Don, if he's still promoting the idea that there are a lot of single pellet breaks at skeet, I think a lot of people would question the statistical reliability of whatever data supports it.
Larry, it is unreasonable to try to impeach the patterning data based on the extension of it to performance prediction. The main body of his work tells you how a pattern "IS," and how various of the factors affect that "IS." His data is reliable enough that anyone repeating his work will arrive at similar conclusions. His data is extensive enough that most of the "old shooter's tales" are explored.
Extending pattern "IS" to performance in terms of broken clay or dead bird is very difficult. For me, his work is by far and away the best to date. Perhaps some day we will have a standard definition of what it takes to be some % sure of what is required to break a clay.
DDA
The problem, Don, is that Dr. Jones himself attempts to extend pattern "IS" to performance on clays, in specific reference to single pellet breaks at skeet. Which tells me that he needed to spend more time strolling around on skeet fields, collecting unbroken targets with one or more pellet strikes, in order to either confirm or question his theory.
Anyone who has done that quickly learns that there are a lot of skeet targets that survive a single pellet strike; sometimes even two strikes.
