I wonder if statistically for rimfire, shooting from the bench and using paper targets, a better measure of marksmanship, the rifle's precision or consistency, and the ammo quality, is shooting for score?
When wind is added, and the sample size is small, it becomes impossible to determine the differences between poor wind calls and the fliers inherent in that lot of ammo. As the sample size increases (using the same ammo lot), then I think these differences between shooter's wind reading skills can be teased out of the data, but that sample size needs to be quite large.
Theoretically a competitor could have shot larger groups in aggregate, but beat that score.
So something to consider for rimfire on the statistics around target score vs group size.
Shooting for score is the preferred method of determining .22LR shooting performance, albeit with an important caveat.
It's used exclusively in serious .22LR BR competition. These are invariably shot at 50 yards, and when shot outdoors more skill is required for reading wind conditions -- when to pull the trigger and when not to -- than is needed for setting up the rig, tuning, and aiming. With the vast majority of serious rimfire BR shooters, it's the one who most correctly accounts for conditions who's often the shooter who's hard to beat as everyone is using top notch equipment and ammo. In serious competition, .22 BR shooters are using at least four flags plus windicators -- all for shooting at 50 yards.
The caveat is that, in .22LR shooting, as distance increases it's more and more difficult to account for wind. Even slight movement of air between shooter and target can affect a shot, and this minimal air movement can be detected
only with wind flags or similar indicators. It's not enough to look at leaf movement on trees or to judge by feel. Without skillful use a good number of wind flags, it's impossible to account for wind, especially at longer distances.
When shooting at 100 yards with .22LR, without sufficient wind flags and the requisite ability to read them effectively (and what a demanding task that would be) the only alternative is to shoot when there is no wind -- at least no wind detectable by the use of some wind flags. In other words, the alternative is to shoot when wind flags confirm there is an absence of air movement between shooter and target.
Below is a chart showing the results of six different lots of ammo shot this season with the same rifle. Each set of ten ten-shot groups was shot at a different time. All were shot when wind flags indicated relatively calm conditions, but not necessarily equally calm. The results obviously show some sets of ten-shot groups were shot in conditions in which wind movement was obviously not the same. Of course it's possible that some group sizes were the result of shooter error.
While four of the six lots tested had a ten group average under 1" and only two did not, I don't think CX 097 could achieve a sub-1" ten group average with my rifle under any outdoor conditions.
To continue with air movement, it would be much more straightforward to shoot at a range where wind was constant in direction and speed. Unfortunately that doesn't happen, especiallly at smaller ranges in which air movement changes direction and speed often. This is characteristic of the 100 yard maximum range at which I shoot. I use three flags at 100 yards, and when conditions are best there is no motion detectable in the flags. When there is air movement, sometimes only one flag shows it, sometimes two of three, sometimes all three. To make things more challenging, sometimes one flag can be limp while the other two show air movement in opposite directions.
Shooting .22LR outdoors at 100 yards for best accuracy performance is not easy. When you see group location move or migrate between bulls, it can be the result of changing air movements, which can be hard to detect, or the result of moving the rifle/rest to a new POA. When this happens I'm often unsure of which is the cause. As a result, my priority is seeing how well thee ammo groups at 100 yards, rather than trying to center the group on the bull.
On top of that, when shooting different lots of ammo, as I have been doing this season, it can take a while to determine whether the rifle and ammo are zeroed to the POA. I usually don't bother as I'm not shooting for score on the targets used in the challenge and on this thread. My concern is more with precision when comparing ammo performance.
There is a better method for assessing performance than simply measuring the group size. It is calculating
Average to Center. It's also known as "average group radius" or "mean radius". It's the average distance of all the shots in a group from the center of that group.
To give a brief illustration of this, consider two groups with the same overall group size. One group has all ten rounds relatively evenly distributed within the imaginary circle around the group. The other has eight or nine shots all very close to each other, with one or two shots away from the majority. The second group will have a smaller average to center measurement, which reflects greater precision.
The problem with obtaining Average to Center measurements is that it is necessary to use some software to avoid otherwise tedious calculations. This can be done using software such as OnTarget, which is available online. No doubt there are other programs or ballistics calculators that will calculate average to center.
For a few more details on Average to Center measurement, see https://www.rimfirecentral.com/threads/understanding-the-average-to-center-measurement.512993/
Always crazy fliers, and you can often see through a high power scope the fliers curve off. 
