I agree with you as I already prefaced in my previous post that there are reloading variables and certain combinations of different components can produce differing outcome; specific to this thread discussion, neck tension and bullet setback. So my test results are not absolute but one particular data set to use as reference.
As to my approach to myth busting focusing on single variable to test (Whenever practical), it's the result of THR peanut gallery challenge of measurable/repeatable data with large enough sample size posed by likes of
@Bart B. and
@jmorris and others to which I agreed and changed my testing methodology and increased sample size.
1. So for
neck tension myth busting related to headstamp brass, measurable bullet setback was isolated to better duplicate slide cycling and breech wall bottom stripping round from the magazine then wall face slamming bullet nose against the feed ramp to measure "real world" neck tension as manifested by bullet setback (Instead of static push on bullet nose against bench top) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...neck-tension-and-bullet-setback.830072/page-4
2. Another myth busting/confirming where variables were narrowed down to single factor of
headstamp (related to case wall thickness) and finished OAL variance loading on progressive press using the same RMR 115 gr FMJ where OAL variance amount was correlated to headstamp/case wall thickness -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...al-on-progressive-press.921633/#post-12684520
And when testing methodology and sample size concern was raised, I explained my methodology and sample sizing on this post -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...al-on-progressive-press.921633/#post-12685928
3. It used to be that once
powder measure settled flakes/granules in the hopper, 10 drops were "good enough" to gauge how consistent powder measures metered and I used the same method for C-H 502 micrometer powder measure metering test of various powders -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/powder-measure-reccomendations.863943/#post-11398909
But with higher resolution digital scales that read to additional decimal point for grains weight unit, I wanted to see if there were metering variance measurable past the tenth decimal point and conducted 50 drops using Creedmoor Sports TRX-925 scale repeating countless 50 drop runs (One heck of a set of sample size) all the while addressing "real world" issues to determine that newest manual powder measure metered 90% of drops within .04 gr of target -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ct-powder-measure.922834/page-3#post-12751870
4. Challenge to sample size didn't end with reloading variables as
@jmorris pointed out that
5 shot groups are simply subset of 10 shot groups, and 10 shot groups are subset of 50 shot groups, and so on. In agreement, after shooting 30,000 rounds of various 22LR ammunition, I increased my sample size to additional 10,000 rounds of 25+ brands/weights/lots of 22LR ammunition capturing every 5/10 shot group targets at 50/100 yards with targets fully documented in various break-in, accurizing and ammunition comparison threads -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...cheap-bulk-22lr-ammunition-comparison.908102/'
And what did I find?
I verified what
@jmorris posted that 5/10 shot groups are simply subset of 50 shot groups and composite of hundreds of shot groups reflected true average (Not once in a blue moon smallest group) to post factory 10/22 18.5" taper barrel (Cold hammer forged) with lightened trigger, free-floated barrel, CPC reworked squared/headspaced/pinned factory bolt and bedded rear receiver was capable of producing average 1/2"-3/4" 50 yard groups with CCI SV and 3/4"-1" groups with Aguila ammunition on a consistent basis -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/new-10-22-sporter.926386/page-2#post-12859103
Of course, these are just a small sample of what I do for THR in isolating various reloading/shooting variables to myth bust/confirm with measurable and repeatable data.
If you disagree with my findings that thinner case wall brass produce more bullet setback, you are more than welcome to conduct your own testing with different components as to how not to produce bullet setback (Well, actually I did that and illustrated thinner case wall brass with larger sized 115 gr FMJ/RN bullets .3555" and .356" produced less bullet setback so using 124 gr FMJ/RN bullets with longer bullet base that will seat down further where case wall thickness is greater will likely produce less/no bullet setback).
But your claim of counter challenge is not new as you have questioned what I have myth busted/confirmed several times in the past and when I asked you provide your own test data to back up your claim, none was posted in return.
So I ask you once again, if you are in disagreement (And you could be right, as I already agreed), feel free to conduct your own testing and post your measurements along with test methodology used.
Peace.