IMO what makes it different is the aid with the very act of shooting itself. Not better equipment, not more efficient equipment, but the machine taking over the very act of shooting from the user.

I not saying I know where the line is, but I'm guessing the vast majority of hunters would say taking the shooter completely out of the equation of making an accurate shot (e.g. laser-guided bullets) would cross it. The same technology could also be employed with an arrow. Not so many years ago, "draw locks" were used by many - and to my knowledge they are now disallowed for bowhunting in most (if not every) state. Why? Because they were an artificial aid in the very act of shooting the bow (the shooter holding their own draw).

For me, equipment giving the shooter the exact point of aim by lighting up the "hold" point does also. (I get that this doesn't account for wind). IMO the shooter should make the shot, not have a gadget do it for him. I get folks can say "Yeah but you still have to do this, and you still have to do that". But that game can be played all the way down to "Yeah but you still have to pull the trigger."

Wonder how the cavemen would feel about the way we hunt?? Or even the indians? Or our great grandparents? Good chance the way we hunt now days will be obsolete in the future. Sad but true. Just think of the guns and bows that were used just 150 years ago. It's mind boggling.

If I were a target shooter I guess I might consider one but I'm not. All I do is hunt. I'll never own one because they are very large, bulky, heavy and cumbersome.

On a side note they are a pain to mount. I've mounted a few for customers. Two of them have come back because the shooter was getting scope eye. Both were mounted on T3's in .308. Haven't delved into why except for noting it is a very heavy scope on a very light rifle.