What is the word on these? Good, bad? Should one just stick with aimpoint, eotech, or trijicon?
Thanks,
B
I had one for about a month. The glass was pretty good, but it was just too bulky and heavy for my needs.
Look around, there has been quite a bit written about them here. They usually come up short, especially when compared to a short dot. I’ve never used a short dot, so I can’t comment on that.
i was issued one awhile back, and used it for a bit, qualed with it, etc.
its OK for what it is, a low power variable. It has a short battery life, is kinda bulky and heavy, no real need for the rails on it, etc
It does help some with target ID, etc.
Most people who’ve had other low power variables like them better then the CQ/T, but having one is not a death sentence. You just have to understand it shortcomings.
I was one of the first of my org at the time to get an Aimpoint issued, and it was way better, for what we did, if I could have added a magnifier at the time, i would’ve been set.
Pass on them.
C4
I carried one for almost 2 years. It was issued to me and at the time I had no choice as far as the options. It was mounted on a HBAR RRA with a Harris bipod and Redi-mag. That combo made it HEAVY as hell. Anyway I got along well with it and found it easy to use other than the cumbersome weight. Very clear glass with an etched reticle. Up close (less than 20 feet or so) I noticed a distortion leading me to believe it is not actually a true 1x at the low setting. The other problem with the reticle is that it is black when not illuminated and white when it is. It tended to wash out under certain circumstances. I had to turn it on a few times during the day due to dark targets on the range. My overall feeling= Its ok. There are better options.
Thanks for the info!
I would trade my ACOG for one but there arent any to trade for.
I know there heavy but I need something with out a BDC
I like mine, but I would never use it for CQ/T, just general/varmint shooting.
I like mine. As mentioned, a little heavy and bulky, but typical excellent Leupold glass. I haven’t had any issues.
I like mine but agree with everything above - negatives and positives. I love my Aimpoints but even here I have my CQT on a homebuild SPR. My 16" LWRC upper has a 2MOA with a 3X. There is no comparison that between the two, almost apples and oranges, in clearity of the CQT at magnification and no plumming of the reddot. Also no comparison between the CQT’s 1x and the Aimpoint(M3) without the 3x. The Aimpoint here, as with most, way above the rest.
I have this scope and I want a mount that will not show the F.S.P. Does Larue make a mount that will not cowitness on 1X
Copied from a post that I wrote close to 3 years ago:
Leupold CQ/T 1-3x14mm
It depends on your application. A lot of competition / 3 gunners use them and really like them. The glass is not bad, just doesn’t have a lot of features that lends it’s self to being a good optic for most military / police / tactical applications:
-On 3x the eye relief is extreemly short (about the width of my index finger),
-the field of view is like looking through a straw,
-the reticle is not visible during day light hours,
-at 3 yards the large circle is touching the “C” on an IPSC target (ie. it’s almost too large to be practical),
-it’s long and heavy (8.8", 17.5 oz),
-mounting options suck (unless LaRue starts making a mount for them again), the amber lit reticle sucks
-etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
In short, for my application LEO / SWAT, I don’t care for them.
For more info read my responses on page 3 (screen name USMC03)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=290997&page=3
From another post
My responses are listed in [b]BOLD Red[/b] text below your quote.
Originally posted by SMGLee:
Jeff,Always agree with everything you said except on this CQT issue.
Nothing wrong with having a differening opinion, based on first hand experience. If we all agreed all the time, this internet thing would get boring rather quickly
the eye relief is short but not any shorter then the ACOG 4x.
[b]I was running our Department Quals on the rifle range 2 weeks ago. We have over 200 sworn officers on our Dept. and only 1 of them carries a CQ/T. While this Officer was at the range I used his CQ/T to get familiar with it again, as it’s been 18 - 24 months since I last had any trigger time on one.
On 3x, I measured the distance from my eyebrow to the scope. It was the width of my index finger.
I have owned several ACOGs (TA01, TA01NSN, TA31s, and TA11s).
The eye relief on the TA01, TA01NSN, and TA31 is listed as 1.5". Measuring with my fingers the eye relief is the width of my index AND middle finger. For me the eye relief is noticeably more with the ACOGs.
The eye relief on the TA11 is 3" - 3.5". I’m sure you were probably refering to the 4x ACOGs.
[/b]FOV is actually better on the CQT then it is on the short Dot. at least at 1X.
I was refering to the FOV on 3x, it reminds me of looking through a straw. On 1x the CQ/T has a wide field of view, I can remember seeing the handguards on the Officer’s rifle.
it is true about the poor illuminating reticel and low battery life. but Short dot has about the same low life on the batteries but at least you can see the illumination during the day.
[b]Opinions, applications, and mission statements differ. As I stated above: “The glass is not bad, just doesn’t have a lot of features that lends it’s self to being a good optic for most military / police / tactical applications.”
For the square range there is nothing wrong with a non-illuminated reticle, or a reticle that can’t be seen during bright day light, with use of white light, etc.
For people who are operating outside the controlled enviornment of a square range, an illuminated reticle that can be seen under all conditions can be more of a “need” than a “want”.
A couple examples of this is:
-Consider going up a stair well with your CQ/T a bad guy has on dark colored clothing. You and a couple other members all have your 9 volt surefire lights aimed in on him. He won’t listen to commands. You can’t find your reticle because the lights are bright enough to wash out the illuminated reticle and the black reticle is blending in with his clothing. This happened to an Officer I know who use to use the CQ/T.
-Often times, when it’s bright outside bad guys, like cockroaches, like to hide in dark areas (barricaded gunman inside a dark house, suspect hiding in a salvage lot under a pile of wrecked cars, under a sheets of plywood leaned up against a fence, in a dark secluded breezeway, etc). If you under the bright sun light in the middle of the day and the suspect is in a dark area, you may not be able to see the reticle as the sun light will wash out the illumination and it’s extreemly difficult / sometimes impossible to see / find a black reticle against a dark background.[/b]
mount does suck.
At least we found some common ground
but as long and heavy, it is no longer and heavier then a Short dot that cost a lot more.
[b]I should have been more articulate. For what it does, the CQ/T is long and heavy.
If a piece of gear has outstanding performance and desireable features I will tolerate a little extra weight or bulkyness. Other optics are on the market that are close to the same features as the CQ/T that are light, smaller, have more magnification, have more features, and have more eye relief.
To compare the a $700 CQ/T to a $2,000+ Short Dot is much like comparing a $20,000 Saturn to a $50,000 Mercedes Benz. They are not really in the same class. With the Benz, you are paying more for attention to detail and performance. The same applies to optics.
I wasn’t trying to compare the two. If you read the www.ar15.com thread above, a guy on that site stated that the they were basically the same, but the CQ/T just cost less. There was a long discussion about the CQ/T in that thread, and that is why I posted a link to it. Sorry for any mis-comm on my part.[/b]
the Long tube is require to reach a true 1x unlike the Short dot which is about as long and it is actually a 1.1x.
The CQ/T is extreemly close to 1x, but it is not a true 1x like an EO Tech or Aimpoint. Look at the front sight post next time you look though a CQ/T and you will see some slight distortion cause by slightly more than 1x magnification.
then again… no one really makes a ture to life 1X there is always some varations. but CQT is the closest to a true 1X.
Disreguard my last…I concur
It is indeed ugly…and the damn rail on the tube.
More info on the CQ/T:
Gear selection is based on mission statement and personal preference. If you gear doesn’t work when you need it to, it hinders you ability to proficiently complete your mission and come home safely.
I’m not saying that the CQ/T is a bad optic. Leupold marketed it toward the military / tactical community and in my opinion the CQ/T doesn’t have a lot of features that lends it’s self to being a good optic for most military / police / tactical applications.
I think a lot of the complaints you hear about the CQ/T comes from military guys and cops. Many 3 gun, IPSC, competition shooters love the CQ/T. If Leupold had marketed the scope to a different crowd or given it a different name, I don’t think you would hear as much chatter about it. Just my 2 pesos
S/F,
Jeff
I like my CQ/T… but on my heavier PTR.
Can’t say as I’ve ever desired to try it on my AR’s, as they’re really set up for CQB/home/perimeter defense work. MY PTR is my ‘urban forward observation rifle,’ however, and would be my rifle for anything beyond the edge of my yard really. NOT that my AR’s COULDN’T handle it - I simply wanted to dedicate the bigger .308 rifle to that work.
Your mileage may vary… 