I have one I caught on sale 40% off and for general shooting it is a nice scope
I'm probably more vocal than I might otherwise be about the Nikon BDC's because I ALSO own a few I caught on great sale prices. $350-400 optics for $75-150, just too good to pass up.
I use them the same as a plex reticle, I completely ignore the holdover circles and either dial all of my range corrections, or just shoot MPBR. I have one on my Savage B-mag (not for much longer) which does get some holdover use, and it makes me want to punch kittens every time I take it afield - my absolute least favorite thing about that rifle/rig. I'd probably pass right over threads like this if I had been able to resist the offer to dance with the devil and NOT buy them, but I itch all over every time I get my eye into those rifles and remember that awful reticle. I have a databook cooked as if they were regular intervals - so my data cards still show 50yrd intervals, then I write down fractional gaps between each circle - aka 2.5 is half way between circles 2 and 3. Top of circles and bottom of circles are T2 or B4. So it KINDA lets me use them like a milling reticle... KINDA...
The other criticism I have for Nikon's, which particularly sucks with their BDC's, is the fact they're so prone to lensing around the edges when on maximum magnification - which is where the BDC reticle is calibrated.
But really, my argument against BDC reticles is not brand specific. A guy shouldn't be distracted by the way they operate their reticle be used - learn your trajectory and life becomes REALLY simple. I've had to teach guys with BDC scopes how to use them many times, and at the end, they know how to use their rig, but they really don't understand their trajectory in the way the guys using MOA'ing or milling reticles do. It kinda feels like teaching a kid the alphabet vs. counting numbers. N is after M because we say so, which is really arbitrary, and saying the alphabet in the wrong order is still the same alphabet. Alternatively, 8 is after 7 because that's how numbers work - they go in a certain order for a reason.
In the old days we just did that anyway, not ballistic apps, or apps like the Nikon one, just shoot.
That's how I started over 25yrs ago too. No chronograph, just guesses based on tables in the back of reloading manuals. We'd go out to a safe pasture, measure out targets every 50-100yrds with a long tape measure, and shoot. We'd hold over based on what the reloading manual predicted, and walk our way into the center, then write down the fractional mils to get on target at each range. You could back into your BC and muzzle velocity by comparing your field results to the reloading book table. From then on, it was just a matter of scaling your magnification - which is part of why I favor 4-16x scopes over 3-9x's, as it's way easier to divide by 2's and 4's than by 3's to figure out your scaled hold value. Which is something you don't have the opportunity to really do with the BDC's, because you can't really measure and record regular intervals with the irregular interval reticle. Guys use the SpotOn software (or Zeiss's equivalent), and think in yards, instead of holdovers.
What might seem really strange to some folks:
How I operate today really isn't much different than it was when I started, except I start with a chronograph and a trued BC from another shooter, and an exact data entry into a calculator, instead of an approximate interpolation based on estimated velocity and BC tables. I still start with an estimated trajectory, go shoot, and build a real world DOPE book. Still using a mil based reticle, but save a few rounds by hitting the target on the first shot more often than I did 25+ years ago, and save some systemic errors by using first focal scopes instead of second focals.
But without question - the fact I OWN a handful of them because they're decent scopes which could be bought at really good prices just makes me more aware of how much I dislike them...