Sinclair Wrote:Klem, I have a question, what procedure would you use if time, resources, and opportunity to shoot are all in short supply? I am a hybrid shooter, the most consistent, long range, 1 MOA or better accuracy is my goal, not counting X's or bringing down Antelope on the far horizon.
Sinclair,
Mate, that is the $64,000 question which I don't have a definitive answer to.
I will say that I am a believer in paying attention to results on a target because that is the end goal. Whereas velocity is a mediating variable, and only one variable to achieving the end goal. I am also a believer in statistical distribution; that results can be plotted on a distribution graph to realise a Normal curve. This implies small sample sizes are less of a predictor of future performance than large sample sizes. But, how many shots are enough to be a reliable predictor of future performance?
I think the 10-step 10% workup is still sound because it is a safety check, plus also reveals the load/velocity relationship. I still prefer seeing results on a target because that is the end goal. Velocity is only one, and therefore a clumsy predictor of future results on a target. Results on a target is another future predictor and while no guarantee either, at least represents a combination of all the variables (including velocity) that cause bullets to go where they go.
If you want to save bullets and time you could fire only one round at the lower levels of the work-up but when you get closer to max fire a few more at a target to see how they group. We all prefer the best groups at the highest velocity so concentrating closer to max makes sense. Say 20 rds, single shots for the first five increments and three round groups for the last five increments. Then depending on what you see on the target take it from there. If all groups are tight it's an easy decision. If not, then you can load up some more to check or settle on the best at the time and hope it's repeatable.