there is nothing magic about one system over another, they are simply a unit of measure nothing more nothing less. sometimes I think people that use the mil system get and attitude that its somehow better and that MOA people are inexperienced and don't know what they are doing. I have read the threads and used the mil system as well. I still can't get the argument of why mils is better. YES its 1/10 and 1/1000th of a unit and yes I will admit its a superior unit breakdown, just like the metric system is a better unit of measurement. The problem is this doesn't correlate to anything we use in our daily life. The only thing 1 mil corelates to in our daily life is 1 of them means 1 yard at 1000 yards. The problem with this is it doesn't breakdown that well making small corrections, small corrections is what we need when making long shots.
keep in mind the guys at snipers hide are using their guns in a TOTALLY different manner in most cases than us long range hunters are. number one they are generally always at a range rather than in the field. You can evidence this by the massive IMO unportable rifles they use. a 15-20# gun is the norm. they also have range cards, a spotter and other things that are not very portable to use. They also tend to shoot and adjust, or some would call them sighter shots. a long range hunter is lucky to get more than one shot and if they do get more than one it aint the SAME shot they just took. I guess bad guys don't move either. They will also tell you they depend on the reticle to make the corrections in mils based on measurements inside the reticle. ok thats fine and all, but why couldn't this also be done in MOA with a MOA based reticle AND you also have the benefit of understanding just what the distance is converted roughly to inches. my whole point is why not use a system you can both do the math in your head with AND make corrections for. The snipers hide guys say oh quit trying to do math in your head just use the reticle. with MOA based reticles why not quit with the math and use the reticle AND if you need to correlate target size or other things in your head if needed.
until someone gets me a decent rational argument on why mils are better other than it breaks down in 1/10ths I see no reason to change my thinking, although I could if someone even made a halfway decent case for it. I like being able to look at a rock across a canyon pulling out my RF distance 750 yards. rock measures 2 MOA I know thats about a 15" rock, if I shoot 3" low I can just make a half minute correction, to me MOA has an advantage when the distances may not be known. the other thing is I think many long range shooters prefer the mil system because up until a few years ago mil based reticles were all you could get on a long range scope.
PS, yes I know 1 MOA isnt 1" and there is roughly a 5% difference. buts its close enough and the distances we are shooting at 5% correction error in a windage adjustment is less error than our rifle is capable of in the accuracy department.
