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? I'm guessing you, Charles, have never taken a course in statistics - or else you weren't paying attention. A shotgun pattern, like a rifle shot/artillery shot/bomb drop is not a totally random event - each has a bunch of constraints. However, no two events will ever be exactly the same, provided you have the means to measure accurately enough. If you had enough pellets in a pattern, fired enough rifle bullets/artillery shells/dropped enough bombs, you would have exactly a Rayleigh (family Gausian, but more precisely descriptive for the subject at hand) distribution of impacts. Statistics has means for calculation the size of population needed for any given required precision. Dr. Jones has stated his required level of precision and has experimentally determined the level of repeatability of patterns. Since he has a high requirement for precision, he needs ten repetitions of a pattern for a given gun and load. This is much like rifle sight-in where you decide to use groups of three, five, or ten shots, depending on how precise the zero point is required to be and how variable the rifle and load turns out to be. Were I to shoot a pattern that was basically enclosed in a 30" circle and to fire a 500 shot group with a 2 MOA rifle at 1000 yards, the resulting pattern and group would be quite similar in terms of statistics.
Einstein commented that the only wrong w/ chemistry was that it was too difficult for chemists. Maybe theoretically, but not practically. Chemists have dramatically changed the materials landscape. I'm thinking that the same situation applies to shotgun ballistics and shotgun ballistic researchers. Nope, the statistics needed are well known. Some meaningful and interesting data could be maybe derived from thoughtful and diligent experimentation within rigidly defined parameters. It has been done and now exists in print. I've not seen that. I haven't even seen a reasonably well designed experiment. So, you haven't seen Dr. Jones's book, "Sporting Shotgun Perdormance - Measurement, Analysis, Optimisation."
Make believe science is just that - make believe. Except, in this case, this is the real deal; a major, well designed and executed scientific experiment with a published result for all to see. 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. Yes, you shoot ten patterns, digitally photo each, subject each to analysis and then combine all ten for an average result. Dr. Jones has done 250 gun - load combinations (2,500 patterns) and is able to draw limited statistically valid conclusions. Read the book - - - slowly and enough times to really understand what is presented for your learning.
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. Dr. Jones has already done it and with his own money. If, having read the book, you still think Jones's data is "junk," then we will need to start over onyour scientific education.
Will I see you at the Jan '12 LV show?
DDAover and out
