Mr. Eisenberg. Can you characterize those, or explain them in lay terms?
Mr. Simmons. Well, against a shorter target, the probability is still almost 0.7, which is a relatively high value. The effective-range increase is beginning to show, however, because at 270 feet the value of 0.4 tends to be small.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does 0.4 mean you have 4 chances in 10 of hitting?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Now, our assumption throughout all of this is that the actual target was probably not either a small—the small area, but tending to be a larger area, as indicated by the crosshairs in these targets which we placed at this point.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you have given us probabilities of hit with three variations of aiming error. You have selected these three variations in what manner, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. These were actually the three values which were demonstrated in the experiment.
Mr. Eisenberg. But each of those values is associated with one target?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. However, you have applied them to all three targets?