... When I attended Sniper school I learned that rifles didn't have to weigh over 20 pounds with 34in long barrels to get good hits out to 700 yards or so. The instructors pushed using the reticle for your holds, stating that it was faster and "easier". And while I shot quite a bit using the reticle it was plain to see that dialing was significantly more accurate and consistent, especially in the wind. My spotter struggled on shooting tests until he finally relented and started dialing at which point he went from barely passing to smoking the courses. As far as speed went I was by far the fastest shooter to HIT targets in the class. When I finished the school I had shot over 3,000 rounds of 308win, 300WM, and 50BMG out to 1,900 yards. I could take my 12lb M24 in 7.62 and and make on demand head shots on E-types at 600m in calm conditions. It was by far the most consistent gun system I had ever used.
...
Thanks for your insights - very informative. A few questions to draw from your experience:
1. Was your spotter having trouble with windage or elevation with the mildot reticle (or both, with one more of an issue than the other)?
2. What are your thoughts about mildot or other ballistic reticles for intermediate distances (300 to 400 yards)?
3. What are the keys to using turrets for windage? Obviously winds can be variable (highly variable in some cases), and I've thought that a reticle would be faster to make adjustments to wind changes (plus the simplicity of not having to remember how much windage you had dialed in and figure out how much to dial one way or the other after you had already dialed in a couple different windage amounts in a short period of time).
4. What is the biggest issue you have found with reticles - is it that people have trouble with being able to sight/aim with enough resolution (a small enough increment) between markings (e.g., getting accurate resolution/aim of 1/8 or 1/10 mil on a mil-dot scope)?
Thanks.
