I have not read Mr Jones' work on this. However from what I am reading here I do not really see a discrepancy. I have not gathered he said "All" targets hit by a single pellet would be broken. Obviously as targets are found unbroken with one or more holes all are not broken. Also obviously a perfect score was not registered on that round.
As I understand he stated that having looked at a large number of patterns & considering the number of perfect scores posted some number of targets "Must" have been broken by a single pellet. Some targets remaining unbroken by a single pellet "Does Not" prove that none were. As yet I have seen no evidence that his synopsis is in fact in error.
Miller, as I recall his quote, it's more than just "some number". He indicated that single pellet breaks have to be quite frequent. And since we know that single pellet non-breaks are quite frequent, to me that seems to toss his theory into a cocked hat.
And, as pointed out above, it's not necessarily true--especially in gauges larger than the .410--that there will be ANY single pellet breaks involved in a 100 straight, with a good shot who's really on his game. I got the idea that Dr. Jones wasn't fully aware of how many unbroken targets result from single pellet strikes. And I'm not sure computer analysis will get you there. Picking up holed but unbroken targets on a range will.
