Whoa whoa. I'm not as old as you Dewey and his system were outdated by the time I got to 3rd grade.

That being said I'm just giving you a hard time about everyone thinking mil=metric.

I know.

It was more for the on-lookers.

It's closer to metric measurement than standard. I do get what your saying I just view MOA as standard and MIL as metric

Oh and yeah, I'm young enough not to know what the Dewey thing your talking about either. But I'm just old enough if they did teach us that in 3rd grade I don't remember

East's post proves my point on this topic, I believe.

Most everybody that goes Mils will accept nothing else after. When are you going to come to my range and prove me wrong? You aint got ten minutes to make ten shots though, pal.

Depends on the primary purpose, and user preference.

Having used both, I am all SFP and MOA at the moment, but certainly not against Mils or FFP.

Go to a F-class match, and 95% are using SFP with MOA because it allows for a finer reticle and finer adjustment.

For hunting in the field, I like SFP because when the magnification is turned down low, the reticle becomes "thicker," while a FFP shrinks the size of the reticle. Yes, I know in reality the FFP is constant, but the size to the eye decreases in size.

Just pointing out that it is not as universal as it might appear. But, it will come down to user preference, and then practice.

Both are units of measure of angles, and the user simply has to think in that unit of measure.

Ranging is the only place where inches and centimeters matter, and in reality animals cannot be accurately ranged with a reticle, they simply vary too much in size.

Yes user preferance. You have to know that some of my comments are partially poking a few people around here with a stick. I know who knows their stuff and we don't agree on everything but we do agree on most things. You know who you are...

i like Jeffbirds post ^^^^ i have both......gimme the sfp for all round shootin Wash