Nice series of posts. Your conclusion that rifle, and shooter, accuracy should be based on solid data is certainly valid and well taken. The lesson, and perhaps it's preaching to the choir, is the occasional cloverleaf at 100 yards doesn't mean you're good to 400. More data is required. That said, I'm still gonna brag on the occasional good group.
FWIW, you've inspired my inner statistical weanie so over the next month or so, I might do some standard deviation work on some of my groups.
