As a reader - not a writer - I am aggravated by the disparity of grouping comparison sample sizes in various magazines.
I consider American Rifleman's average of three five-shot groups to be the gold standard. Not for load development but for comparing the accuracy of various guns.
When I read reviews of rifles that were only shot for three-shot groups I feel that there was no meaningful evaluation of the accuracy potential of that rifle. This is essentially shilling for the manufacturer.
When the writer chooses to only reveal the >best< group with each load... he has clearly told me the rifle is a POS.
There is a world of difference between shooting groups to evaluate a rifle versus developing a load.
When I hear the BS of "I shoot X-shot groups because I seldom need more than X shots to take game" I wonder what audience the writer thinks he is addressing, it certainly isn't me.
"The only shot that matters to me is the first shot out of a clean, cold barrel." Great, I love your one-shot groups. Ever get any large ones? I wish these blow-hards would shoot one shot per day for ten days on one target and tell me what happens. Really, it's about time to learn that.
"I excluded the widest shot in each group because [choose one]: unlike the rest of the world, there is weather where I shoot; my bench was not solid; I hurt my toe; I had a cup of coffee that morning; I can't shoot." Well, isn't that special? Actually, the writer is "special", undoubtedly a product of "social promotion", and the group sizes are meaningless.
Three-shot "accuracy guarantees"? Three-shot mediocrity guarantees!
Stop! I shouldn't post before I've had enough coffee!
