The mil system is not metric, but rather an angular unit of measure. The assumption to the contrary is understandable though, considering that metric units in a linear sense are often mentioned in association. (The system is not imperial either.)
In a practical sense, neither metric nor imperial linear measurements matter much in shooting with a mil system. If hits or holes from previous shots can be spotted through the scope, it's easy to measure the distance between POI and POA through the scope, then adjust accordingly by either adjusting hold or dialing the turret(s), or a combination of both. (The same could be said for a moa system.)
If you like to physically measure a target for distance between POI and POA when sighting in and / or fine-tuning a zero, no doubt that measuring in centimeters for close linear association with 0.1-mil clicks is helpful. (Since metric measuring tools seem hard to find in the USA, an appropriate app can be easily downloaded to a smart phone.)
Ballistic programs can provide trajectory data in mils in reference to yardage so that there's no math to compute. As a practical example for a Grendel rifle used for both target shooting and hunting, let's assume a traditional 200-yard hunting zero with a 4.3 mil drop at 600 yards. When target shooting, dialing up 43 clicks isn't an issue. But for hunting, where as a quick shot might be needed for a coyote at 600 yards, it would be easy to get lost in dialing up that much. Thus, dialing up 3 clicks and holding on the 4-mil mark of the reticle would serve the same effect. If necessary, an approximate hold between the 4 and 4.5 mil marks would also work (assuming the reticle has half mil marks).
I'm not trying to be overly persuasive towards anyone regarding mil versus moa. I'm merely trying to point out that the mil system is not really complicated (and not really metric), and is a relatively easy transition to make.
For whatever it's worth, I think there is a far greater preference for mil/mil systems (regarding reticle and turrets) when it comes to tactical scopes. I expect that the selection of mil/mil scopes will continue to grow (supply & demand), as will offerings with reticles in the first focal plane.
Of course, it all boils down to making accurate shots, and whichever system works for someone wouldn't be any better or worse with a different system. But a system with matching reticle and turrets, whether mil/mil or moa/moa, makes everything much easier.
(The argument for a moa system for someone who also competes with irons is certainly valid, and one that I hadn't previously considered.)
In a practical sense, neither metric nor imperial linear measurements matter much in shooting with a mil system. If hits or holes from previous shots can be spotted through the scope, it's easy to measure the distance between POI and POA through the scope, then adjust accordingly by either adjusting hold or dialing the turret(s), or a combination of both. (The same could be said for a moa system.)
If you like to physically measure a target for distance between POI and POA when sighting in and / or fine-tuning a zero, no doubt that measuring in centimeters for close linear association with 0.1-mil clicks is helpful. (Since metric measuring tools seem hard to find in the USA, an appropriate app can be easily downloaded to a smart phone.)
Ballistic programs can provide trajectory data in mils in reference to yardage so that there's no math to compute. As a practical example for a Grendel rifle used for both target shooting and hunting, let's assume a traditional 200-yard hunting zero with a 4.3 mil drop at 600 yards. When target shooting, dialing up 43 clicks isn't an issue. But for hunting, where as a quick shot might be needed for a coyote at 600 yards, it would be easy to get lost in dialing up that much. Thus, dialing up 3 clicks and holding on the 4-mil mark of the reticle would serve the same effect. If necessary, an approximate hold between the 4 and 4.5 mil marks would also work (assuming the reticle has half mil marks).
I'm not trying to be overly persuasive towards anyone regarding mil versus moa. I'm merely trying to point out that the mil system is not really complicated (and not really metric), and is a relatively easy transition to make.
For whatever it's worth, I think there is a far greater preference for mil/mil systems (regarding reticle and turrets) when it comes to tactical scopes. I expect that the selection of mil/mil scopes will continue to grow (supply & demand), as will offerings with reticles in the first focal plane.
Of course, it all boils down to making accurate shots, and whichever system works for someone wouldn't be any better or worse with a different system. But a system with matching reticle and turrets, whether mil/mil or moa/moa, makes everything much easier.
(The argument for a moa system for someone who also competes with irons is certainly valid, and one that I hadn't previously considered.)
Drifter