Originally Posted By: Rocketman
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
[quote=Rocketman][quote=L. Brown
Don, if there are other methods (accurate ones, not just "eyeballing"), why wouldn't Dr. Jones apply them rather than postulating, based on pattern analysis, that there must be a lot of single pellet breaks in skeet?


Because he is interested in understanding the mechanism of pellets breaking targets. He is interested in the correlation between pattern analysis and scores. Analysis says there needs to be fair number of single pellet hits. Experience says (near) perfect scores are possible and targets can take single, even multiple, hits and not break. Therefore, baring what seems to be unreasonably small aiming error, there needs to be some % of single pellet breaks. The new crop of barrel mounted video cameras may allow objective analysis of aiming error, which until now has been unknowable.

Some people climb mountains just because they are there. Others want to know why as well as how. It is not at all unusual to have "why" help improve "how."

DDA


Don, it seems that this is where experience clashes with analysis. Since we know--from experience--that it's not unusual for single pellet hits to result in unbroken targets, that makes it harder for experienced skeet shooters to accept that single pellet breaks are very common. Seems a bit like postulating, base on physics (or whatever) that the curve ball is an optical illusion. I believe it was Dizzy Dean who suggested putting the individual who came up with the illusion theory behind a sheet of wood 60'6" away--and he'd beat him to death with illusions.