For those of you that use spotters to call shots, I would really like your input on this. I have always been a lone shooter and and a MIL based fan, thinking that the MIL reticle/turret setup with 1/2 MIL hash marks and .1 adjustments is about the ideal combination for a long range rig. I just like everything it offers, i.e., uncluttered reticle, turret adjustment coarseness, and pretty easy math. I think if a guy is spotting his own shots or if his spotter has a scope or spotting scope with the same MIL reticle then the MIL system is ideal. However, I watched Shawn Carlock's videos this week and he brought up a point that got me thinking about the potential benefits of MOA if you have a spotter that doesn't have a matching reticle in his scope or doesn't have a reticle at all to use through the spotting scope. In this case it seems much easier and faster to estimate the miss in inches and quickly calculate the MOA adjustment needed without any ranging reticle. So for a 1200 yard target 1 MOA is approx 12 inches so if a guy misses by 12 inches he needs a 1 MOA correct, 18 inches is a 1.5 MOA correct, etc. If a MIL reticle or turret was being used there would be considerably more work involved to estimate the miss in inches then calculate what the MIL adjustment would need to be. For speed of the followup shot isn't the MOA system quite a bit better in this example? I guess the reason I am thinking about this is I have not shot with a spotter before but will be soon as I have a son that is going to be shooting and hunting with me and a newer shooting buddy that wants me to teach him long range shooting and I am just trying to figure out what is going to be best in this example. Input appreciated.