I voted Mil. I wouldn't even consider a scope that wasn't mil/mil FFP. I use a laser range finder and know how to range with the reticle but I'm having alot of trouble finding accurate measurements of North American game. Without these estimations of size, ranging with the reticle is impossible. Any links would be great.
I also range in meters; I go full metric because that's the best system with the 1:1000 ratio and there's no multiplying by 3.6 anywhere. The only drawback to the total metric system is that we measure the accuracy of our rifles in MOA. Maybe I'll start a new trend and tell people how accurate my rifle is in mils!
“We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing.” ― Charles Bukowski
I agree with you, the MIL system is easy, 10cm (4") spacing between the dots at 100 meters, 1 meter (40") spacing between the dots at 1,000 meters ,,,,
drop compensators on many metric scopes are 1 cm clicks,,,, 10 clicks = 1 meter at 1,000 meters ,,,,
500 meters = approx 550 yards ..... 1,000 meters = approx 1,100 yards ,,,,, SOOO EASY ,,,,,
now, I went hunting for trophy antelope a few years ago with a good outfitter friend of mine, using HIS rangefinder, I forgot his rangefinder was probably set in yards, so when he gave me the range of a nice buck at 730 yards, I held for 730 meters and sailed JUST over the antelope's back ! ,,,,,
we got the buck later that day at 200 yards, but this is the lesson learned, and if you look at the pole results here, only 28% of shooters use the MIL metric system ,,,,