and yet when those four groups are overlaid into one to form an actual group, it’s 1.43”- not .7” or .8”.
View attachment 658036
You are making a valid point. However, if multiple 4 shot groups went from 1.7 to .7 then the 30 shot group likely went from 3.5-4" to 1.5-2". If he shot 1 group that was 1.7 and proclaimed it garbage and then proceeded to shrink it to multiple .7 groups (obviously with a 1.4" in there randomly somewhere after enough shots) then he did nothing.
You are 100% correct that he does not have a .7 moa weapon system. However, if he is comparing the average of multiple 4 shot groups of one load to the average of multiple 4 shot groups of the other, then he did have an improvement in precision from one load to the other.
The biggest problem with how most people do this is in testing and confirming. I am as guilty as anyone, but I also understand. If a load shoots 2 moa for 3 or 5 shots during load development, I am done with it, but it COULD be possible that you cound shoot 1000 shots into that group and it would never get any bigger. If I get a little tiny 5 shot group then I will test that load with a couple or 3 10 shot groups. If I get what I want I am happy. I know that a 30 shot group will likely be 1.5x the size of the 10 shot group average, and if I shoot 100 shots that 3 or 4 of those shots might land outside of a 30 shot group. I also understand that just because I shoot a 10 shot group that is 1 moa three times with a load that made a 5 shot group of .75 moa, that doesn't mean the 5 shot group that shot 1.5 moa might not do the same thing. The reality is that it might have, but I will never know. I could have wasted a little time and ammo when I could have just picked a load and gotten the same result.
Anecdotal evidence does support load development to some extent. I have just picked a load and ran it A LOT. Most of the time it works. There have been times when I can't hit what I want, so I shoot a few 10 shot groups and come to the realization that something is wrong. A lot of times it is something loose on the gun or a broken optic. A few times it has been the load, and after doing load development (with small sample sizes) it has become significantly easier to hit what I want to with the gun. I'm talking a few hundred rounds of fighting it versus the rest of the barrel with the load from load development. I have a decent system for load development to get me to the level of accuracy that I want...but I still hate doing it. It is a pain to develop a load for every barrel when you have 4 people shooting multiple calibers all the time. It's a lot easier to pick something and run, especially if you have history with the cartridge and chamber reamer.
One other thing that keeps coming up (not from Form) is chasing the lands. There is nothing more counter productive. Whoever named it should have named it chasing your tail. It doesn't matter if you are close to the lands or jumping. We got a prize table gun in 6 Dasher once with a tight freebore. We had to load short and touch the lands as a small part of the lands was still present all the way to the cartridge neck (zero freebore basically). The reamer supposedly has a .150" freebore. The gun shot under .5 moa and it was free. We just kept shooting it that way. It shot well for 2600 rounds with that same load. Most loads will shoot well for damn near the life of the barrel. Most cartridges have throat erosion of .003"-.010" per 100 rounds fired. Who wants to chase the lands knowing that? People will argue that, but normally they are not using the same bullet to measure, are using a method that isn't very accurate, or are measuring on a dirty barrel. It doesn't matter though because the jump is not critical, just the overall length.
In reality, the problem is with people's perception. They believe that small sample size load development is finding them THE BEST load for their gun. Some verify that it will be good enough for the task at hand by firing multiple groups and overlaying or larger shot number groups. Many of these people are still of the impression that they have "the best" load when any one of the small sample size groups that were within the large sample size could possibly be just as good. They just didn't look as good because of the random nature of 3 and 5 shot groups. The people that really should get dog-piled on are the ones that think their gun will hit the bolt on the target hanger at 1000 yards EVERY time because they shot a 3/4" 2 shot group at 1000 yards 1 time.
If I wasn't typing out of boredom, the tldr version is, everybody wants to be right. Most are, partially. The "your groups are too small" guys want to jump on the small sample guys. The small sample guys, if they are thorough, likely have some validity to their results. Their guns, however, are not 1/4" all day long "if I do my part" and their pet load is likely not THE BEST possible load for their rifle either.