Any reticle needs to be correlated to what OUR load does under OUR conditions. This goes for the basic cross-hairs as well as the slightly complex B&C & the complex Horus reticles.
The more "aiming points" a reticle gives us, the more points we have that we need to translate to where that puts our bullet "on target".
Since what needs to be done is largely the same whether we are talking about a simple cross-hair, B&C style reticle or a Horus style reticles, the only functional difference is that the B&C reticle has a marketing plan that oversimplifies what the reticle will do for the hunter. I definitely disagree with the marketing plan.
On my last elk hunt I used a Leupold 3.5-10x50 with a lighted B&C reticle. I chose that rifle/scope combo since my guide told me he had never had a shot at an elk taken at over 300 yards & he told me that in most situations a shooter has 3-5 seconds to take a shot. I zeroed my rifle using the 300 yard point of aim & found I was within 2 inches at 100, 150, 200, and 250 yards. I was dead on at 300 yards. The 400 yard mark was on at 440 yards, the 450 yard mark was on at 485 yards and and the 500 yard mark was on at 530 yards. Knowing that I was very comfortable with any shot out to 550 yards and knew I would not need to adjust my turrets out to 550 yards. Note: that was for My rifle with the load I was using on that hunt. I do not pretend the same holds would work for other loads, with other rifles, under different conditions. Anyone taking the time to "learn" a B&C reticle as I did preparing for this hunt is just as prepared as someone developing a turret chart.
On the same hunt, another hunter showed up with a .270 Weatherby that had been zeroed in lowland Texas & consistantly held tiny groups. When the zero was checked in the mountains of Montana it was shooting tiny groups that were INCHES high. The hunter was shocked at the difference in the point of impact. The issue was not the reticle, but rather the need to know the point of impact for that reticle under hunt conditions.
I believe anyone with ballistics software on a PDA is best-served with a Horus type reticle or simple cross-hairs for most long-range shooting. In either system the shooter ranges a target & estimates the wind, barometric pressure & temperature & translates that to a hold-off or a turret adjustment. With that level of precision measuring your variables, truly long shots are quite predictable. Unless a shooter is measuring all those variables & taking them into account, anything over 600 yards is simply a "Hail Mary". If someone is not measuring all those variables, there will be more error built into his shooting. Because I knew I was not going to be measuring & accounting for all those variables I told the guide I was working with that I wasn't planning on taking any shots past 500 yards even though I knew I might under ideal conditions. (I simply didn't want him planning on me taking extreme shots.) I can say my guide was very impressed that I showed up & could tell him what the B&C reticle translated to with my load in my rifle. I chose the B&C reticle because I believed it would be the fastest reticle for the type of hunt I was planning. I still believe that.
No, there is no reason to segregate reticles into groups before we discuss them as each does the same thing in different ways. With each reticle WE are responsible for knowing where an aiming point will put our bullet. For most hunters there is no need for more than a duplex cross-hair as most hunters should never shoot beyond 250 yards. For long shots where there is "all the time in the world, target turrets & a duplex reticle are great, if more speed is needed a Horus type is a little faster. If more speed is needed & shots will not be extreme, a B&C style reticle is optimal. This is not religion, this is science. We learn what works & stick with it until someone convinces us there is something better. The point is not to believe our reticle will perform magic & relieve us of our responsibility to learn our ballistics.
For what it's worth, on the hunt I was describing I shot a beautiful 6x6 bull high in the Bob Marshall Wilderness of Montana as he was standing broadside to me, with no clue I was present, while I was seated on a rock under a tree all of 9 yards away. I didn't need a scope. I wish I had been carrying my bow & could have used a spear.
