Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/3/2003 4:31:17 AM EST
Does anybody have any experience with this scope? Any info is much appreciated. Also, how does it compare to the ACOG

Link Posted: 7/3/2003 4:57:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 1:36:59 PM EST
I don't think that reply was intended for me because it didn't address its quality vs. ACOG or its usefulness. Any additional info is appreciated. Blake
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 8:23:28 PM EST
I have a buddy who works for a company that does custom work for leupold and can get a CQB for around 450$ And i still went with the ACOG! I even had the chance to "field test" a CQB from them,...And still went with the ACOG @ 700$...Why you ask?.Well IMHO the CQB tries to do everything and is great at nothing where as the ACOG doesnt pretend to be a CQB scope,Its just a kick ass 4 power 100-300 yard scope....From 100 on out the ACOG rules! and for <100 yards your far better off with a Aimpoint or Eotech IMHO YMMV..............UNDERDOG
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 8:43:37 PM EST
Aimpoint ACOG EOTECH except no substitutes.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 11:47:27 PM EST
blake, im going shooting my first AR for the 3rd time on the tomm morning and that will be my second time with my cq/t. i have no illusions that i know anything about special forces or swat or actual cq/t, but i do know that after researching it for a long time before i even bought my bushmaster (all over the inet, this board, and local gun shop) that the cq/t was for me. here's why. im kinda color blind, so i dont want to spend several hundred bucks on a dot sight i might not be able to see in the middle of the day when im busting cans. this is not a problem with the leupold. ive only turned on the power when im playing with it and showing my friends. i have no doubt about its usefulness, i just havent needed it. that reminds me. one thing people ALWAYS say about the scope is its battery dependent and it only gets 6 or so hours of battery use and theres no way in hell theyre going to trust their life to a battery. ok, thats their personal preference, and who am i to question people who put their lives on the line, but those facts are kinda skewed. as has been mention, the scope will still be useful wo a battery and i think the battery life is 600 hours on medium settings (check leupold sight to be sure of those numbers). people also complain about its size and wieght. im not humping through the jungle or over dunes, and im not busting down doors either, so i cant say how bad this really is, but i dont mind its size and weight. besides its all ill be using so i guess ill get used to it. i dont know what your intended use is for this scope. i think its a dandy and ive read several other people and publications do too. there are also a bunch of other people on this board who avoid it like the plague. thats fine with me. i love mine. its perfect for me. to me the optic just seemed like the most bang for buck,for what i wanted: a flexible scope on a gun that is primarily a "big boy toy" (for lack of a better term) and after that God forbid a home defense weapon. there seem be a lot of people here in the know. your guess is as good as mine as to how many of them actually are. i make now bones about my experience...almost none. that said im sure as hell glad i got the cqt. best of luck, take care, and if i can help with anything about the scope ill be glad to. steven
Link Posted: 7/4/2003 6:50:29 AM EST
I think the best way to sum up the CQT is that it is a jack-of-all trades and master of none. Compared to the Aimpoint or EOtech, the CQT is not parallax-free, has limited eye relief, doesn't have an illuminated reticle (or only has one for 7 hours which is basically the same thing in my view) and weighs quite a bit. The only advantage it offers over these sights is magnification. Compared to the ACOG, the CQT has less eye relief, smaller exit pupil and is more demanding on head and eye position. However, if you set the CQT to 1x, it will surpass the ACOG in these areas. Of course it will no longer have magnification either. It still has the illuminated reticle problem and still weighs considerably more. Like the CQT, the ACOG can also operate without illumination but instead of 7 hours, it has around 12-15 years worth of illumination at a minimum. The ACOG with BAC makes the whole variable scope idea kind of superflous in my opinion. It will still not compete with the Aimpoint or EOtech under 50yds; but it will run as close as the CQT and after 50, you'll have a much better scope to boot. Seriously, compare them side by side first. I've seen a few people choose the CQT over the ACOG; but by and large the CQT loses every time. Try and do a comparison (come to Gunstock) first to see what suits your needs.
Top Top