Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 3/14/2005 11:22:56 PM EST

I dont see much on here about it..

Anybody here have one, and If so what do you think?..


Im thinking about one on my 14.5 ( w/ phantom) I have seen the coppers in the area hitting clays at 100-200 yds with them, and I got a chance to try it out for about 10 rounds, so not really a big chance to see If it was worth the $$
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 11:32:32 PM EST
It would seem that most people will tell you that it is a great idea with poor execution. Heavy, poor battery life, poor eye relief on 3X, poor FOV. However, there are more than a few people that have them and find them to be the perfect all purpose optic.

A search should yield plenty of results on discussion for and against the CQT.
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 12:07:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/15/2005 12:32:29 AM EST by FishKepr]
Good thread HERE.

I don't own one, but I've played with one a few times and I really like it. It has some shortcomings, but I always seem to forget them when I pick one up and look through it. Of course, that could always change if I ever get the chance to work with one extensively.
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 6:34:19 AM EST
I dont understandf the poor battery life arguement. Its 100 hours at max brightness. In contrast the US Optics SN4 is about 6 hours. How is that bad battery life? Its actually right there with the S&B Short Dot as the top battery life lit reticle variables.

So tied for #1 = poor? I dont get it.
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 7:31:15 AM EST
DevL-
From surfing the different sites I know you've done a bit of research on 1-4X variable optics. Do you have a reference comparing the brightest settings between the CQT and aimpoint/eotech? I think that was the other concern for the CQT(besides battery life which comes down to what you are comfortable with). The counter argument to the dim appearence for the highest setting for the CQT during light would be the etched reticle sould be sufficient to use without relying on the lit reticle. I feel it's faster with a bright reticle, but then again I've seen guys who are just as fast and accurate with irons. Did you finally settle on a particular variable?
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 12:59:23 PM EST
I've had one for about six months mounted on my COMPAK-16 upper/issue M4A1 lower. The scope is extremely durable and the optics are certainly bright. However, there are three issues I hav with the CQT: (1) eye relief is way too short at 3X; (2) the overall envelope is far too large (looks especially so on the 9.5" bbl COMPAK-16!), and the dot is much too big. I'd prefer a dot about the size of that found on an Aimpoint COMP M/M2. Just as an aside, I'd also say they should drop the silly M1913 rails on the housing.
Still, it's a great scope and more than once, I've staked my life on it.
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 1:05:15 PM EST
I've got one and I like it a lot.
The quality optics make the low magnification sometimes seem more than it really is to me.
Only suggestion I would make if you get it, is to get a better mount.
I picked up the Larue for mine and it's great.
W50G
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 2:51:16 PM EST
I've got one on-route now from the sandbox. I hope to post a review and comparison against an Aimpoint/eotech/CQ-T. I was wanting a variable power that I knew was durable and a deal came along. I know from looking through one on a 45acp camp carbine that if it is positioned when the 3X is in place you won't have to worry about eye relief later. I'm specifically interested in the reticle for precision shooting. And yes, I would like better mount and will most likely pony up and get a good mount. Battery life is a concern, BUT, I won't use the lit reticle until I reach low light work and AA batteries are not hard to get.

Mitch
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 11:10:47 PM EST
Thanks for the info guys, It has helped alot
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 3:54:21 AM EST
I had one and thought it was nice. Great glass, but a little to large/heavy for my taste. Between the CQT I had and my new TA31F though I would definitely go with the ACOG.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:02:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By JYF:
DevL-
From surfing the different sites I know you've done a bit of research on 1-4X variable optics. Do you have a reference comparing the brightest settings between the CQT and aimpoint/eotech? I think that was the other concern for the CQT(besides battery life which comes down to what you are comfortable with). The counter argument to the dim appearence for the highest setting for the CQT during light would be the etched reticle sould be sufficient to use without relying on the lit reticle. I feel it's faster with a bright reticle, but then again I've seen guys who are just as fast and accurate with irons. Did you finally settle on a particular variable?



The only reticle bright like an Aimpoint or EOtech is the Short Dot. All others range from colored but not bright to not even colored in daylight. I have not seen the latest CQT first hand but the people I talked to who own them say it is usually colored but not bright in daylight when sighting in on dark objects.

I also dont understand the big/heavy concerns with the Leupold. Its no bigger or heavier than other varaibles. It is only 3X where others are 4X max though. If the CQT had a 3.5X or 4X max power in the same size package with a 21-24mm objective it would be a no brainer. As it stands right now it has no hrozontal marks to help reduce cant and 3X 16mm objective which makes it the least powerful of the variables but also one of the least expensive.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:24:20 PM EST
I absoloutly love mine, its the favorite among a pretty good collection of optics.

I like it for a couple of reasons. First it works fine with or without the battery.

It is also very comfy on a flattop.

Also the reticle is VERY clear, no blur.

I am all for it.
Top Top