Jon, I agree with you. It isn't important that ranging and adjustment MATCH each other.
No, you don't agree with me because I don't agree with that. If the reticle has marks on it, I greatly prefer the turret to use those same units for its marks.
Which leads to my position that with a LRF, the med-fine crosshair works as good as anything out there. As does 1/4 IPHY or 1/4 MOA for adjustment.
Of course it is, quite obviously,
for you. What you're missing is that because they're
your personal preferences does not mean they're any better, or even as good for everybody else no matter how hard you try to force them upon us.
Just because you may not know how to or have any use for a reticle with hash marks of some type is not evidence that those of us who do are "imagining" that we do.
1/4 MOA adjustments are "better" in what way? Don't you think it depends upon the application? I'd say 1/8 MOA are "better" for...P dog hunting, golf ball shoots, benchrest competition, etc.
So for what exact application are 1/4 MOA "better?" Big game vital zone sized targets out to 1000 yds or so? Farther? Smaller animals? Coues deer or elk? Don't you think different applications might have a different "best" size? For a scope with multiple uses a compromise might be needed.
Personally, for deer/antelope sized vital zone at the smallest, out to 1000 yds or so, I have found 1/2 MOA clicks to be usable but slightly larger than I prefer. At times when actually using such a scope I found myself sometimes wanting to be "between clicks."
1/4 MOA I have found offer me more fine adjustments than I really need. Maybe if I hunted more varmints, or miniature deer way beyond 1000 yds I would feel 1/4 MOA is about right. But I don't. There's nothing wrong with them, they're perfectly usable for me, they're just a bit needlessly fine.
.1 Mil clicks are right in the middle and fit what I do well. And no, I haven't "imagined" this either. Such scopes have done everything I've wanted and I've never found myself wanting to be "between clicks."
The advantage over 1/4 MOA clicks is more travel per turn of the knob, requiring fewer clicks and fewer turns of the knob which makes them faster and reduces the odds of accidentally finding yourself off a full turn. And the simple two digit decimal numbers are shorter and easier to deal with from putting them on a drop chart to saying them to dialing them. I find those advantages more useful to me than slightly finer adjustments I don't feel I need.
So maybe you can explain for exactly what application you have found them to be too coarse? What problems have you had with them? What were you shooting at and at what distance did you find you needed to be "between clicks?" Or have you ever even used such a scope?
Your problem here is you are making no attempt to
explain why your personal preferences are "THE BEST" for
everybody else. You're simply saying they are and insulting anybody who prefers to use something else.
For example, please explain
why a simple duplex is better than a good Mil or MOA reticle? If you notice, most of them still cross in the middle and can be used just like a duplex if you don't know how to used the hashes or dots. So what exactly makes a duplex BETTER?
And since we're all clearly doing it wrong, maybe you could explain exactly how we are supposed to be dealing with wind. How exactly do you do it? You obviously don't hold off with the reticle. Do you dial 100%? When the wind changes before the shot, do you break your hold and dial the correction and hope it doesn't change again? What do you do? Do you compensate by holding off "in inches?" Or guess?
I know many BR shooters like to hold off on the target. It helps having the exact same sized target, with nice rings on it for reference at exactly the same distance every time. Shooting different sized targets at different ranges with no nice rings painted on them makes this difficult. Just like dialing elevation, it's easier to correct in Mils or MOA than it is to hold off "in inches" or "this much wind hold on the nine ring, this much wind hold on the 8 ring...."
I really don't know what you do because you haven't told us. Please tell us. Since your way is "the best" please tell us what it is and explain to us why it is better. We might learn something. And that might go over better than simply telling us we're wrong and we're imagining things.
If you'd open your mind a bit you might consider different people might have good reasons for preferring different things (beyond their imagination of course). Their uses might be a bit different than yours.
For example the way I hunt the shooting typically ends up having a lot more in common with tactical shooting than it does benchrest shooting. So it should be no surprise a similar type of scope with similar features that does well for one would do well for the other. Insulting people for using something "tactical" only shows you to be ignorant of what works for what they do and doesn't do anything to "convince" them your prefered stuff will work better for them. If I hunted more at longer ranges with portable benches, etc, a more benchrest oriented scope might suit me better. But you aren't even bothering to ask people how they use the equipment before insulting them for choosing what they do.
