And the reason for your wide field of view would be reduced magnification ? 10X ? I'm afraid that the majority of people on this site who make long distance kills on game animals will disagree with your approach. Unlike enemy combatants, at that long range one has sufficient time to carefully calculate out current weather, altitude, temperature, range, wind and dial it into the scope. I personally use my FFP reticle a lot, but that is because my shots are closer at 140-400 yards and the coyotes I am after are small and never cease to move.
Provided the OP has a scope with matching turret/reticle scale and for 99.9% of us lacking MC training, there is no advantage whatsoever in going with a Mil scale. Having said that, one generally has the choice to go either way on any decent scope so it is a matter of personal preference.
Originally Posted by aramarine6
Your right, math is math. I'm speaking from an experience standpoint. Not from a mathmatician standpoint. I started out using MOA scopes when I was younger. I then joined the service and only used MIL RAD. I wouldn't go back to MOA. But thats my preference. I prefer having an optic that I dont have to dial for distance up to and including 1000 yards. Also another reason I stopped shooting the 308 past 1000 is because using a ballistically superior round such as the 338 RUM made it that much easier. Less dialing, less holdover, less winddrift. It is my personal belief MIL RAD scopes are the best choice for long range work. Anyway it appears we have gotten off topic.