Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/5/2003 3:18:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 1:45:49 PM EDT by hepcat85]
UPDATE:
I found a NIB CQ/T for $500. How's that for luck? Seems like alot of scope for 5 bills.

All I can say is.....



YEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!



******************************­**********
ORIGINAL POST:
Anyone have any thoughts on the CQ/T? Is it a good buy for a CQB/Medum range scope? Also, who has the best prices?

Thanks!

Hep
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 3:25:09 PM EDT
In case the search button isn't workin'...[;)] [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=171014&w=searchPop[/url]
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 5:38:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 6:48:30 PM EDT
The two most hated optics on this site are the 2X Aimpoints and the CQT.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 7:25:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:51:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman: I'm glad everyone hates the CQT so much....I happen to like it a lot, maybe I'll be able to find a used one for cheap.
View Quote
That'd solve one big problem with it: the high price.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 9:46:43 PM EDT
[puke]
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 10:03:33 PM EDT
i like mine. all that poo poo about the battery life is BS. I hardly even use the illuminated reticle. the one thing that seems to suck is the weight.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 2:06:11 AM EDT
It's "only" a 1000 bucks plus tax and shipping in the recent Galls catalog I saw. [LOL] Size and weight for what you got was the biggest downer I thought -- next to price. You should beable to find a brand new one for 550 - 650 all day long. -Steve
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 3:55:25 PM EDT
Any thoughts......no.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 4:02:43 PM EDT
Its not the the CQ/T is a bad scope - it is just that there are better ones that are less money...
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 4:24:32 PM EDT
[banghead]
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 4:46:46 PM EDT
Get a Trijicon or an IOR is the concensus round here it seems.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 4:59:59 PM EDT
Consensus and a $5 bucks won't get me a cup of joe at Starbucks. lol. [headbang] I'm still undecided and the search for knowledge will continue.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 6:33:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2003 6:35:41 PM EDT by GackMan]
$1000!?!?! Mine was $550. someone is getting ripped off. Basically, all I wanted in a scope was variable power 0-4 power so it would be suitable for both CQB and shooting point targets out to 300 meters and either long battery life and/or no power requirement at all. so, i knocked out the eotech, reflex, and mepro 21 out of the running. I have a reflex on a light weight carbine that I really like but it isn’t any good for far shooting – even a 5 min dot ends up splatting a big old red thing over a target 100 yards away... but i digress. I like the reticule better than the eotech or the aimpoint or any other single dot/circle dot that I've seen. On adjustable power dot/reticules like the aimpoints and eotechs the reticule seems to blur when it is at too high a power setting or washed out when it is under direct light. The leupold remains sharp and clear since it has a non-powered dot/ring combo. The power is just supplemental; i never even use the illumination unless it is low light. The last thing I wasted was a little red dot that I had to adjust in order to see when someone is shooting at me. that left me with some flavor of acog or the leupold. I do like the acog reticules better, but they don't have a variable option... so by process of elimination, the CQ/T was the winner. like I said, the biggest draw back is the weight... but it isn't any more so that other full sized acogs. that is why I wanted the leupold and got it.
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 5:35:21 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 9:05:15 PM EDT
BAC is kinda sorta like a 1X occluded gunsight. Did you consider that already? Or a DrOptic for close range... thats faster than switching to 1X on your main scope.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 12:40:29 AM EDT
I would take/try the CQ/T if they made it lighter, increased battery life, shrunk it, and increased optical viewing area.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 12:45:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I would take/try the CQ/T if they made it lighter, increased battery life, shrunk it, and increased optical viewing area.
View Quote
Kinda like what the ACOGs already are? [;)]
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 3:22:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I would take/try the CQ/T if they made it lighter, increased battery life, shrunk it, and increased optical viewing area.
View Quote
Kinda like what the ACOGs already are? [;)]
View Quote
Exactly. And if you want a x2 Aimpoint, just get a 2x compact ACOG.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 8:22:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 8:23:18 AM EDT by hepcat85]
ACOGs sound great. However, I didn't want to spend an additional $500 to save a few onces, and to lose a battery. Fact is, the battery life isn't really an issue since most users don't power it up to max unless truly needed. That's what CQ/T users tell me. Additionally, at the lower power setting the battery life is extended. As far as size, considering how many accesories some ARs are mounted with, again, non-factor. [beer] Let's agree to disagree.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 10:16:38 AM EDT
ACOGs sound great. However, I didn't want to spend an additional $500 to save a few onces, and to lose a battery.
View Quote
TA31F with adapter for $695 in the EE right now. $500 is a good price for a CQT; but I've yet to meet a CQT owner who was happy with his purchase after looking through a BAC ACOG. If it does what you need it to do though then more power to you.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 10:23:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 10:24:46 AM EDT by hepcat85]
TA31F with adapter for $695 in the EE right now.
View Quote
Buying used firearms is one thing. Buying used glass is another. It's one of my sticking points that I prefer NIB when it comes to scopes unless I know the owner. I wouldn't have bought the CQ/T unless it was NIB, even for that great price.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 10:34:43 AM EDT
Hepcat, it sounds like your mind was made up already about the scope, so I am not sure why you were asking for thoughts. In any event, I have used the CQ/T for close to a year, competing in 4 major 3 gun event, SMM3G, RM3G, Iron Man, etc as well as many local events and have found the following: Its variable power settings give it a degree of flexibility not found in the fixed power ACOG's, positive feature. Ability to clamp directly to a rail using the added clamp set is a positive, negates the use of rings. Battery life is a non issue for me, I usually don't use the batteries. The objective is 14 mm. This is probably the worst design feature on the scope. The field of view is tiny, (especially at higher powers) making lateral target transition more difficult than a bigger objective. This costs you big time precious seconds in competition. Why did they not make it at least 20 mm or 26 like the Valdada 1.1 -4? Big negative. Weight is more than I would like. Carry an AR-15 and this around for the MGM Iron Man 6 minutes stages and then let me know what you think of its weight. Negative, should be lighter. The dot / circle reticle is not user friendly for ranging at long distances. It is really jsut built for point and shoot, there is really no way to account for ballistic path using this reticle. Why did they not put some hold over marks / lines in the scope? Negative. The eye relief decreases dramatically at thehighest power putting your eye close to the scope body. Maybe you will be wearing some new scars around your eye, maybe you won't. Everyone is shaped differently. Neutral. All in all, the scope works as a decent general purpose variable power scope since at the time, there was not much competition. It is over priced considering other options. I do see a lot of 3 gunners moving to the JP Enterprises adapted TA-01 ACOG because of its flexible reticle. That scope works for 55 - 69 grain bullets at medium / long distances. I am also seeing a lot of serious shooters moving to the IOR Valdada 1.1 -4 scope with the CQB or doughnut reticle. There were a good number of people using this scope at the WC 3 Gun in Nevada several weeks ago. David Neth and Kelly Neal are both using this scope now and their win record speaks for itself. Valdada has changed the reticle to a second focal plane style which works better for competition. For the next season, I am mulling over which scope to switch to, the JP ACOG or the Valdada 1.1 - 4. I need to think it over a bit more, but for 3 gun, both are far superior to the CQ/T. If you plan to compete, give some more thought before you spend. If you are just a plinker, the CQ/T will work for you. It will be interesting to see your opinion if you buy and use the CQ/T seriously in about a year.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 1:10:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 1:44:50 PM EDT by hepcat85]
Originally Posted By rifle_guy: Hepcat, it sounds like your mind was made up already about the scope, so I am not sure why you were asking for thoughts.
View Quote
This post was started to get the opinions of various shooters using the CQ/T. I didn't make up my mind until I found one NIB for $500. I appended the post be adding the UPDATE line to the subject. It was pretty much a way to show off my excitment at getting a CQ/T and at a deal price to boot.
For the next season, I am mulling over which scope to switch to, the JP ACOG or the Valdada 1.1 - 4. I need to think it over a bit more, but for 3 gun, both are far superior to the CQ/T.
View Quote
I was sent 4 seperate IM's from 4 different board members who do 3 gun matchs. Each and every one either prefered the CQ/T for it's flexability or atleast put them on par with their ACOGs. Fact is, like everything else, it's just a piece of technology that still requires training. With all due respect, I certainly don't need to explain to you that training is what makes the difference. Historical example: The greatest aerial ace of World War 2, Erich Hartmann, 352 victories, flew the Bf 109, an airframe introduced in 1935 and considered to be nearly obsolete when compared to the Migs and Yaks flown by his Soviet advesaries and even the much newer FW 190 flown by his comrades. However, he prefered and flew the Bf 109 because his talent and training was enough. Anyhow, Thanks for the detailed feedback. It's very much appreciated.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 2:12:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 2:17:31 AM EDT by AK_Mike]
Originally Posted By hepcat85: [beer] Let's agree to disagree.
View Quote
hepcat85, you have my apologies. It was wrong for me to bash your thread repeatedly, just cause I prefer other optics is no reason to pee on your parade if you are happy with the CQ/T. I too once considered the CQ/T. It has features no other optics has, as well as apparent drawbacks, but everyone has their own needs and priorities. I would be much happier for you if you only had to pay $200 for it though. At $100, even I would buy one, and I mean that in a good way.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 3:28:31 AM EDT
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=158932&page=3[/url]
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 5:21:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 5:29:50 AM EDT by hepcat85]
Originally Posted By AK_Mike:
Originally Posted By hepcat85: [beer] Let's agree to disagree.
View Quote
hepcat85, you have my apologies. It was wrong for me to bash your thread repeatedly, just cause I prefer other optics is no reason to pee on your parade if you are happy with the CQ/T. I too once considered the CQ/T. It has features no other optics has, as well as apparent drawbacks, but everyone has their own needs and priorities. I would be much happier for you if you only had to pay $200 for it though. At $100, even I would buy one, and I mean that in a good way.
View Quote
Hey, no need to apologize. I took any "parade peeing" with a grain of salt. That sounded weird, but you know what I mean. Some folks are very passionate about the ACOG vs all other optics. I can appreciate that, it says alot about the ACOG. At the price I paid, I'm happy with the CQ/T. What was stopping me was the retail price, that's what inspired the thread to help me narrow the field, then I found the deal. Frankly, if I would have had to pay retail for the CQ/T I would have put the ACOGs on the list. No doubt in my mind that at $8-900 I would have opened the field. But $500 is a great price for any good piece of glass. [snoopy] Thanks for the feedback! It's all appreciated...even the "peeing". That came out wrong again....but you know what I mean. [ROFL2]
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 5:26:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 5:26:53 AM EDT by Spooge5150]
Originally Posted By AK_Mike:
Originally Posted By hepcat85: [beer] Let's agree to disagree.
View Quote
hepcat85, you have my apologies. It was wrong for me to bash your thread repeatedly, just cause I prefer other optics is no reason to pee on your parade if you are happy with the CQ/T. I too once considered the CQ/T. It has features no other optics has, as well as apparent drawbacks, but everyone has their own needs and priorities. I would be much happier for you if you only had to pay $200 for it though. At $100, even I would buy one, and I mean that in a good way.
View Quote
See! This is why I want to move to Alaska! Well one of [b]Many[/b] [b]NICE PEOPLE![/b]
Top Top