Turrets vs CDS vs Ballistic Reticle

[Sabre]

For a 20" DMR in 5.56. Don't have any actual experience with target type scopes, but it seems like it's a trade-off between accuracy (turrets) and speed (ballistic reticle), with a CDS somewhere in the middle. Of course you can get both ballistic and CDS in the same scope, if that makes any sense. Once I find a load that I like I tend to settle on that one load, so CDS might be a good compromise? Thoughts?

[MarkCO]

Just get everything and call it good: http://burrisoptics.com/xtr1x5x.html

[XC700116]

As a long range shooter, that dabbles in the other games along with hunting, I personally HATE Ballistic reticles, due to their inaccuracy for anything but a specific loading in specific conditions. With ballistic computers at your fingertips at nearly any time, I don't get why they even exist. The ONLY ones I've seen that I'd personally consider are those that Swarovski is using which are basically a slightly enhanced mil reticle with standard .5 mil subtensions. Yes you can compute ranges for the subtensions of a ballistic reticle, but I've seen a LOT of scopes with ballistic reticles that you can't find good info on the subtensions in order to do that. So you're stuck trying to measure it in the field, or running dope for every little change in load or conditions.

I've also come to the realization that I'll probably never buy another scope for any real purpose that doesn't have target turrets and a mil reticle, it just puts everything at your fingertips, and for the cost of decent scopes that have target turrets vs an equal scope that does not, it's a no brainer for me.

The beauty of a straight mil or moa reticle and turret system is that they don't wed you to any one cartridge, rifle, or condition. It's flexible enough to allow for any situation, loading, or atmospheric condition. And all it takes to adjust your system to a changing condition is to run a new dope card.

So essentially, my recommendation is a mil dot type reticle and target turrets, preferably with a zero stop of some sort.

[Tim K]

I share many of the same misgivings about ballistic reticles as above, but I think they can have their place. Against large targets at close ranges, I find them to be close enough. The problem is that for precision shooting not just any reticle will do, though. For that purpose it has to have regular hash marks on the horizontal line for good wind holds. In a perfect world, they would be in the same units as the turrets. There would also be some vertical section with hashes that match the turret so you can measure poi vs poa after a shot and adjust the knob. I like Mark's suggestion of a ballistic reticle with target knobs, but the problem with most ballistic reticles is that they have some stupid red donut or triangle that dominates the center. Invariably, it covers up the wind holds most commonly used.

While I like the idea, I don't like it enough to own a scope configured that way. Everything I own is either a straight mil or moa reticle, and I just know my holds for 300, 400, and 500 yards. Memorize (or write down) 3 numbers and all your problems are solved.