I was thinking from the perspective of someone who hadnt seen archery before watching a shoot and trying to quickly calculate how well someone was doing. You could argue that scoring in metric gives you the advantage of orders af magnitude so 10, 100, 1000 etc easy to determine.

In olympic shooting the first stage is scored ex 600 (ex 100 for clays) and that was divided into cards of 100 so a doddle to see who was in a good position at the end of a detail by looking at the points dropped. the brain quickly realises that any score of 2 digits is worse than a score of 3 digits regardless of the actual numbers. That is also the basis of simple automated computation so I suggest that a system based on dozens and grosses came about due to spatial ordering rather than counting- ie putting things into boxes in a 3x4 pattern is more space efficient and has a better aspect ratio than a 5x2 box. The same applies to the navy using square plates, easier to manufacture and store rather than a round on of the same area.

As for chains and furlongs etc, they are divisions of a mile rather than a unit that was invented, like the metre and then multiplied for bigger numbers. the Roman mile was 1000 paces but the pace being measured as a left-right rather than just a single step hence arriving at 1760 yards as this was how far you got marching rather than striding or pacing out distance.

Metric fluid and weight measures also match in so a cubic centimetre of water is a centilitre and has a mass of 10 grams and everything ties together so when you build your swimming pool you should be able to calculate the volume of water and its mass very easily whereas if you use imperial measures can you do the same quicky in your head for a 25 yard x10yard x4 feet deep pool?. What unit for measuring mass would you use if you decided to use hexadecimal for counting?

Human symmetry is part of a much longer evolutionary process, look at the symmetry of starfish, sea urchins etc. how many petals do 3 out of 5 families of flowers have? We were never going to have 8 fingers per hand just so we could invent computers 100,000 years later. 5 fingers so 5 arrows per end so certain people can work out if they have shot all of their arrows and missed or just left them in the quiver. It may change the face of limited over cricket as well. 60 overs of 6 balls an over? At least you only have to get 10 people out, not 11 or 12.