This is very good question. We actually thought this quite a bit too, also tested several alternative models. This included.
Shortly said, final result is about balancing between clarity+speed and finer details+more processing.
When stress and speed goes up, then clarity always wins. Less is more in this case, at least it is our conclusion.
About actual aiming points and precision - See pic. It is easy and fast to divide empty spaces to even segments by simply eyeballing horizontal line.
0.5mils splits to 0.25mils etc, which is in practice very close to 0.2mils = 1.97" difference at 1000m. 0.5mil spacing can be split down to 4 even segments quite precisely, which would equal to 0.125mil deviation. It might not "feel" as precise, but in fact human eye is very good at centering things and splitting spaces to even sizes. Bullet doesn't care about hashes at all, as long as it is aimed right.
Alternatively - as in pic with simulated 0.2mil hashes in right side of center- there would four times more lines to figure out. Whole feel of view changes from simple and clear to something very different. More markings increases risk of confusion a lot, and more complex patterns usually mean more time has to be used. Also clean look is always better for general observing, and more clarity helps many ways. So for such a small theoretical gain vs 0.2mil lines it is a trade-off we wouldn't want to go with. Naturally 0.2 lines could be split to 0.1 aiming points too, but 0.125mils is not far from it. So multiplying line amount 4x for so little is very questionable.
As pinpoint precision is needed for extended range first round hits, typically firing solution has to be figured out first anyway. Turret setting for center aiming is done first, and fine tuning / 2nd round corrections are made with reticle center area which has more reference marks now. As small as possible to get the job done without any effort, still keeping it as clear as possible. And even if long range windage is aimed with MSR2 0.5mils hashmark deviation area, it isn't really practical accuracy limiting factor IMO in shooting where it was made for.
All in all- these are eventually personal preferences. Each should go with system that feels right. Some like extremely complex reticles without even understanding how to use them, some appreciate traditional mildot. Most people are somewhere between. I encourage you to take a look on this reticle at SHOT, pictures are not same than actually seeing it.
View attachment 6862834
