I was in a local shop the other day and they showed me a new scope. It was MOA so I asked if they had the same thing in mil/mil. They said the don't order mil/mil because no one will buy them.
I have no problem running moa or mil but I also started shooting a mil dot reticle with moa knobs back before there were affordable laser range finders. It always bugged me that manufacturers couldn't seem to match the turrets to the reticle so things have improved much now that most of them do.
I just don't understand the fear of going mil/mil. At a basic level it's all just turning numbers on a dial to what your chart or app says. I prefer mil just because its decimal and a .1 mil is a little coarser than 1/4 moa. I think mil reticles are a little less crowded and more intuitive than moa.
Another thing I think manufacturers get wrong is bragging on 4 or 5 times magnification on a ffp scope.
I think ffp is better at 3 times magnification because the reticle is easier to work with on the extremes. I really prefer to hold my windage off from the reticle. For example I think a 5-15 ffp makes more sense than a 3-15. Five power being plenty low enough.
I actually think a 5-15 would do nearly everything I'd ever do hunting. Any higher than 15 and you get heat distortion and poor low light.
If I owned a scope co I'd probably go 3-9, 4-12, 5-15 and maybe a 6-18 for dual purpose varmint rigs all ffp and mil/mil with smaller capped windage turrets. All though personally I could do it all with 3-9 and 5-15
And of course my flagship model would be a fixed 8 with a 42 or 45 mil objective, mil/mil, small capped windage, and parallax down to 10 meters or even lower so it could also run rim fire and airgun.
Bb
I don't understand people's fear of people who just don't LIKE the same things they like. Why are they so fearful. WHY do you fear people who don't want mil/mil scopes?
