John this isn't an argument as Mil or MOA doesn't matter as they are angular measurements and if you think in inches you will only be hurting yourself, I'm just countering you points on the other side.
1 MOA is a better �size� to work with for shooting. A MIL is too large and, when working wind, even reticles such as Leupold's TMR with � MIL hashes, is courser than I prefer. Working in � MOA increments on wind holds supplies all the precision I can use from field shooting positions and allows me to get my focus off the reticle and on the target.
Even .5 Mil reticles are broken down into .1 mil for shooting. I've never seen a single person have any issue holding to at least .1 Mil. And .1 mil is finer than .5 MOA, no? With a Horus reticle we can hold to .05 mil.
MOA is pretty much the universal unit of measurement for rifle accuracy (in the USA) and even the guys who are dedicated to MILs usually discuss groups size or hit potential in MOA or the approximation inches at 100yds. Because we use the US customary units for linear measurements MILS has a hard time translating to accuracy standards or hit potential. So if you go to MILS you will still use MOA. Why use 2 systems?
Mils are the universal measurement in distance shooting in the world. Every single branch in the US military uses Mils and only teach MOA because there are legacy scopes left in MOA/MIL. 90% of shooters at LR tactical/sniper matches use Mils. It's actually probably higher than that. And it doesn't matter which you use as you will have to learn both if you shoot much. Someone that chooses a MOA/MOA scope is the minority anytime he shoots LR with other people. Learning how to use MOA and Mil is to freaking easy. If someone is too lazy, or they are incapable of learning to use both MOA and Mils, then truly they are incapable of shooting LR.
Being able to determine linear measurements in inches is very useful if you wish to check a buck antler spread or tine length. MOA is quite a bit faster and simpler to work with if you are using yards for distance and inches for measurements. I am not sure what the minimums for B&C alltime are in centimeters.
Can't say that I have ever seen anyone do this despite having heard the theory numerous times. In any case it's just as easy to do it in mils as MOA.
MOA works better for quick wind drift formulas.
No, it works different. Ex.- wind brackets....
As an example my 243 Win/105gr VLD @ my standard density (85%) has a Range / 2 = MOA drift in 10mph crosswind. This is an approximation but holds very close.
Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 2.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 5.0 MOA
My .264 Win Mag/ 140gr VLD @ 3250fps @ my standard density uses the same formula but is modified by subtracting 1 MOA from the Range / 2 formula.
Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 1.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 4.0 MOA
Wind drift has a tendency to work out in a linear manner as far as MOA holds.
It works just as well and faster with wind brackets and mils. Using your 264 WM above as an example the wind brackets are 7mph. That means every 100 yards is .1 Mil with a 7mph wind. The math is easy and very quick with just a bit of practice. I taught a buddies 7 year old son how to do it at lunch one day.
I believe it is easier for a spotter to give MOA corrections than MIL corrections when using non reticle equipped spotting scope. Most all of us do not use a spotting scope with a reticle. When I am looking at a buck 800yds away I can �see� MOA easily because his back to brisket is 2.5 MOA. His back to brisket is also .7 MILs but it is much clumsier as nothing in the shooters reticle is exactly or easily broken down into a .7 increment.
I don't really get the underlined portion. If you're using Mils then the shooter has a Mil reticle and .7mil is simple? If you meant that there is nothing in the spotter easily broken down into Mils, then there's also nothing easily broken down into MOA either.
The answer is simple. Get a spotter with a reticle.
Matching reticle to adjustments makes sense and there are more options in MIL/MIL but that is changing.
There are more FFP MOA/MOA scopes now then there were 5 years ago, however it is still pathetically few in comparison to FFP Mil/Mil options. And the people that dominate the LR community have spoken. MRAD is the standard. So even if someone can find a scope that's worth a poop that is FFP MOA/MOA, everyone around him shooting LR will be using Mils. So he's still stuck with Mils.
Some ballistic programs, when computing the bore angle, use real calculus radians and some use the 6400 approximation. This also applies to scope manufacturing concerning reticle subtension and click values.
I do not know a single manufacturer that uses anything other than .1mil= .36 inches subtention at 100 yards.
