The testing method maybe flawed. I'd be apprehensive about drawing conclusions about a company that's been trading for years suppluing the best pellets around being in trouble on that just one test and what a friend said.
Cheap scales that only weigh to 0.1gn are not that great for discerning 0.1gn because they will likely use a rounding calculation for the conversion to grains... does anyone else think it's strange that there's a few 8.1, a chunk of 8.2.... and no 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 what so ever, not one?... and then a chunk of 8.6, a few 8.7 and 8.8...
I'd like to see the test done in grams, on something capable of more accuracy and precision than the bracket we're trying to differentiate by... and on another make of scales to rule out the likelyhood of rounding errors.
Otherwise we are drawing conclusions from possibly quite flawed data. It's very easy to blame pellets for bad shooting or another issue, and while there are gains to be had from finding a better performing batch, it has to be done in the best scientific way possible.
My 2014's are probably the best pellets I've had.
I've got tins going back to 2005... would anyone like me to weigh a 100 of each and publish the data to see what the trend is?
Then we can see if there's a volunteer to re-weigh them on another make.
BFTA/NSRA County Coach
CSFTA Chairman/BFTA Rep