I, too, started with the 10D in a Subal and shot with both the Sigma 50mm and the Canon 100mm macro. I have learned a great deal with that setup and have been able to get some shots that I am pleased with.
Although I have a long way to go to get better and I am in no way equal to the the majority of the capabilties of the 10D, I found myself wanting to upgrade. One of the biggest reasons was the accuracy of the AF.
My camera didn't hunt as you said yours does. Mine would lock and fire the shot fairly quickly. But too high a percentate of my faster action shots both above and below water (such as faster moving fish or things like harbor seals) would be out of focus or just a bit soft. I'm talking about shots taken with center point focus and every other combo I've read about on different boards.
Further even some of the shots that I would have said were in focus aren't super sharp (and can't be sharpened to the point where they look super sharp). This was true of even stationary objects.
I sent my camera in to Canon along with some lenses. They calibrated them and it did get a little bit better. But it wasn't the kind of improvement I'd hoped for.
To be fair I've had little other AF camera experience to compare it to. I have since played around with a 1DMKII. But I didn't get a chance to play around with it in a situation with faster action or look at the sharpness in the fine detail. I'm not really surprised that you didn't notice a big difference when you played around with the MKII at the store; I didn't notice a big difference in my 5D until I'd had it for a couple of days and got a chance to shoot some situations I'm familar with.
Alex talks about low-light AF difficulties. The AF problems I had with my camera weren't low-light exclusive.
When the 20D came out I wondered if that would be better. But I never really considered it in more than passing as it wasn't, in my mind, enough of an upgrade.
However, when the 5D came out I got one. I'd always wanted a FF camera and it has less noise, more pixels, instant start up, a bigger viewfinder, better metering, and I had hoped when I got it that the AF would be better.
So far I'm quite pleased with the camera. I wish I could say the AF is perfect, but, in my opinion, it is not. But it's very very good.
I'm still waiting on my Subal but above water it handles fast action pretty well in the shooting that I've done so far. The biggest surprise in the upgrade though has turned about to be just how much sharper things in focus actually are. I have been really blown away by this. That extra bit of sharpness even in just one small detail of an image can dramatically change the overall look of the entire image.
The other day was looking at some shots of turtles I took in Hawaii recently with the 10D. I was going through them to pull the selects and I found myself opening images with compositions I liked that would end up, on closer inspection, a bit too soft to make the cut. (I can only imagine how much sharper some of those images would be I'd taken them with the 5D.)
Looking back I personally would never have considered spending all that money to upgrade for slightly better AF speed and accuracy. But knowing what I know it certainly would have been a bigger impetus for considering an upgrade, as you're doing now. When you find yourself passing over images for no other reason than that it's not in focus, that's clearly a problem.
As I said, I've bit the bullet and gone the FF route. It's a very big and costly move for me. But I'm very happy I did it. I'm biased to FF and would suggest you check out the 5D in addition to the MKII.
From the sound your post I suspect I was feeling like you're feeling. I hope this helps. Good luck.