I really like mils. I have shot moa too, they are all just clicks, and a form of measurement. Let me give you an example of the easiness of mils. My hd b binos give me the yardage,and then the number of clicks in mils. For example.43 clicks. With mils you know that would be 4.3 mils of adjustment. Just add a decimal. I can range and dial in a couple seconds. With moa. I have to divide the total # of clicks by 4 as there are 4 .25 moa clicks in 1 moa. This adds a step and takes longer. Both methods get you there, moa just has an extra step. This takes longer and adds a Sep for a possible mathematical mistake.
funny you mention that. you have that problem because whoever designed the leica geovid's evidently never let any western hunters try them out and test them first. It was an oversite that the ballistic program outputs like the way it does in MOA and makes you divide by 4. So don't fault the unit of measurement, ie MOA when its an equipment defect.
shocking to some of you guys I actually own an SWFA ss scope. so checkmate.
the FFP vs SFP lordy I am sick of the argument, a hunting scope spends most of its time on LOW power, at least mine does. when I need the features of the reticle I dial to max power to take a long range shot. if you have a scope from 12x to 16x in max power your NOT, I repeat very unlikely to use anything but max power. its not too much power to dial down for mirage, so with that said FFP is just a downside because the reticle isn't useable and is probably hard to see at low power where the scope spends most of its time.
FFP is for dynamic shooting situations where your likely to be changing scope power more often. maybe your shooting at moving targets, maybe your scope maxes at say 24x that is when FFP makes sense. that is why its preferred by competitors. This is a hunting forum and I said a hunting scope!
