Most folks seem to like them or at least the concept. But unless someone plans on shooting at the longer ranges, then I'm not really sure what the great benefit would be.
After all, hold over is hold over.
It's just that with the BDC reticle there's small circles that serve as aiming references for the holdover, and those are supposed to be standardized.
IIRC, I visited the Nikon site and there were some stipulations in the instructions about needing to range test the actual placement of the reticle circles for their accuracy with the specific load anyway.
In other words the placement of the circles may or not be in the right locations for the load or distance that are going to be shot at. The top of a circle may need to be used for hold over rather than the middle of a circle, etc....
So maybe having a BDC reticle is better than not having one. However, why not get one of the many scopes with graduated mil-dot instead of circles?
Or just getting a duplex reticle and using Kentucky windage, or getting a scope with higher magnification and practicing with it until it's performance can be referenced at various known distances?
Some folks like the Firefly reticle that the Bushnell Elite has on their 10 power variable model.
I don't have a BDC reticle, want one or need one because I generally don't shoot at extemely long ranges with a muzzle loader anyway.
But I'd rather have something more similar to a mil-dot on my other rifles that do have longer range potential.
Having a reticle with circles won't appeal to everyone taste. Other questions are whether it's needed and will perform as expected.
