Clicking on your chosen answer in the poll is all that is necessary to fulfill the OP's quest. I don't recall him asking for any further comments, so any sort of banter here serves to keep his poll at the forefront.
I did this and left without commenting. Then came back and read the MIL vs MOA monkey poo fighting. Wow.
I'll shoot my rifle in increments of 100 yards (not meters), write down each of the mils for that distance, and tape my dope to my buttstock. Then when hunting, I'll use my rangefinder in yards and dial appropriately. Mils and MOA work the same for my style -- they're just numbers on a turret. Lol!
I am largely in this camp but a little different. I'm definitely not smooth enough to hit targets "on demand under pressure quickly out to 600" or whatever. I used SFP, MOA scopes for the longest time because that's what everyone I knew who hunted used. When I bought my first 6.5 Creedmoor several years (a decade now?) ago, I wanted to set it up to be able to shoot PRS (which I've regretably still not done, though I've shot NRL Hunter and even F-Class with it). The internet told me I needed a mil/mil FFP scope, so I bought a Vortex PST Gen II 5-25. That was my first experience with any scope that cost more than $200, my first FFP scope, my first scope with a zero stop, my first scope with turrets made for dialing, and my first mil/mil scope. I loved it (until it died in a competition last year after bumping a rock)!
That scope lead me to want to upgrade every scope I owned. Better glass and at least a dialing elevation turret seemed to be non-negotiable. But, conventional wisdom was that SFP was the right choice for hunting, and Leupold just seemed to have everything figured out for hunters and those became my go-to hunting scopes. When I started elk hunting with a rifle, I decided I really ought to try the VX5HD 3-15x44 with the windplex reticle. I mean, that scopes perfect, right? (sarcasm guys, calm down).
My decision to transfer virtually all of my scopes over to mils (a work still in progress) came afte a couple of hunting trips out west with the MOA system. Like you, I make up "dope" cards for my load before heading to the mountains. When I'd make them, I'd have to round MOA solutions in the tenth to the nearest quarter MOA. Not a deal breaker, but kinda odd to be rounding out of base ten into quarters. But the frustration and "aha moment" came with me being unable to confidently remember my dope in MOA for my hunting rifle, even when in the field with it and looking at the card every day, but I could easily remember my dope in MILs for my "match" rifle sitting at home. 6 3/4 is just harder to remember than 2.0. And I was aware of the concept of "quick drop" in MILs (though it wasn't called that) from another forum, so I always had the ability to check my memory if I was unsure about my MIL dope without digging my card out. But I can't do that reliably in MOA---I have to have the card. This is compounded after I haven't studied my MOA dope cared in a while, whereas I can remember my drop in MILs for a long time. I'm still learning "mph gun" for wind, but it's simple too. To me, working in base 10 is just unquestionably easier than working in freedom fractions. So why fight it?
I don't claim to have ever missed or not killed an animal because I was using MOA versus MIL. My screw ups are all attributable to much more base incompetence. Usually, I zero at 200 (non dialable) or dial-on a 200 yard zero to cover any quick shot opportunities. Now, my rangefinder even has onboard ballistics so I don't have to consult my dope card and it doesn't really matter to me whether I'm in MOA or MIL. I do still have and use scopes in both MOA and MIL. But, because I know my brain intuitively "gets" the MIL system better, I am also slowly but surely transitioning my field/hunting scopes over to MILs.
I'm interested in an FFP scope with a reticle usable at low power because I like the idea of a having some simple subtensions in a reticle but I had a bad experience with an SFP BDC scope not being on the right magnification. I know, I know, that's easily solvable with a little brain power, but eliminating the variable altogether is ideal. And if I can get some peace of mind that the scope isn't going to randomly stop pointing where I aim it, or that the erector won't get stuck if I dial up a ways and then dial back down, all the better.
