I call it like I see it. I have used it and find it to be inaccurate, and cluttered despite having very little valuable information contained within. The only more cluttered reticle that I know of is the various ones by Horus, and at least they afford a multitude of elevation and windage points. Windage is a bigger factor at long range, than is the elevation, and if you can't effectively utilize the reticle for windage calculations then it is near useless to me. The reticle is also thick, despite your claim of it being improved, I have noticed no such improvements, and therefore would (and have) put my cash into better scopes with better reticle choice when a BDC reticle is required. I guess I just ask to much of a scope. Good thing there are a multitude of other manufacturers that cater to my needs and don't mimic Nikon's designs...can't imagine why that would be.
Couldn't disagree more. Despite your claims otherwise, Nikon's BDC offers two reference points
per circle. Plenty of folks have gotten along just fine without windage stadia for many a decade. Heck, even the majority of currently used magnified optics used in combat don't have much in the ways of windage compensation, ACOGs being a good example.
Thick reticle? I'm not sure what you're comparing it to, but again, I couldn't disagree more. This is a photo through the scope at 3x, taken by me, looking at an area 150 yards away from where I was standing. This is not a FFP scope, so the reticle size remains the same. If these lines are too thick for you to use, then a visit to the optician might be in order...
An optic, particularly one with a BDC reticle, is nothing without precision. The sole use of such an scope is (or at least is intended) for use at long range, and precision is very important for long range. Again there are reticles that are better designed for this use and that is what I have purchased, will continue to purchase. Take the Zeiss Rapid-Z series which incorporate thin, easy to acquire, stadia for precision as well as hashes for windage adjustment. I even prefer a standard Mil-dot over the Nikon abomination, because it incorporates better precision, less clutter, and windage markings.
Lemme guess, all of your rifles shoot sub-MOA and you can outperform all of their mechanical abilities. Man, I need to buy rifles wherever you guys are shopping and train with you snipers! The BDC is intended to make hits. Pinpoint accuracy will depend first on the inherent accuracy of your rifle/ammo combo, and then your ability to shoot it from field positions. Feel free to compare a Zeiss Rapid Z ($1k+) to the Nikon BDC all you want, but the bottom line is that the BDC is not complete unusable crap. Money where my mouth is? Here's my last 15 shots from last Sunday at the 200 yard line, using my M1A and the Monarch 3-12x42 with *drum roll* BDC reticle. I used the 200 yard holdover. These were fired from the bench off my bipod, but they were fired after I had already shot 100 rounds of surplus and commercial loads. Not bad for a fatigued shooter with a worthless holdover reticle...
If you don't like the scope, fine. I don't stand anything to gain by convincing anyone. However, you'd be hard pressed to say that the BDC is NOT a working bullet drop compensator. Not liking it and expressing your opinion on it is one thing. Trashing it b/c you couldn't make it work for you is another. There's a lot of things that don't work for me, but that doesn't make 'em crap.
I'll be putting my money where my mouth is again at 575 yards in a few weeks.
Enjoy and shoot safe!
