I ran across an thought provoking idea somewhere(honestly cannot remember) and I've been digging around without finding any discussion on it.
The "thought" was to develop rifle loads with 2 shot groups rather than they typical 3, 5, 10. I do not think the intention was to completely settle on a load based on 2 shots, but rather to rule out bad loads. Then go back to those loads and test more.
The main idea, and is hard for me to refute, is that two shots spread out are not going to get any closer with a third one, and two shots close in will not get any bigger with a third one.
I do see a little bit of unknowing based on this, but at the same time there is logic to it. It can be frowned on by those who advocate 3 shot groups, but I know people who frown on those, and even those who frown on 10 shot groups.
The point is not so much to get hung up on the groups but strictly on load development. I'm whole heartily one who says 10 shot groups(or more) tell the tale of what a rifle can do.
I've never done it myself, but I hear that ladder tests are performed with only one shot per charge weight. Then you find the node and fine tune from there. Seems to be very popular.
So why could you not do the same thing with 2 shot loads per charge weight at a closer distance?
Are there some major blaring errors, or is it just "tradition" that has the 3 shot load test?
The only thing I can figure out is that with three shots you can potentially rule out one shot as a "flier". Except in my mind, if that one shot is way out there, how do I know its a flier and not a true representation of the load?
To be clear, I'm not trying to push anything here, just looking for some discussion to see if I am not considering something that is very obvious. It just intrigued me when I read about it.
