That's a pretty ridiculous statement for them to make. A person who drops $17K on a precision rifle (and you can drop a heck of a lot more than that on a quality rifle without all the electronic crap) damn well knows about consistency in ammunition, and most of them are going to be experienced handloaders as well.
The best shooters in the world handload, and that includes the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (who can certainly afford the most expensive factory ammo). They do so because you simply can't mass produce cartridges that are as accurate and consistent as handloads. You can't mass produce ammo tailored to the chamber tolerances of a specific rifle. You can't fire form enough brass at the factory to load a lifetime's worth of ammo for an individual rifle. Even if you tried, you're back to square one after you replace the barrel at 5K rounds.
As a result, you end up paying $17K for a rifle that cannot possibly be used to it's fullest potential.
> From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder.
This could be, but if so would destroy the premise that this computerized gizmo offers any improvement over a human calculator. Experienced shooters have no problem memorizing ballistics tables for their particular loads - that this computer could not would be, well, laughable.
I apologize if I'm being grumpy about all this. It's simply depressing to me that with all the challenges, intricacies and fascinating phenomena in the world of shooting folks here are so fixated on the little computer they strapped on top.