Chris,
I've been through all the futzing with post size and aperture size. I'm not a piker; I've been shooting competitively for 10 years. I know what my mistake has been. I'll probably stick with my 52 post. If I change it, it will be smaller. I have the log books & stats showing that my scores are higher with it than with 62s and 72s.
I've always gone with a minimal + diopter. In retrospect, that has been a mistake. It has kept me from cross firing and allowed me to shoot in the 190s out to 300 and at 600, but only at 600 on ranges with good light like Perry. This year I'm getting a Microsight to solve that problem. I'll still be able to read the boards and I'm hoping I'll be able to see the post even at ranges with poor lighting.
It's been tough. My relatively good shooting up close and at the big ranges has masked my problem. When I get to these little ranges tucked back in the hollers is where I tank at 600 and those wide posts only make it worse.
The more I think about this.. you answered your own question.. if its light that changes the view of the post... then testing different apperture sizes is probably the answer. Its almost impossible for the eye to focus better on a smaller post than a larger one, assuming the rear aperture size and distance from it are correct for both post sizes... but this is getting technical...
Also trying to remember you still.... manage to get a leg in 03 possibly at Perry? All I recall is 600 was windy and tricky that day.... I almost bet I've shot with you there somehow... maybe was it Barry Cole or Cold possibly instead of Coleman?
