Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/20/2005 8:48:48 PM EDT
Please note the question, "WHICH IS THE BETTER 1-3 SETUP?"

not: What would you get?
not: What is out there that is a better 1-3 setup than either choice?
not: how do you feel about variable power scopes?
not: what do you think about the pricing of the aimpoint magnifier?
not: Which is better at 1x and which is better at 3x?
not: anything other than WHICH IS THE BETTER 1-3 SETUP?

simple question.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 9:21:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 9:23:24 PM EDT by vmpglenn]
Tried the Aimpoint with magnifier - didn't like it. Keeping the CQ/T - will get the revised reticle when available later this year.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:37:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Tried the Aimpoint with magnifier - didn't like it. Keeping the CQ/T - will get the revised reticle when available later this year.

www.visuality.com/personal/armory/dissy_tps.jpg



revised reticle?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:16:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 3:38:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 3:39:55 PM EDT by DevL]
Aimpoint offers illumination bright enough for daytime use as a 1X scope, day time or flash light illuminted BAC use, and true parallax free dot. Leupold has none of that and has inferior battery life. It does have a non tinted glass however and is lighter. Aimpoint all the way. Yes I have tried both. There was no question about the Aimpoint superiority over the CQT in my mind.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:49:30 PM EDT
I liked the 3x+M2 setup. Never tried the CQT--the short battery life, heavy weight and long profile made me shy away. For that reason I won't vote.

I've been thinking about it, and I think I'm gonna get a Schmidt and Bender 1.1-4x "short-dot". It seems to be the "in" optic for GP use, from indoors to 500M+. Hell, someone over at Lightfighter says the longest known kill with one was 800m.

Course, I could buy the Aimpoint, the Leupold, the Magnifier and their mounts for less money than just the scope alone.....but I only want one rifle--so I only need one optic.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:32:52 PM EDT
If you're willing to spend that much I'd wait for the night force 1-4. My NXS came with a catalogue and that 1-4 jsut SCREAMED 'buy me!'... but CSGunworks says they're not out yet.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:33:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 8:00:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
Stick with the Aimpoint and 3X.


C4





+1


since its either the aimpoint or the cq/t
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:21:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
If you're willing to spend that much I'd wait for the night force 1-4. My NXS came with a catalogue and that 1-4 jsut SCREAMED 'buy me!'... but CSGunworks says they're not out yet.



Is the NXS a first focal plane design?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:22:58 PM EDT
CQ/T only cause I haven't tried the other setup
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 6:41:48 PM EDT
Aimpoint and 3X.

damian@adcofirearms.com
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 6:29:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 6:30:31 AM EDT by Fenian]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
If you're willing to spend that much I'd wait for the night force 1-4. My NXS came with a catalogue and that 1-4 jsut SCREAMED 'buy me!'... but CSGunworks says they're not out yet.



I noticed you had both your IOR 1x4s for sale...out of curiosity, what was the issues with those that you'd replace them with a Nightforce of the same magnification? I know it's not the glass, since IOR glass is very nice...was it a weight issue?

I just want to file this away so that when I can *finally* splurge on something, I can recall this thread (assuming Alzheimer's hasn't set in by then).

The IOR was one thing I was considering...I came real close to snagging one of yours, but then opted for an Accupoint instead.

Playing around with a little crappy Simmons 1.5x5 sold me on a low power variable.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 6:51:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
If you're willing to spend that much I'd wait for the night force 1-4. My NXS came with a catalogue and that 1-4 jsut SCREAMED 'buy me!'... but CSGunworks says they're not out yet.



I noticed you had both your IOR 1x4s for sale...out of curiosity, what was the issues with those that you'd replace them with a Nightforce of the same magnification? I know it's not the glass, since IOR glass is very nice...was it a weight issue?

I just want to file this away so that when I can *finally* splurge on something, I can recall this thread (assuming Alzheimer's hasn't set in by then).

The IOR was one thing I was considering...I came real close to snagging one of yours, but then opted for an Accupoint instead.

Playing around with a little crappy Simmons 1.5x5 sold me on a low power variable.



Glass on the IOR was (there's no other way to put it) perfect. I had not ONE problem with it. at 4x its a great scope, if you need a wider angle, 2x is great. But I think that their 1.1x label is very optomistic.
It seems more like 1.3 or 1.4x. I've had 1.5x scopes and it WAS less magnification, but there's no way it was 1.1x. the loopy goes to 1x. the USO goes to 1x and the nightforce (on paper) goes to 1x. I know y'all think its not so, but the loopy and USO do go to 1x or damned close enough to fool my eye and if its both eyes open red dot like to me, then its 1x to me.

I thought to use these as 1x/4x scopes, but ended up using it as a 2x/4x scope, and that's not what I wanted. the range finding reticle does rule though, the illumination is very bright at the high elvels and worked outdoors. Shes a bit long, but you get a lot of capabilities in one unit. Also the eyepiece isHUGE so I always put my buis between the rings, not behind them.

The nightforce has a HUGE objective compared compared to the Loopy, and a bit larger than the USOptics, but the reticles are what really makes these two interesting.

The only reason I'm thinking nightforce is cause I have an NXS and it's without a doubt the fines tpiece of 'thing' I own. It could be, for real, the finest anything I own.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 9:05:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 9:07:30 AM EDT by DevL]

Originally Posted By twonami:
CQ/T only cause I haven't tried the other setup



Then you should not vote.

Also has anyone else noticed that the CQT is winning and NOT ONE PERSON has given a reason as to why its better.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 9:06:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
If you're willing to spend that much I'd wait for the night force 1-4. My NXS came with a catalogue and that 1-4 jsut SCREAMED 'buy me!'... but CSGunworks says they're not out yet.



Been waiting almost a year now...
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 9:15:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 9:16:26 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By twonami:
CQ/T only cause I haven't tried the other setup



Then you should not vote.

Also has anyone else noticed that the CQT is winning and NOT ONE PERSON has given a reason as to why its better.



Fine. I tried both. I kept the CQT, got rid of the other.

Oh, you want to know why? Because the need to go 1-3 is not predictable in my mind.
How do I know when I'll need to zoom in and out? I don't want to
have to screw with a quick disconnect and storing some piece that goes on and off
the weapon. What do I do, stop in the middle of some situation to store my
magnifier?

I twist the ring on the CQT, I'm at 1.1. I twist it the other way, I'm at 3. All done.
As for the argument that the CQT doesn't go all they way down to 1.1, that argument
is usually given by people that have never looked through one.

It just makes more sense to me to have an all in one. Either is a compromise at one thing
or the other, so you find the best compromise for what you need. To me, having
2 parts to mess with is more trouble than it's worth.

And a plug for the LaRue mount. It's awesome with the CQT!





Link Posted: 8/24/2005 9:59:35 AM EDT
The CQT cannot compete when it comes to the versatility needed when the shooter has to work in APRs (gas masks) or SCBAs. And even without that equipment, I found the CQT to be more of a challenge to use in a CQB environment when quick sight/target acquisition is needed. Just one man's opinion.... I ll stick with M2/M3s and the 3x, at least for our current needs. If it weren't for the APRs and SCBAs there are a number of 1 or 1.5 to 5 power lit reticle scopes that are fairly quick to use.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 10:09:30 AM EDT
If the CQ/T had a red reticule, got rid of the rails, and offered even a moderate battery life we could begin discussing it's comparatible worth.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 10:15:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
If the CQ/T had a red reticule, got rid of the rails, and offered even a moderate battery life we could begin discussing it's comparatible worth.



But it still couldn't compete with the versatility and speed of the 3X Magnifier, Aimpoint M3, with the Samson QF mount, especially it you really "need" 1X.



Link Posted: 8/24/2005 10:47:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By edwin907:

Originally Posted By Hokie:
If the CQ/T had a red reticule, got rid of the rails, and offered even a moderate battery life we could begin discussing it's comparatible worth.



But it still couldn't compete with the versatility and speed of the 3X Magnifier, Aimpoint M3, with the Samson QF mount, especially it you really "need" 1X.

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=39878




true and true.....

However I've never been completely won over by the 3X magnifier....

What do you do with it when you want 1X? Toss it in your pocket? Reattach it on your gun? Seems a bit odd to me. I'm not downing it, but I just don't totally grasp the efficiency of the set up.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 11:08:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:

true and true.....

However I've never been completely won over by the 3X magnifier....

What do you do with it when you want 1X? Toss it in your pocket? Reattach it on your gun? Seems a bit odd to me. I'm not downing it, but I just don't totally grasp the efficiency of the set up.



It's easiest to simply leave it on the gun when flipped out of the way. It inhibits mobility and use of the weapon a lot less than a 6 volt Surefire mounted to the rails. Plus, you can flip it back up to the locked position with a quick twisting movement of the rifle.
The quick release mounts I really don't get either, not when compared to the flip mount with quick release.

If your scenario isn't going to need magnification, a pocket or pouch will do fine.

But you really have to try one of these at the range, with multiple targets set up from 20 feet to 200+ yards.
Top Top