Originally Posted by skipdavidson
I'm MOA all the way!
Ok, a question for the Mil users. Explain (as if I'm new to long range precision shooting) why you would select the Mil system over MOA? (other than the reasons: I always have, my scope is a Mil scope, the military does it).
I'm one of those weirdos that moved from MOA to MIL for my big game hunting needs!
Taking that math out of it, and they both are pretty easy, it is just getting used to it, I still personally like MIL for a few reasons. And keep in mind this list is simply what I like and I do still use both MOA and MIL.
I like the slightly courser adjustments. For my type of shooting, big game to a half mile or so, and practicing out to 1000-1200 yards, I don't feel I lose enough precision to worry about with a .36 adjustment over .26. But the courser adjustments do add these benefits.
1. Fewer clicks and/or rotations of the turret to get on target. This aids in speed and helps eliminate error to some degree IMO.
2. Smaller numbers to remember when dialing, ie 5 mil vs 16.6 MOA. Again, quicker and easier to remember which should lead to fewer mistakes
3. If you like using a ranging/ballistic style reticle in your scope, and I do, I personally like what the 1/2 MIL hash reticles bring to the table. They are a really good blend of precision without too much clutter for ranging, measuring misses or group size, and hold over for target acquisition. I have used 2 MOA and 1 MOA hash reticles and always found myself wanting a bit finer hashmarks than what the 2 MOA offered and the 1 MOA is awful cluttered. Obviously this is my taste only.
Also, I really like FFP scopes for big game hunting inside of 1000-1200 yards and MIL scopes still offer way more and better options than MOA scopes. This has begun to balance more as companies add FFP MOA options but MIL still rules the FFP world as far as good quality scopes with well designed reticles. I realize my like of FFP doesn't fit the majority on this site for LR hunting.