Well yeah the shooter has to do their part but at the same time small sample sizes is a poor indication of performance imo.
Fps is not the only thing that can have an effect on accuracy. Seating, the bullet itself as in jacket uniformity, weight & length consistency, design, case, etc all play a role. Also looking at their test the rounds with the best ES and SD weren't the best performers which goes to my point above.
Example: fps, sd, es, avg, best
S&B 2782 fps 8.65 fps 27 fps 1.917″ 1.604″
Win 2777 fps 59.41 fps 171 fps 1.340″ .953″
59 sd and 171 es from 9 rounds is atrocious but it absolutely crushed the round with a sd of 8.6. It would have been interesting to see 3 10 round groups between both.
Your link above imo shows that 3 round groups are absolutely worthless for a real accuracy evaluation. When you have 3 round groups with your best group being 3-4x better than the "average" there is absolutely zero consistency in that. They didn't publish all 3 groups but for example with the round that had the best being .57 moa and overall average being 2.07moa that shows that this load produced an average of 2.85 moa for the other 2 groups.
If you have a mental block on shooting larger numbered groups shoot a bunch of 2-3 and then do an overlay.
3 wildly different 3 round groups is a poor example of actual performance. It's also too small of a sample size imo.
From the FGMM link I posted
"Three 10-shot groups of the 69 grain Gold Medal Match ammunition were fired in a row with the resulting extreme spreads:
0.67”
0.73”
0.67”
for a 10-shot group average extreme spread of 0.69”. The three 10-shot groups were over-layed on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 30-shot composite group. The mean radius for the 30-shot composite group was 0.24”.
The smallest 10-shot group . . .
The 30-shot composite group . . .
"
A real example of consistency and performance.