Anyone else prefer .1 MIL turrets over MOA?

[243Mendoza]

Actually the difference at 1000 yards would be less than a half inch(0.47"), less than 0.05 MoA.

I think we are both wrong For example, if you come up 30min from 100yd, you would be off by 30*.047=1.41moa.

 

[Depart123]

My reason for sticking with mils is a pragmatic one. My formula for calling wind allows me to call to the nearest 0.1mil quickly under changing field conditions and the reticle easily supports that.

Whereas when I am calling wind in moa, I typically call in 0.5 moa increments because the math gets too cumbersome to do quickly in 0.25 moa increments and the reticles in moa scopes aren't that friendly to holds finer than 0.5 moa anyway.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Don't know if I'll ever warm up to FFP because I'm definitely a laser rangefinder guy and I like my reticle to stay small when aiming for a long range shot. The Nikon BlackX1000 6-24x50 is an oddball with .1 mil turrets and 2nd focal plane reticle. I really like it this way so far.

 

[ED3]

I think we are both wrong For example, if you come up 30min from 100yd, you would be off by 30*.047=1.41moa.

I was commenting on the math error.
10 x 1.047 = 10.47
10 x 1 = 10.00

 

[JBT47]

Mil/Mil FFP for me. Although I’m comfortable with MOA also.

FFP Reticles have come along way. Some have a very fine aiming point. The SKMR 3 reticle in the Khales 624i is one such reticle.

 

[fyrewall]

I guess I better get started with a fixed power mil-mil scope and then move onto a variable FFP with some kind of reticle fine enough for tiny targets at long range. This is better than having no choice and having something provided with expectations of using it well real fast. I have no plans to sell my laser. If .25 MOA is cumbersome think about .125 MOA, 1/8 MOA.