignores what you know exists and can't quantify by your protocol. And it fails the "let's go pick up unbroken targets with one or two holes" test as well. And you know, emphesis on "know," what from this exercise?? Only that not all pellet strikes result in a scorable target.
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, that is exactly the idea. 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). Do you have a criticism of his testing protocol? Kindly note that his is the only data, at least to my knowledge, that addresses this subject. There has been endless speculation on this subject, but no data. I don't expect perfection on the first pass at a subject this complex. Cut the guy some slack as he works his way through; he is a whale of a researcher and scientist!!!
Pardon the red text - it is simply the easiest way to carry on a detailed discussion in my estimation. BTW, I have great respect for Mr. Brown as very knowledgable.
OK, Larry. Come on back with your next round of arguments.
DDA
