Historically speaking, the 25 meter 8/3+1 method accomplished two important issues in our (USMC) M16A2 development program:
(1) it was a point-of-aim = point-of-impact method that was shown to be less confusing for the troops, i.e., hit where you are aiming versue the old (M16A1) offset method.
(2) made the Army happy because they had very many 25 meter ranges "in concrete" (and has so for many years) because that was how the M14 was zeroed. I.e., 25 mters being a tenth of 250 meters (the M14's BZO) and divisable by 10 as in centimenters which were part of us being forced to learn the metric system.
From the charts above, one can see how little difference one method would have over another for military purposes. That being aiming center of mass at ranges to 300-350 meters and striking a mansize target somewhere between the head and the feet at any range inbetween. Then if you consider M855's inability to print consistant groupings for fine tuned "actual range" sight adjustments, it kind of becomes a wash. (So longer range (36M or 50 yards) etc., address this ammo grouping issue)
Zero methods like the SANTOZ (sorry for spelling) at 50 meters make more sense for civilian applications. Me, all mine are set dead-on at 100 with a -2. Why? Because I know to aim a little low at 50, and past 100 I will use the rear's elevation adjustments or just hold-over a little. Besides, I am using 69 gr. match ammo that actually "groups,"not M855.
Most important element of all these short range zeroing methods is to then actually verify them at range, even if all you have is a 100 yard range, the charts above will help yo know how high you are suppoosed to be for a dead-on at a greater range.