My two cents are that this applies in taking long shots which aren't the norm for shots at big game. Or at least it hasn't been for me.
There are those who argue that there are no compromises in using dedicated long range rifles and scopes for all oportunities in the field. I disagree. Scopes like your favorite Nightforce, often come with short eye relief, small eye boxes and fine reticles. All of which hinder making shots under other unfavorable conditions. Running shots at bad angles and low light shots come to mind here.
You give an example of using a binocular to range a deer at 477 yds. With a proper reticle, I can often range and shoot w/o bothering to use a range finder or dialing. No, not at 477 yds. as a rule. But if he's 300-400 yds. I can and have.
Accurate ranging and dialing is nice. If you have the additional time and if ther animal is cooperating.
Let's say your deer is moving as it feeds. Going to try ranging and dialing ? Want to know how many guys I've seen loose a shot because they were fiddling with the scope ?
They both have their uses and there places. It's not an either or situation. I do agree that one can use a reticle often times more effectively to hold into the wind than using a reticle to holdover. And it certainly works better to dial than to try and do both holdover and hold into the wind using a reticle alone.
As to reliable scopes, that's another area of disagreement. Basically, no scope can be dialed forever w/o breaking down. Ask the benchrest guys about that. Reliability also depends on the scope's ability to stay zeroed when impacted or when shot alot. Again, all of them fail if pushed enough. Some are just better than others. E
