I think Greener tried to draw too many conclusions from too little data. O&T failed, IMO, to use available statistical methods to look at their data. They would have, IMO, been better served by statistically accurate data over a much narrower range of work. Counting pellet holes is really grunt work - this I do know. I also know that relying on one or two patterns to characterize a set of conditions is worthless except at the grossest level of detail. Five patterns averaged is risky - you really need ten. Also, you need true statistical analysis and that means the only practical approach is computer aided.
LB - it is a real shame that the easily provable part of Dr. Jones's program got mixed up with application. One step at a time - first, what do patterns really look like? Then, we can talk about what it takes to do which job - corridors of effectiveness. Initially, I agreed with you as I have counted stacks of recovered clays on numerous occasions. However, I'm now thinking that what we know is rate of failure to break the clay and not how often a single pellet actually does the job. Are you aware of any tests where a target is struck by a single pellet? Seems like that should have been done, but I sure don't have any data.
