quote:

Originally posted by OTD:
This is the reason why MIL RAD is better suited in the metric system. MOA on the other hand is better suited for «American» distances for the same reason and a challange when it´s used on metric distances.

This is true, when one uses the reticle to range unknown distances to targets of known sizes. The calculations are easier in your head for Mil/metric and MOA/American.

Understand that American competitors (and likely almost all non-competitors, casual plinkers, and hunters) just don't range distances using our reticles. If distances aren't given to us, we use our own LRF devices. LRFs are the rage here -- even golfers have them. LRF units are available in most sporting goods stores, and they are reasonably priced. Call us Americans lazy, math-skillz ignorant, or electronic toy lovers -- it doesn't matter, as we don't use reticles for ranging. Reticle ranging may be common on your side of the pond, but it's gone the way of the dodo bird in the States. We don't want to bring it back to life, either.

Back to the OP -- The possible Primary Arms mil-based reticle works. All the math is taken out of the equation, as the 18" wide bars (representing IPSC / body width) line up with hold overs. Not anal-retentive precision, but close enough for the OP's use. Furthermore, with maximum magnification of 8x, one-mil-based windage and holdover dots in the Christmas tree portion of the reticle are much, much better than any scale that is MOA based.

I am just at the very beginning of my learning curve on scopes but I really like the Primary Arms ACSS HUD reticle. I have not purchased one yet. It takes a little of the guesswork out if you're shooting an unknown range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0oLPFNWCLE&t=439s