Slow day in the office, so maybe this will ruffle some feathers!
I'm not a statistician, but have done enough with statistics and worked with many statistician I feel confident saying they roll their eyes when we shoot 2, 3, 4, 5 shot groups and even when we shoot the same 5 shot group load 3-4 times over, at any distance, as the data set is too small to make meaningful conclusions.
With that said, I would be the last to argue with the results of the likes of Erik Cortina and Jack Neary and other accomplished shooters who know how to quickly develop loads. Results trump calculations.
I will argue with those that say something like, "larger data sets are not necessary", although how large is large would also be in the discussion. Are their any shooters who develop a load for a new rifle or new barrel, use 3 round groups, select the 3 round group that bug holes, say they got it, then put the rifle back and never shoot it again? If there are any, I would think not many and not the norm. Instead, we go out and shoot the snot out of that combination and when we do, we are in fact shooting a larger data set.
I still wonder how the author, Mr. Freel, of the article thought he was selecting a good sample of rifles for the test. For example the Remington 710 30-06. This is not to gig at the M710 I'm sure they are fine rifles, but surely Mr. Freel's 710 isn't in the precision rifle category. 3" groups with handloads I would consider marginal for hunting even larger game, although that may be close to typical results with that rifle, and component combination. My point being, I have never known a hunter, hunting with a 30-06 that will sit down at the bench and blast off a group of 30 rounds of a specific load. Typically what I have seen is 3-4 3 round groups, select the best, shoot another 3-7 to zero and go bag their deer. And that would be a lot of shooting for most. Next season, 1-3 rounds on a pie plate to confirm zero and go bag their deer! Maybe I haven't known that many shooter, but I've been shooting over 60 years and seen all kinds, but I could be wrong!
As for powder charge and seating depth isn't that important, from reading the article, the test procedures, the rifles, the loads and conclusion I understand why they are not important to Mr. Freel. But he sure does burn a lot of powder and bullets to not prove a point.
And finally, I sure would be interested in watching his bench shooting techniques during his testing!!
www.outdoorlife.com
