It is a mistake to use the methodology or techniques of in print periodicals to determine accuracy measurement. In print periodicals only write articles so you will look at the ads. The periodical sells you a subscription that barely, if even, pays the postage, their profits come from advertisers. (a business model that has been inplace since the Ladies Home Journal of the 1880's) So what you read, is an infomercial, designed to prick you to run to the local gun store and buy, buy, buy. You will never read anything negative on any current production firearms.
As D.Pris said here, the purpose of articles is to give the reader "a taste". One of the techniques is using low shot counts, such as three shot groups, or, the current in print gold standard, five shot groups, as measures of accuracy. Readers assume in print writers are experts, honestly evaluating the article under test, and nothing could be further from the truth. The in print writer is given about $400 (per D.Pris) per article and he has an economic incentive not to spend too much ammunition or time evaluating the latest boom stick. Plus, you are not going to read about the weapon being a blunderbuss. It won't go in print, or the test will be altered to make the weapon look good. No article goes into print without three or more levels of management reviews. In terms of making turkeys look like eagles, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of articles on 45 LC Colt SAA's which have 0458" chamber mouths. Apparently all 45 LC Colts have 0.458" chamber mouths since the second generation issue, but when did you ever read an article about the things shooting 5 to 6 inch groups at 25 yards with anything but hollow base bullets? If there were "accuracy" tests, it was with the only ammunition that would shoot acceptably. It is as Noam Chomsky said "Advertising is designed to create ill informed consumers who make irrational decisions".
It takes a lot of ammunition down range to really have confidence in the true accuracy of a load. And the true reliability. Loads in the 308 Win and 30-06 that were tried and true across the course loads turned out to be, great. However, developing new loads, almost all that were accurate stayed accurate, but very often, they were too high pressure, which only revealed itself with continued use.
If you want to know how good your load is, take the rifle to a mid range match and see what your score is after 60 rounds. Then, shoot it in a couple of more matches. Eventually you will abandon the load for "better". Then a couple of years of competition later, as your marksmanship improves, try the old load, and you will find, it was actually pretty good: It was you who were awful.
I did ask the second place shooter at the Smallbore prone Nationals how many rounds it took before he had confidence in a lot of 22lr match, and he said about a brick (500 rounds). I can attest to making early decisions about the quality of match 22lr, both good and bad, only to find, a brick or two later that my initial estimate was 180 degrees wrong.
As D.Pris said here, the purpose of articles is to give the reader "a taste". One of the techniques is using low shot counts, such as three shot groups, or, the current in print gold standard, five shot groups, as measures of accuracy. Readers assume in print writers are experts, honestly evaluating the article under test, and nothing could be further from the truth. The in print writer is given about $400 (per D.Pris) per article and he has an economic incentive not to spend too much ammunition or time evaluating the latest boom stick. Plus, you are not going to read about the weapon being a blunderbuss. It won't go in print, or the test will be altered to make the weapon look good. No article goes into print without three or more levels of management reviews. In terms of making turkeys look like eagles, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of articles on 45 LC Colt SAA's which have 0458" chamber mouths. Apparently all 45 LC Colts have 0.458" chamber mouths since the second generation issue, but when did you ever read an article about the things shooting 5 to 6 inch groups at 25 yards with anything but hollow base bullets? If there were "accuracy" tests, it was with the only ammunition that would shoot acceptably. It is as Noam Chomsky said "Advertising is designed to create ill informed consumers who make irrational decisions".
It takes a lot of ammunition down range to really have confidence in the true accuracy of a load. And the true reliability. Loads in the 308 Win and 30-06 that were tried and true across the course loads turned out to be, great. However, developing new loads, almost all that were accurate stayed accurate, but very often, they were too high pressure, which only revealed itself with continued use.
If you want to know how good your load is, take the rifle to a mid range match and see what your score is after 60 rounds. Then, shoot it in a couple of more matches. Eventually you will abandon the load for "better". Then a couple of years of competition later, as your marksmanship improves, try the old load, and you will find, it was actually pretty good: It was you who were awful.
I did ask the second place shooter at the Smallbore prone Nationals how many rounds it took before he had confidence in a lot of 22lr match, and he said about a brick (500 rounds). I can attest to making early decisions about the quality of match 22lr, both good and bad, only to find, a brick or two later that my initial estimate was 180 degrees wrong.
