I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience represented by All of Your replies, (I'm the OP), and it basically proves to me that ANY statistical information is better (maybe ,only really useful,) with bigger statistics. Back to my simple logic question, before I burn out my barrel; I am trying to find a short-cut around discovering, then weeding-out, the likely culprit of aberration statistics in a small-section analysis of one gun, and one bullet, while fine-tuning, or re-trying a previously successful powder charge, as a way of finding more consistent "predictability" with less wasted experimentation.
I do not rely on low ES or SD as the pinnacle statistic for accurate shooting, but I do see it as a significant sign of accurate reloading. Actually, I too have occasionally gotten my best groups with a wider SD, and that's usually the load I went to the field with. I am assuming here(.., and here's the simple logic part,) that my reload "node" was wider with the wider SD, while still giving me the consistent P.O.I. accuracy I want, thereby offering me a greater range of flexibility and success in my imperfect reloading process.
Small matters, consistent groups across +/- 3% powder charge = Winner (for me)! Most of my really stellar groups have been hard to recreate consistently (but I have had some tantalizingly consistent ones). This is why I continue to struggle along wither ladder tests at my measly 150 yd range. They rule out the the totally useless powder/bullet/rifle combos that the reload manuals and internet statistics say should work great. Does quick-load do a better job at weeding out these aberrations?
Thanks again All!! I really appreciate You gun-nuts taking the time to consider this sort of question seriously. I can easily slip down the rabbit-hole of over-thinking, and it's reassuring to find a full house when I get down there!
