In contrast, I originally started using a mil scope approx 20 years ago. But, after using a NF moa reticle the first time a few years later, I quickly made the switch to MOA and haven't looked back.
For me, similar reasons as Michaels' post #1, reasons 1 and 3, but in favor of MOA or IPHY. Real headaches can and do occur with a mil reticle and moa dials.
I Agree with grits' post #2. I've found it easier to add or subract 5% if needed, rather than even thinking about the .0472"/100 thing. 5% is close enough and easy to do in my head.
I currently sight in most of my rifles to be 4moa low at 400 yds (easily remembered). This also puts me pretty darn close to zero'd at 200 and 2 moa low at 300. So no matter if I have a 2moa spacing or more precise 1moa spacing, it works for quick memorized holdover to 400 and I start the drop chart there.
Different strokes for different folks, but after using both; I personally agree with grit, IMO switching to mil is taking a step backwards. I think the reason so many have mil reticles is that they have been available for so long, and so many scope makers have them, especially in the lower priced scope lines.
This debate will go on for years, it's been hashed over and over and over again. So really; just use what you like the best. Try em both under the same situations and circumstances and go with what you like. If cost is an issue, you're more likely to find a cheap scope with mil reticle.