I always shoot with both eyes open. That's nothing new. I'd guess in MD's scenario, he made shot more because he's a wing shooter and it was more instinctive pointing than it was using the scope reticle. Anyway, there's certainly more than one way to skin a cat and if it works for you, have at it. Pennsylvania hunters are looked down on pretty good on this forum, so I'm sure my opinion is worth dog schit anyway.
I have a pretty good set of qualifications on running game myself. I shot hundreds of running cottontails from in front of my beagles with .22 rifles from the 1970's to 2008.. As stated previously in this thread, I've also killed dozens of running deer and I've done a fair bit of wingshooting, both on a trap range and on waterfowl and upland birds. Over the years I used various scopes on running game and learned it was much easier to keep track of them at close range in thick cover when the game and any intervening cover were both in focus. Particularly in situations where the game is similar in color to surrounding cover or in a dark conifer forest with intervening boughs. I also learned it was much easier to hit game running away, whether straight away or at an angle like trap shooting than when crossing through intervening cover. This largely due to what I call for lack of a better description, "the picket fence effect" wherin over magnified, blurry, intervening cover can make it difficult to time a shot when there's a clear path for a bullet from muzzle to game. The effect is like trying to shoot through a picket fence without hitting a picket. I would bet money that a high percentage of the game killed close up with higher magnification have little or no intervening cover between shooter and game and/or is taken when going away from the shooter. Both of which make it much easier to connect. Regardless, less magnification is always an advantage at close range because it's easier to avoid hitting intervening obstacles and put shots on target when both your target and it's surroundings are in focus.
