Since the thread has taken a bit of drift toward clay target breakage vs. pellet strikes I'll point out several relevant observations. Some have been discussed here before.
1) rotational or centrifugal force has a significant effect on target breakage. I happen to subscribe to the idea that a single pellet strike can cause a target break, not all the time, but frequently when the targets are good quality pitch & the machines in good repair.
2) older machines [clay target throwers] arms become worn smooth & do not impart the same RPM to the target as when new, making target breakage more difficult
3) some targets, in fact, do not break or separate until almost landing, that is why NSSA refs are instructed to not call a target 'lost' until it has hit the ground & also why they are taught to watch each target until it has landed. I've witnessed numbers of targets break [separate is the better term here] less than a foot off the ground. No, I've no idea how many pellets struck those targets, only that they were delayed 'breaks'.
4) some targets are harder than others, even when made from the same pitch. As a rule one can say that in cold air & damp that targets are going to be more difficult to break than dry ones & I am not speaking of targets stored outside, just realitive humdity & temperature conditions.
4a) I witnessed and shot at some 'bio' targets at an ATA shoot the summer before last in 100+ temps that could be moved a couple of feet on impact that did not break. Numbers of them were recovered, some had as many as seven (7) holes in them.
Lastly, w/a program like Dr. Jones' the basis for comparative measurements/pattern efficiency is made quite easy. Think of it like using an engine dyno., as long as you are using that single dyno for comparision you can tell if you are gaining or losing w/any modifications made & retested from your base line.
