Some friends and I killed a bunch of mule deer for CWD samples this hunting season and I have taken the opportunity to use several bullets and also a variety of scopes. I recently killed several deer with the R2 reticle and a bunch by clicking the elevation onto the turret. Got some very long kills shooting both systems, four over 700 yards, quite a few from 500-650. My buddies always crank their turrets for their long range shooting and they have been making kills all the way out to 700 yards with their .308 Winchester rifles. These guys are getting to be very proficient killers since we employ shooter/spotter techniques and always have a backup shooter on the critter if possible. Probably the main reason we can kill out that far is because we shoot together as much as possible in the summer - usually about a 75-100 rounds per person per session.
In my opinion my shot placement when I crank the proper elevation and wind into the turret is significantly better - the bullet hits closer to my point of aim particularly past 500 yards. The R2 is a wonderful reticle and it enables the shooter to hold-off quickly with a degree of accuracy that should hit the vital area of a deer out to very long distances - but I believe that the hits are simply not as precise - I was hitting deer in the chest but had more windage error, also some shots hit higher than I wanted. Also find a natural reluctance to hold center with the little crossbars if I could only see the upper 2/3's of the body because of vegetation. I used the R2 rather than a TDS or B&C because I have excellent drop tables for the .300 WSM rifle
and can refer to the drop card very quickly, count down the MOA's to the appropriate bar, holdoff for wind using the horizontal bars for reference and break the shot.
Having said the above I admit that I have not shot the R2 nearly as much as I have shot with the turrets cranked - but I killed with the holdoff method so that I could learn and compare. I have been impressed with the info some of the guys on this forum have shared re holdoff shooting with the R2 and figured I better get some field experience for my own info.
The B&C is not as accurate as the R2 for holdoffs. Nice even 2 MOA spaces are easy to work with - the spaces on the B&C and TDS are not uniform or simple numbers. Like its possible inspiration, the TDS reticle designed by Tom Smith, the B&C will allow fairly accurate shot placement IF the shooter does a bunch of shooting to determine where his poi's are relative to each hold-off bar. This takes time and demands that decent notes be kept - if you get detailed info it is too easily forgotten when you need it so a drop chart or card should be made up.
Although I just started shooting the B&C on a nice little Lilja-barreled 7-08, I believe I can discuss what it will do in the field since I have killed a lot of deer with the TDS back when Swarovski and Kahles introduced it. Plus I was fortunate to have an opportunity to hunt with Col. Smith and will never forget the time spent with this incredible gentleman. The B&C is based on the TDS but someone came up with the clever idea to integrate changing the magnification setting into the operatiing principal of the system. The TDS has somewhat complicated charts for determining your initial zero (factors), the B&C is simpler to work with - neither can predict where your particular rifle/cartridge combo will shoot. The range cards that I made for the TDS told me that at 400 my center of the group was perhaps four inches below the third bar, or seven inches above fourth bar at 450 or whatever - can't remember such details anymore. I have them in an Avery label making program and print out a label, then tape it to the side of the stock with a piece of wide transparent packing tape.
I believe that the wind hold-off bars are hockum, perhaps better than nothing but they cannot be expected to provide real accuracy given the varied time of flight of all the different cartridges, wind speed and angles.
Those reticles can be an aid but accurate shot placement still has to be figured out according to other factors than just distance. That takes shooting practice, and I do not believe that many guys who buy such scopes will get out and really determine what the reticles can do. On the other hand, maybe buying such a scope will be incentive for the owner to get out and shoot a bunch so that he can get some longer shot capability and confidence.
Since most hunters consider 250-300 to be the beginning of "LONG", these reticles have the potential to about double their confident shooting range if they practice a bunch and keep notes on poi. If such practice results in vital-area accuracy then the reticle will be important to successful shooting.
I wonder some times if the B&C (you can replace B&C with TDS, Ballistic Mildot, Horrus, ?8 or whatever the marketing guys come up with) might promote sloppy long shots since Bubba buys a scope with the magic bars in it, sights in at 200 or whatever the little book says and goes out and starts tossing lead at deer he would not ordinarily shoot at - "Was that the fourth bar for five hundred or the fifth bar for four hundred? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]" Guess I am saying that buying a scope equipped with the B&C or TDS or whatever little combination of circles, bars, squares, triangles, dots etc. will never make the owner a long range hunter - even tho the salesman will probably tell you that it will so that he can get a sale.
I am done holding-off on the real long shots - going back to crankin'.
(Len and Dave - these are non-cranky reflections on this topic [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]) <font color="blue"> </font>