Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/15/2002 6:56:15 PM EDT
I was reading up on Leupold's new MARK 4 CQ/T. It boasts a nonmagnifying setting and a 3x setting. It has a variable red dot reticle (depending on range setting). It is battery operated.

This may seem to be a better scope than the Aimpoint series simlpy due to it's ability to function at multiple ranges.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not kicking the Aimpoint in the jewels. I am simply debating between the two. I have neither one so I'm trying to get as much info as possible before I throw down the cash.

Anybody have any opinions or knowledge of this new scope? Thanks guys!

By the way. The MARK 4 CQ/T still looks pretty damn cool.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 10:00:34 PM EDT
Have you seen the CQ/T in person or mounted to a AR? I thought it was big inthe pictures, then I saw one and it was even bigger. The thing is a monster and has a VERY low battery life (10 hours). Mounting it to the carry handle will not alllow you to use iron sights. The lenses are very small and I dont like the FOV on it at all when compared to other scopes in its class. We have one of these at work and someone leaves it on by mistake once in a while. We have had to change the battery in it 3 times. Someone is always leaving my Aimpoint on as well, but the battery in the Aimpoint is about three years old and hasnt needed to be changed yet. If you do a search hear, you will find that nearly everyone that has tried the CQ/T didnt much care for it. I dont think that it was because it is a terrible optic, I think it was because there are simply better option. If you want something that can be used like a non magnified dot sight and a low power scope, think about the ACOGs with the BAC feature.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 10:06:04 AM EDT
I think Troy said it best, "Leupold looked at all the best optics in the world and took the worst features from each."
Link Posted: 12/20/2002 8:16:22 AM EDT
Thanks for the info. I kind of had a gut feeling you were going to say something like that. I saw one on an AR. It looked "doable" as far as the size goes, but the battery life is to short. Also the optic looked like it had a pretty small FOV. I'm glad my eyes were not decieving me. Thanks for sharing first hand experience. It's always good to hear.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 6:16:27 AM EDT
Prices on these units are dropping fast, even CDNN has them on clearence, must be a reason why. Still born!
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 6:51:50 AM EDT
I saw this one in person. Although reticule and optic itself was very clear, the unit was heavy and very, very bulky. It seemed you have to put your head very steadily in order to get the view. FOV was not very good, as New-arguy mentioned above. Now don't even start talking about side rails.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 7:59:43 AM EDT
FYI here are a few more comments on the optic if you still interested: [url]http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/opticssights.msnw?action=view_list&row=1&viewtype=2&sortstring=[/url]
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 4:03:28 AM EDT
Well...I guess it is true that not everything is perfect for everyone. My experience with the CQ/T is opposite of others here. The CQ/T is mounted on my flat top 20", and it is awesome for 3 gun competition. We typically run into multiple target at 3 feet and out to 200 yds. at our local matches, and the variable power makes it a bit more flexible. The 14 mm objective lens does not limit FOV from my perspective. I have a 2x ACOG that is much more narrow in FOV (even with a 20 mm objective). I agree that the $ is a bit much for a 1-3x scope, and the weight is more than it should be (must be built by us Americans using the old school of robustness!).
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 7:40:00 AM EDT
Ummm, ACOGs are American made and are, in my opinion, FAAAAAAR more robust than the Leupold. Standard ACOGs (TAO1 series / TA31) are about one third their size. They do everything the Leupold does in my experience in a much, MUCH better, well thought out package.
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 9:49:23 AM EDT
The following are my thoughts on the CQ/T...and there is more dicussion on this subject on another thread "ACOGs vs. CQ/T", which I just brought back up to the top, it's worth reading.. I had read many good things about the Leupold CQT sight and got to handle it extensively at the SHOT SHOW. Here are my thought on the Leupold CQT: The things that I didn't like about the Leupold CQT sight is that it was too big, it was too heavy, why would anyone need a rail system on a scope is beyond me (unless you are a professional mall ninja), it was too long (with a close quarters battle sight you want the ability to mount the sight far foward), the battery only lasts 7 hours, the eye relief was extreemly short for a CQB sight, the field of view was way too narrow, it costs over $700, the CQT has a "dot inside of a circle reticle" and with the narrow field of view it made the field of view too cluttered, ect, ect, ect. With a CQB sight you want a small, lightweight package that you can far from you eye so you can see what is going on around you. The Leupold CQT is built like a long range scope (ie long, heavy, shorter eye releif), but it really wouldn't work well as a long range scope either because it only 1x - 3x. I don't want to bash Leupold because I really enjoy their products. With the CQT sight, there was not a lot of thought put into the product or it was made by someone who didn't know what the end user needs in a close quarters battle optic. If I were looking for something with no magnification I would go with something like the Aimpoint ML2 (battery life in the 100s to 1,000s of hours depending on setting) for around $300 or if I were looking for something with some kind of magnification I would go with something like the 2x or 3x mini ACOGs for around $500. Basically, the Leupold is the wrong tool for the job, it's just not pratical and has all the wrong features. Just my .02 on the Leupold CQT. I would highly recommend the Trijicon ACOG TA31, it is the same size as the TA01, but has all the same features as the TA11 such as the BAC, ect. The TA31 is an outstanding scope for close quarters work. The reticle is very quick and easy to pick up and track.
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 9:50:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2002 9:51:18 AM EDT by USMC03]
Here is the link to the other thread...a lot of good info [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=97312[/url]
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 9:57:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2002 9:58:27 AM EDT by new-arguy]
Originally Posted By USMC03: If I were looking for something with no magnification I would go with something like the Aimpoint ML2 (battery life in the 100s to 1,000s of hours depending on setting) for around $300
View Quote
Good review, thanks for bringing that older thread up to the top. It has a lot of good info. Just to clarify, ML2's battery life is in the thousands of hours. Absolute minimum battery life on the ML2 (and M2 for that matter) is 1,000 hours of use on the highest setting. I usually tell folks a good estimated battery life is about 5,000 hours. Give or take a thousand. Hahahaha! The margin of error on the Aimpoint is WAAAAAAY longer than the max total battery life on almost any other dot optic. I never thought of that. Pretty funny.
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 11:36:44 PM EDT
Right on bravo5two.I have posted the same thing.For 3-gunners and monthly practical rifle shooters like my self the merit of CQ/T and SN4 is undenible.However, for CQB use i will agree with new-arguy on why it might not be the best choice although i dont agree that a fixed magnification acog is.If i had to make a snap shot at a unexpected threat with no time for cover and to far for point shooting a dot with no magnification is quicker for most operators.As far as FOV goes since that as been brouht up the FOV at 100yds with a 4x32 acog is 36.8 ft by my catalog.A CQ/T at 3x is 84.3 ft and my SN4 is the worst at 3x at 41 ft and 4x at 34.2 ft.Thank god im not on snipers hide!I didnt mean to say that USO is not gods gift to optics.
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 1:11:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2002 1:17:45 AM EDT by DMCI]
Originally Posted By girard: Thank god im not on snipers hide!I didnt mean to say that USO is not gods gift to optics.
View Quote
Hey, as a founding member of Sniper's Hide, no offense taken. Actually, at 1x the SN-4 has a 109 feet for FOV, and at 4x it will easily resolve .5" at 300 yards. So, its a different kind of scope and very well built for a short scope and with adjustable diopter in the eyepiece. Of course, I like my ARs with a little power under the hood (No "poodle-shooters" for me!) I actually prefer the USO Sn-12 with it's very excellent BDC feature and range estimation/circle chevron reticle. [img]http://www.snipershide.com/photoshoot/images/ar10-3%20copy.jpg[/img] Happy holidays to all here!
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 6:16:39 AM EDT
This is a cool thread. As much as I like the Trijicon TA47, for its light weight and BAC reticle, its too narrow FOV and fixed magnification got me ("no shoot" targets and missed targets at close range through ports) a few times at the matches. I would love to get the TA11, but it is fixed at 3.5 power. If Trijicon ever come up with a variable power ACOG, I am sure it would be going like hot cakes! For now, the Leupold CQ/T will remain a permanent resident on top of my AR with its heavy weight and short battery life (have not had to test out how short yet, but a spare AA does not take much room). Merry Christmas to everyone!
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:02:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By girard: If i had to make a snap shot at a unexpected threat with no time for cover and to far for point shooting a dot with no magnification is quicker for most operators.
View Quote
With a little practice, I was able to use the BAC feature on my TA31 just as quickly as I am able to use my Aimpoint. In my opinion, a scope with BAC eliminates the need for variable power. For instance, my TA31 goes from 1x to 4x automatically, without my having to twist a knob or anything. That's not exactly variable power, but I think its better. You do have to spend a little time with it to become accustomed to it, but once you do, its just like second nature. The CQ/T actually can be used like a BAC scope if you illuminate the reticle. Thats a good thing. The drawback is the CQ/T is battery operated and has a pitiful battery like of about 10 hours. Thats not a good thing. I've no experience with USO... I sure wish I did though. [:P]
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 11:12:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2002 11:13:12 AM EDT by CANADIAN_TACTICAL]
Originally Posted By new-arguy: In my opinion, a scope with BAC eliminates the need for variable power. For instance, my TA31 goes from 1x to 4x automatically, without my having to twist a knob or anything. That's not exactly variable power, but I think its better.
View Quote
DITTO!
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:24:00 PM EDT
Thanks DMCI.I guess i knew i could run but not hide.
Top Top