One of the most talked about and discussed topics on this board seems to be whether turrets or bullet drop compensating (BDC) reticles are better for hunting. The common theme seems to be that the masses believe reticles are "faster" but turrets are more "accurate" at distance. It seems to make sense, but is that really the case?
I'm going to present my observations and experiences using both over the last decade and would greatly like to hear yours.
I can find things to like, and dislike, about either method.
With a reticle, all you are asking the mechanics of the scope to do is "hold zero". There's a lot of comfort in a scope/rifle where you haven't touched a thing in years and it just keeps hitting stuff.
Contrast that to turrets, where you are demanding that the internals track and return to zero to a high degree of precision, over and over. I will say- like a good truck that always starts- the more you see a given scope do this successfully, the more confidant you become that it'll do it the next time you ask. But it's still a leap of faith.
With the reticles I've used, there was utility out to 500-600 yards. I think, don't know but think, that as a practical matter the utility of reticles tops out somewhere around there. Beyond that you need the ability to micromanage things the way turrets let you.
That's all I'm willing to put out there. It should be a lively discussion.
