I shot MOA, switch to mils for a few years and went back to MOA. For me it is the better solution in that it is an easier calculation and a finer adjustment.
I'll have to politely disagree with a few folks here. With a little practice using a ranging reticle, you can get accurate enough to have sub-MOA hits at distances well past what many would consider a reasonable (ethical) hunting distance and much further on stationary targets. As some have mentioned, many tactical matches often incorporate ranging with a reticle. Some matches, like the Mammoth Sniper Challenge, will require some amount of ranging on the majority of stages.
Look at HiredGun's post above. That is great info there. When I discuss mils vs. MOA with people new to ranging reticles they jump at MOA as soon as I put the formulas on the board. The mil system certainly has its place, but the learning curve is higher for most people.
Lastly, man I haven't seen anyone toting around a mildot master in a LONG time. I must be visiting the wrong ranges.
There is no one perfect solution for everyone. Find what works for YOU and your needs. :-)
Best regards,
Mark
