Kahles 10x50 M OAK reticle

[SGK]

Looking at the reticle.

https://verwaltung.kahles.at/files/shares/Absehen/Dokumente/MOAK_K1050.pdf

Windage markings are 0.84" at 100 yards. 0.8 MOA. What's the reason for 0.8MOA markings as opposed to, say, 0.5 or 1 MOA? I took a quick look at competition targets and couldn't see a correlation there either.

 

[TylerFromMS]

Roughly half of the golden mean… crafty Australians.

 

[divingin]

Your link is screwy; remove the "Windage" at the end and it works.

As to the question, I'd guess it's because it's a 2nd focal plane scope, designed to be in-scale near the middle of the zoom range, and they're only listing subtensions at the extremes of the zoom adjustment.

 

[SGK]

link fixed

Ah. That likely makes sense. Thanks

 

[jepp2]

link fixed

not for me

This one works https://verwaltung.kahles.at/files/shares/Absehen/Dokumente/MOAK_K1050.pdf

 

[quest450]

Roughly half of the golden mean… crafty Australians.

or Austrians

 

[Dos XX]

or Austrians

Vegemite vs streudel.

 

[mr45man]

Roughly half of the golden mean… crafty Australians.

Australians ?

 

[Ned Ludd]

What you're asking about are the reticle hashmark angular subtensions of a second focal plane scope at 50X versus 10X magnification. Some scope manufacturers provide reticle subtension data only for a specific magnification at which those subtensions have been "calibrated". However, you can easily convert them for any magnification you wish using fractions and simple cross-multiplication. Your question is really aimed at why the "specific magnification" at which a reticle is calibrated is not always the maximum magnification. I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. However, given your observation that at 50X the reticle windage subtension of this particlar reticle/scope is a some what odd dimension (0.84" or 0.80 MOA @ 50X), I rather suspect this MOAK reticle was not calibrated at 50X. Using fractions and cross-multiplication as I suggested above, you can easily determine for yourself at which magnification a more "satisfying" whole integer value would be obtained for the windage hashmarks.

 

[Uncle Mike]

What you're asking about are the reticle hashmark angular subtensions of a second focal plane scope at 50X versus 10X magnification. Some scope manufacturers provide reticle subtension data only for a specific magnification at which those subtensions have been "calibrated". However, you can easily convert them for any magnification you wish using fractions and simple cross-multiplication. Your question is really aimed at why the "specific magnification" at which a reticle is calibrated is not always the maximum magnification. I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. However, given your observation that at 50X the reticle windage subtension of this particlar reticle/scope is a some what odd dimension (0.84" or 0.80 MOA @ 50X), I rather suspect this MOAK reticle was not calibrated at 50X. Using fractions and cross-multiplication as I suggested above, you can easily determine for yourself at which magnification a more "satisfying" whole integer value would be obtained for the windage hashmarks.

Thanks Ned, you have a way of explaining things so I can understand mostly. I am always sure to read what you have to say no matter the subject. Thanks again.

 

[wjm1000]

At 40X it equals 1 MOA