The fact early US Scope makers and training focused around the linear distance at range does not make it valid or correct. Just because that is how they "used" to do it, or that was how you were taught doesn't make it right.
People are very adaptable and will adjust, doesn't make it any less limiting in practical application simply because we made due.
They recognized the need for angles, and the benefit of it, then immediately turned away from that very method to relate the distance via a linear measurement. Linear discussions and distances have no real place within the scope, it should only apply to the distance in terms of range, not any part of the solution for either range or wind. The Angle is universally superior to saying 1 (anything) @ 100, 2 @ 200, 3 @ 300... this cause a lot of confusion, even with people who think they understand it.
Anyone can succeed when on their range shooting alone, the difference comes into play when you have a situation beyond your making or control. I have seen many a person who used a mix of MOA & IPHY on their home range fall apart when taken out of their comfort zone and that is a result of the errors built into the system. It's a big fudge factor from the start, and only compounds at distance because the fudge factor was never intended to shoot beyond short ranges or was used only KD Ranges where it really didn't matter. If you have a vertical fudge factor in the target of 4 MOA or more as many target will you'll never see the errors of your ways. Also, if you are shooting on a KD Range (even with a sub moa bullseye) you are zeroing for that range and it makes no difference what the answer to the range is. If the routine is always to dial the same number you might as well call it 8 for 800, 9 for 900 and never used any unit of measurement.
The MOA is dead, or at least should be allowed to die...
There is no reason to use it in shooting, there is no reason to incorporate it in a scope and there is no effective way to modify it beyond IPHY. Even that should really only be used for KD Course shooting. When it comes to using the scope and reticle in combination for tactical shooting, even hunting or any other form of UKD it should be shunned as too sloppy and too ineffective for extended use. The idea we "think" in inches is a ridiculous one and doesn't play out. Effective shooters don't think in linear terms, they read the ruler and adjust to exactly what they see. If the first thing that pops in your head is, linear, 1@ 100, 2@ 200, etc, that is clue you are doing it wrong. There is no reason to "think" about it that way at all.
1.047 does not divide effectively by anything. They have difficultly machining it in the turrets, they have taken to shorting it to the point you have to map it. If you own a MOA based scope and you haven't tested it completely, the odds are against you from the start. Same with the reticle. They find it much easier to make a reticle MOA based then give you an IPHY turret. Big mistake. Also as noted there is not Standardized subtension across manufacturers, no two reticles are exactly the same will have a defining reference point like Mils do. Not all MOA reticles have a 1 MOA reference, or two, etc, and not all MOA / IPHY are the same either, 1/8th, 1/4th, 1/2, 1" all exist in current offerings. Mils it is .1 with a few that offer .05 simply because people believe they need that close to 1/8th adjustment for accuracy. But practically speaking all mil based scopes have 1. turrets with 1 mil in the reticle. There is a standard, the fact a few chose to deviate doesn't matter in the big picture.
Stop supporting the idea of the MOA in a reticle and let it die, it's outlived it's usefulness
