Does not have to be mil dot just something in there for reference so when I miss I don't have to re guess my first guess that missed. Some kind of reference marks that are evenly spaced as long as I know what the spacing's are.
I have in the past done very good work with just a duplex reticle. I sight them in to zero at 100 yards using the top of the duplex. With that sight setting most 3x9 or so type scopes will have the cross hair hitting about 4" high at 100 yards and the bottom duplex at about 8" high. Running those numbers with the plotted trajectory of my bullet has worked well but is still rather course for increments. Also that only works at the higher power setting as when you go down in power the spacing's get wider. I went through the trouble to determine what range each power change would be on at but the problem with that is that the longer ranges are at the lowest power settings just opposite of what is needed. Just using the higher power setting with the three aiming points in a duplex reticle has produced fur for me but I don't want to limit myself that much. That was OK 25 years ago but no longer seems adequate.
I have in the past done very good work with just a duplex reticle. I sight them in to zero at 100 yards using the top of the duplex. With that sight setting most 3x9 or so type scopes will have the cross hair hitting about 4" high at 100 yards and the bottom duplex at about 8" high. Running those numbers with the plotted trajectory of my bullet has worked well but is still rather course for increments. Also that only works at the higher power setting as when you go down in power the spacing's get wider. I went through the trouble to determine what range each power change would be on at but the problem with that is that the longer ranges are at the lowest power settings just opposite of what is needed. Just using the higher power setting with the three aiming points in a duplex reticle has produced fur for me but I don't want to limit myself that much. That was OK 25 years ago but no longer seems adequate.