Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/17/2003 1:35:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 1:36:57 AM EDT by TREETOP]
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 1:46:58 AM EDT
Poor battery life leads rapidly to an unlit reticle. I will get a 1-3X scope one day but it will be a Trijicon.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:17:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 5:18:19 AM EDT by Duffy]
By most accounts, you are very likely to kick yourself for not getting the TA31, few members here like it. While I never had one, like you I wanted something different for my next scope (already had the TA01NSN and TA11) and got the SN4. Though I was impressed with its quality and build, I never could get rid of the "what if I had just got the TA31" thought in my head. In the end, I got a TA31 and traded in the SN4 for an SN3, and I've lived ever happy after [:)]
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:39:53 AM EDT
Actually, the CQT is usually better as an unlit reticle in my opinion. The amber-orangish color of the recticle practically disappears in the various brown/tan backgrounds during daylight. Normally, I would only use the CQTs illumination in a low-light setting. The CQT is basically an optic without a niche. At the 1x setting, you have a 1x limited eye-relief, non-parallax free, short battery life, large, heavy red-dot wannabe of a scope. At the 3x setting, you have a scope that allows exactly one head position if you want full field of view, a 4.6mm exit pupil (thus the no head movement) and weighs 17.5 ounces with no mount and no batteries (for comparison, the larger TA11 ACOG weighs 16.6 oz. with an ARMS #19S mount). I'd also say that Leupold's stated eye relief of 2" at 3x seems overly generous based on my experience with the scope. If you want to be able to go from a mediocre 1x sight to a mediocre 3x sight with a twist of the knob,the CQT is the optic for you! Seriously though, that is just my opinion. I've seen several people here with way more trigger time than me comment that they tried the ACOGs and CQT and chose the CQT, though I've never met anyone in person who would chose one over an ACOG (and that includes several formerly happy CQT owners). Maybe I just don't have the expertise to appreciate one yet. The real test is to try and compare the optics you want to use (especially side by side if you can). For MY uses, I felt that the ACOG was just as fast as the CQT in close and clearly dominated it at longer ranges. The Aimpoint clearly dominated the CQT in close and at longer ranges, wasn't as precise; but was a lot faster due to the lack of head-positioning issues.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 6:20:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:33:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:39:35 PM EDT
You probably don't want to be the one that has it, only to let others compare and see why they shouldn't buy one [;)]
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:41:49 PM EDT
Way to big for what it is.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:27:16 PM EDT
I like the ring retical and 1-3 power adjustment, plus lighted ret. if I need it. I don't care what something looks like, and it gives me 2 scopes in one. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 6:21:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 6:46:53 PM EDT
TREETOP, We all waited and waited for Leupold to build a short tactical scope. I hoped for a 2.5 X with a 30mm tube, M-3 type knobs and a reticle you could pick up real fast. Instead they built a Hollywood prop that is made to get hung up on everything. My plan was to have them make me a 2.5 compact with Vari-XIII coin click adjustments and a large Leup. DOT reticle. As luck would have it, I bought one from a member here and planned to send it back for the upgrades. FED-X ground destroyed it and Leupold replace it and did the upgrades at a big discount. Off hand I'd guess I have about $275 into it. It's in an Armalite mount and it works just fine on my M-4. You can almost see the front sight but I'm solving that with a PRI. [:)>]
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:56:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 6:13:51 PM EDT
I like the concept of a single optic that can be used as both a magnified day optic, or an unmagnified illuminated dot sight.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:25:58 AM EDT
Please don't buy the Leupold. Its terrible. A friend of mine has one and I tried to use it during the day. He has it mounted on a quick release mount on a M-16 flattop and he really regrets getting it. Too long, blurry, and uncomfortable. Simply terrible. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 9:10:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 9:12:00 AM EDT by TREETOP]
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:38:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 1:40:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 3:05:04 PM EDT
The Leupold 1.5-5x Vari-X III w/illuminated duplex reticle is a superb combat proven optic--far better than the CQ/T. You can see one on an AR in the second picture down at the following location: http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 2:15:32 PM EDT
I do love Leupold stuff I would stear clear of the Q. My bud had one on a 454 Casull and the thing just went to pieces. Although the 454 is a beast (ain't they cool) a good sight will hold up to that sort of recoil. He put it on a 22 rifle and it seems at home there.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:37:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TREETOP: Thanks everyone, I'm currently shopping for an ACOG. I changed the barrel on this build to a heavy 16" bull barrel and I'm making it more of a midrange varmint rifle, so I'm thinking I may want the finer reticle of a TA01 or TA01NSN[:)]
View Quote
Make sure you get some range time with a TA01 equipped rifle first. I find the retical of the TA01 to be to cluttered and busy. It's horrible for close range. Horrible for small targets at 100 - 200 yards, becuase you end up bracketing the target between the cros hairs. It is pretty good for medium sized targets at 300 - 400 yards thoguh. I have 3 ACOGs. The TA01 is the one i wouldnt buy again.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:54:55 PM EDT
Top Top