The part of this that I object to is assigning some "scientific" tag to what is not. Averaging random events produces only a range of response that any one event may fall into. So he used ten as an average? How did he arrive at that # as a significant point of finality?
Einstein commented that the only wrong w/ chemistry was that it was too difficult for chemists. I'm thinking that the same situation applies to shotgun ballistics and shotgun ballistic researchers. Some meaningful and interesting data could be maybe derived from thoughtful and diligent experimentation within rigidly defined parameters. I've not seen that. I haven't even seen a reasonably well designed experiment.
Make believe science is just that - make believe. You can extrapolate random data in any way you like and you still get nothing more than that is known already - if you want to know how a specific gun is going to pattern w/ a specific load at a specific distance (after you've made the standard guess from the bbl stamp) you take it out and shoot it.
have a day
Dr.WtS
BTW if anyone has a pile of money available to fund a proper initial gathering of data I can design/conduct an experiment that will be rigorous enough to produce meaningful empirical data. It's really not that difficult, it just can't be done quick and easy on a pennies budget. Of course that would mean someone really GAF about it instead of just gasing on about junk data.
over and out
