is there much performance difference between a Kahles K1050 and March 10-60-52??

[Hermantk]

Really? I have looked at the specs of the K1050 and simply cannot find that feature being discussed or highlighted. Since reticles are usually etched in glass these days, I can't help but wonder how the second focal plane K1050 can adjust the line thickness of its reticle.

I wnn this scope. On the K1050MOAK, the rim around the eyepiece is rubber. That rubber ring turns. Turning the ring causes the thickness of the reticle crosshairs to go from almost invisible to heavy.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I wnn this scope. On the K1050MOAK, the rim around the eyepiece is rubber. That rubber ring turns. Turning the ring causes the thickness of the reticle crosshairs to go from almost invisible to heavy.

Right, I'm looking at the Kahles manual and that ring around the rim of the eyepiece is the diopter adjustment for the eyepiece. It almost seems to be acting like an eyepiece zoom lens, the reticle is not changing size; you're changing the diopter adjustment of the eyepiece.

 

[Hermantk]

when you change the diopter, the thickness of the cross-hairs changes, dramatically. I guess it stands to reason that changing the magnification would alter the perceived line weight, but, subjectively, the change in line weight is far far greater than the change in size of the target image, perhaps because the target is way out there and the cross-hairs are very close. I cannot speak to the math of the optics. I can only describe my personal experience.