Wow, been a long time since I started this thread and to tell you the truth, I haven't look back at it since. I see tonight that we've got the original BOTW man and the new BOTW man posting here. Great.
John, it's great to see you still look over this site though probably only as rarely as I do anymore. Glad there's still a few of the "old timers" still here from back when this site was a little bitty thing tucked way back in the corner of cyber space. I hope you are doing well and having successful hunts.
To the new host, Aaron is it?
You seem decent fellow, but you have to admit that you're claims seem mighty unsubstantiated at this point. After all, John is on RECORD as starting the show and the explanation of his system two years before you filed for any patent. So if you had any "improvements", then they were improvements on something that was already in use and in the same name as the company or show you now have so I hope you can see where the confusion comes from.
The second thing that rubbed me the wrong way is the way in which you present your "method" as being infallible and so optimal. I have been doing the "long" thing way, way before your system or Johns was so mainstream and there are things wrong with it and it is not optimal. It may be optimal to your pocketbook but that's where it ends.
Here's where your system falls short:
1. First, your rifles are sold with generic ammo. It might be the most carefully prepped ammo on the planet but if it's not tuned to EACH specific rifle, it just as well be rolled off Remchester's ammo line. Only tuned ammunition can deliver expected results required for long range shots and even at that, you have temperatures that can change that enough to screw things up unless the ammo is loaded in anticipation of forecasted temperatures. I shoot competitive benchrest and in that game, you load ammo 10 minutes before you fire it for a reason; because the tune is constantly being chased as the day progresses. And if it makes a difference in a cartridge holding only about 30 grains of powder and being fired at only 100 to 200 yards, you can bet it's going to make a difference in a case holding 80 grains and being fired across ten football fields.
2. Your special number on the elevation turret corresponding to the windage of a velocity of 10 mph at one vector is nothing more than cuteness. Again, if you had done any benchrest shooting, you would have seen a whole range full of wind flags turning and spinning at different velocities, different directions, and different values. You would see four or five flags between you and the 100 (yes thats 100) yard target frame all doing DIFFERENT THINGS! It takes tens of thousands of shots over these nifty little contraptions in all conditions to be able to dope them correctly. And this is just in close range. Multiply the possibilities tenfold for 1000 yard shooting and basically, that quaint little number you print on the turret means nothing. Only having "shoot on the fly" charts or programs and lots of range time are going to make the difference in a hit or miss.
3. Yardage turrets and drop reticles are easy but not optimal. Why? Several reasons. Elevation changes, temp changes, angle changes, ballistic coefficient changes, barrel conditions, scope power restrictions, expense, and cluttered views of the target to name just a few. Yes, angle changes are not as huge as some make out like you said, but everything is comprehensive when it comes to making errors. And why spend money to have a Huskemaw
on ONE rifle and carry a bunch of elevation change turrets in your pocket to boot when you can learn MOA and dial your scope in that and use that knowledge on every other scope in your arsenal? It makes no sense to me. I don't condone all the things the military does, but if your system was really better than dialing correction in MOA and/or using miliradians, wouldn't the military have your scope design on all it's sniper rifles?
To all those that think yardage turrets are so much easier than MOA or IPHY turrets:
You are splitting hairs. If it is faster it's only by two seconds at most. For example, you range your deer at 700 yards and turn your knob to 7. I range my deer at 700, punch it into my PDA, and dial to 9. We are both dialing to a number, it's just that the number represents something different. That's all. And it took me an extra 2 seconds to input the distance into the PDA. Big deal. At least I know that all my other parameters are more accurate because they have been entered in "as I went" and therefore have real time accuracy. You simply can't get that with a pre-engraved turret set for one bc, one elevation, one velocity, one wind, and one angle. It just ain't going to be as accurate and I don't care how much money you spend (or make) trying to convince novices otherwise. Those that really study this stuff, and really, really live and breath it learn why.
To those who like reticle with drop and/or windage compensation:
All reticles are not created equally from one scope to the next. I'm not talking about one brand or model to the next. I'm talking one scope to the next. Even the scopes which have laser engraved reticles are not exact and they are few and far between. With most metallic based reticles, there can be huge differences in thicknesses and dot diameters. Couple this with the fact that most of them are built around a generic "ballistic" category and also require the scope to be on a certain power and you are getting nothing but a "ballpark" and a BIG one at that. If I'm taking a shot on a big game animal, I want to use the highest magnification I can get away with for the conditions. I don't want to have to back a 20x scope down to 10x just so I can use a bloody reticle. That's ridiculous!
The bottom line is you have to take what you bought, determine it's performance, and since there are slight flaws in every bit of your equipment, you have to be able to tweak this or that to get desired results over the course of the life of the rifle. You simply CANNOT do that with a system that affords you no latitude.