Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 7/18/2008 6:04:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/18/2008 6:23:21 AM EST by shotgun1]
Like so many of you, I have long been in search of the perfect “Do all” AR optic, and like many of you I’ve owned most of them at one time or another. Aimpoint 4 & 2moa, Eotech, ACOG 31 and 11, Trij ReflexII, IOR M2, Leup CQT, Leup MRT, etc….

In the last year I’ve been working with the Leup. CQT. I’ve read so much information on these boards and others. Some of it good, a lot of it pure BS. With that in mind I thought I’d share some of my findings and opinions.

The accessory rails on the CQT. What were they thinking? I don’t think anybody likes them and I’m sure they add unnecessary weight but……let’s talk about weight. The CQT in Larue mount is less than 1oz. Heavier than the Leup. MR/T in Larue mount. That’s NOT heavy. As with many things about the CQT it’s all about perception. It feels more dense but really isn’t heavier.






The CQT gets a bad rap for being too high off the rail when mounted. I happen to agree that it sits too high but as you can see from the following pictures it sit only about 1/8 inch higher overall when compared to a low mounted Leup. MR/T. The height difference is more perceived than real. What I mean is there is more air space under the front and rear of the CQT when mounted but if you look at the highest point or knob scope to scope they’re close as evidenced best by the picture showing the CQT behind the MR/T. Centerline to centerline there is less than a ¼ inch difference.







The Dot is too big is another complaint. 9 inches at 100yds @ 1x is IMO a great size. It’s very fast and about 2moa narrower than a front sight post. If it stayed 9moa I’d agree it was kind of large but it doesn’t. It decreases to 3 inches at 100yds @ 3x. Would it have been more useful if the scope were a 5x like the MR/T? Sure, and that would have made the dot under 2 inches at 100yds @ 5x, but the CQT Dot Is VERY fast up close and will cover only 9 inches at 300yds @ max mag of 3x. I’d call that precise enough for a MIM combat sight.

Also in regard to the ret. I’ve seen the post here on ARFCOM about the guy whose friend of a friend’s brother the SWAT cop had a dark stairwell, dark clothing, white light ret. washout. It was suggested that in such a circumstance the illumination washed out and the black ret. could not be seen against the dark clothing. I call BS. This is a bright ret. I’ve run the test and here are the photos to support. Dark basement stairwell, black fleece clothing, surefire 6p with fresh batteries. The first picture shows how dark it was before I lit the surefire. Second shows that you are not going to lose that sight picture. I included another pic to show just how unlikely one is to lose the ret. even with white light against a white wall at close range. Even in this situation you can still see the illumination. If that were to fade you’d then have the black ret. still clearly visible.







From all this you might think I’m a huge CQT fan. I’m not. I have some problems with the perceived issues even if they make little difference in practical use. I just think the CQT is much closer to a “do all” combat optic than it’s given credit for. It’s 1x power is great. It’s ret. is great for the distances and weapons it was intended for. I’m scoping a 6.8 that has somewhat farther range capability than the avg. M4 so for my use I like the Leup. MR/T 1.5x5 Ill. I need it’s BDC capability, but my time with the CQT has led me to wish for some of it’s features on the MR/T. I wish the MR/T was 1x instead of 1.5x (Oh well not much I can do about that) I wish the MR/T had the CQT ret. instead of the SPR ret. and Leup. will do that for me as well as making a custom BDC cam for 6.8 so after spending another couple hundred dollars on my MR/T I may have the next GREATEST “do all” optic again. I’ll report when it gets back from modification.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 6:16:12 AM EST
Nicely written. I like my CQT, but as you said it does sit too high.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 6:44:03 AM EST
Good post. My work blocks the pics so all I see are erd "x's", but I'll see those when I get home. Good objective analysis.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 8:20:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/18/2008 8:31:30 AM EST by DevL]
I dont think anyone thinks the CQT is a "bad" optic but if you include the Larue mounts you can get a Meopta K-Dot for the same price and weight. Its 4X instead of 3X, does not have the short eye relief at max power, has daytime illumination, the dot is 6 MOA/1.5 MOA and it sits at the correct height, all while offering the same true 1X on the low end. It also has a larger exit pupil at 4X than the CQT has at 3X as well as at any other magnification.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 3:23:39 PM EST
I like the specs. on them, but whenever I see one I picture myself standing at a bench grinder removing all of the tactical BS.

I wonder if Leupold would re-anodize a "cleaned up" one.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 3:31:58 PM EST
It has been suggested to me in an IM from an aquaintance of the original poster of the "swat cop" incident I described that he might take offense to my description because he is a Swat Officer and his info came from a fellow officer. The fact that he is a good man and a Swat Officer does little to change my opinion. Actually, the fact that it really was second hand experience may actually reinforce my position about how stories that may or may not be factual get around these forums without being questioned.

I think I'll stand by my post, but to stem off any hard feelings in advance I'll openly post this to the original poster;When you read this, nothing I said was meant as a personal attack and since it apparently really wasn't your incident, I'm not even questioning your personal experience. I'm questioning the whole concept. I tried and could not make it happen. I think that's fair. I believe the thread has important information and would like to keep it on track without starting a war.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 4:06:03 PM EST
CQT they're ok, sold mine for an eotech which I personally like much more.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 4:22:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Judochop:
CQT they're ok, sold mine for an eotech which I personally like much more.


We're kind of discussing multiuse "do all" optics with this thread, and even then this is not a "which is better" thread. Just facts and pictures.If you're talking about an Eotech with a Magnifier than we can compare but just an Eotech is NOT in the running as a "do all" optic. Like so many others it's mostly a "does one thing" optic.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:55:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:30:27 AM EST
Nice write up. I am considering both of those scopes.

What's the battery run time on the MR/T? They advertise the CQ/T at 600 hours at medium setting.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:39:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By ladders1901:
Nice write up. I am considering both of those scopes.

What's the battery run time on the MR/T? They advertise the CQ/T at 600 hours at medium setting.

Thanks.


Although I have both scopes I haven't had to change batteries in either. With the big ret. in the CQT the illum. is needed less than some scopes. I wouldn't be surprised at 600 hrs it does run on a AA. I'm sure the MR/T battery will have a MUCH lower life as it's just a button cell but after I have Leup. change out the MR/T fine lined SPR Ret. for a CQT Circle Dot I'm betting I'll use the illum. less in the MR/T.
Top Top