Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/5/2006 9:23:02 PM EDT
Anybody familiar with these, I'm interested in buying one.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:04:47 PM EDT
I borrowed one during a carbine course and played with it at home briefly; I liked it a lot. I like it more than my Aimpoint or Eotech. I now use an MR/T 1.5x5 which I like a lot more, but I'd be comfortable with either one. The CQ/T's aren't very popular and some instructors I've talked to don't like them, but they never mentioned seeing any of them break. The instructor I asked about it who has seen the most shooters using different optics felt it was a compromise optic that wasn't as good as an Aimpoint close up, or any ACOG or variable scope at distance. My own less informed opinion is that how much you like an otherwise good quality optic is very idiosyncratic, depending on your vision, dominant eye, and what kind of shooting you do. It is definitely best to try one out before you spend that much money.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 3:59:06 AM EDT
I used one at the local range, and I liked it very much. It did seem to have an eye relief issue however. I had to keep my eye pretty close to the scope even at the 1X setting. Other than that I liked it better than my Aimpoint. I would love to like the EOthingy but for me the reticle is just too fuzzy even if I focus on the target, and that is a distraction. The MK4 has a clean reticle even if you look at it and I find that a plus. The field of view was good even at the highest setting. Overall the biggest drawback is the size and weight of the thing. But it is built like a tank and should serve you well if the issues I mentioned do not bother you. Like Rhinodoc said, try it before you buy it. It does not matter one bit if everyone on this board says they are great or they suck, only you can judge what is right for you. Best of luck.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:05:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 7:06:00 AM EDT by DonD]
+1 Rhinodoc. I was interested in one also but as he says its a compromise optic. My solution was 2 weapons one with an eotech and one with a Leupold Tactical scope. If I had to chose one it would probably be a Low powered Leupold. Most people of leaving the ACOG`s behind. If you want to be in the in crowd, then buy Nightforce. I can`t afford it.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:10:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 12:15:34 AM EDT by twonami]
I like using it as a multi purpose scope on my .308 bush

ETA: I knocked the gun over the other day and it holds it zero well
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:58:54 AM EDT
I am a federal agent who recently had to order these things. I thought I would love the CQ/T. I don't. It had an eye relief issue. It is way too hairy. Also- the image does not stay clear to the edge of the viewing glass- it is blurry around the edges. The MR/T is much better. Or, what we really liked- even though it was cheaper- was the Trijicon accupoint.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 11:10:38 AM EDT
For the same weight, same, size and less money you can buy the Meopta Meostar which is 4x instead of 3X on the high end, has better glass, a brighter reticle, and it will cost the same or up to $100 less money. Both offer a lifetime warranty but Leupold is local and not European so that is an advantage for the Leupold CQT as well as the upcoming improved reticle for the CQT and the fact it uses a AA battery to extend battery life by using a bigger battery. Lokk at both a CQT and Meopta Mestar in person before deciding is my only reccomendation.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:43:42 PM EDT
I also had the CQT and I didn't like it because of the reticle. There should be bullet drop markings on it. What is the point of having extra magnification if it doesn't really help with accuracy.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 2:49:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By paulosantos:
I also had the CQT and I didn't like it because of the reticle. There should be bullet drop markings on it. What is the point of having extra magnification if it doesn't really help with accuracy.



The reality is almost noone shoots a 3X optic beyind 200 yards and you dont need drop indicators on your reticel for that. It certainly helps your practical accuacy from 50-200 yards. Leupold is supposed to be putting in the SPR style reticle in the CQT this year.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:09:47 AM EDT
I just got one, not sure if I like it yet. I'll take it to the range soon.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 12:19:31 PM EDT
I like mine. Size (height over bore) and weight (17oz) are your biggest drawbacks. I've had no peripheral field distortion (fuzzy edges) and the optics are excellent (brightness, etc.).

If you aren't a nose to charging handle shooter then eye relief (1.5" to 3") will be an issue.

It isn't made for everybody, but then I'm unconvinced that such an optic exists.

It fills two roles for me 1) red dot CQ sight 2) mid range distances quite well.


S&B's shortdot weighs more yet offers 4x mag.
Horus Talon weighs more and offers 4x mag.

I'm hoping Leupold will be able to retrofit the new reticle to my CQT, but I'm not going to be heartbroken if they can't/won't.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:05:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:06:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 1:07:18 PM EDT by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:08:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By paulosantos:
I also had the CQT and I didn't like it because of the reticle. There should be bullet drop markings on it. What is the point of having extra magnification if it doesn't really help with accuracy.



The reality is almost noone shoots a 3X optic beyind 200 yards and you dont need drop indicators on your reticel for that. It certainly helps your practical accuacy from 50-200 yards. Leupold is supposed to be putting in the SPR style reticle in the CQT this year.



The new reticle is available through the custom shop as a $170 option.

www.cavalryarms.com/NEWCQT.JPG

I am told the "production" reticle has a thicker circle than the prototype I have so it is faster to pick up at CQB distances.

The reticle is calibrated for 5.56mm ammunition, and is meant to be zeroed in the center of the 2MOA open area between the cross hairs at 100 meters. The top of the bottom post is for 200 meters, then the tick marks correspond to 300, 400, 500, etc.

I have made hits out to 550 yards using the new CQT reticle.

With the old circle dot reticle I can make first round hits out to 300yards on steel plates about 90% of the time.



Sinistral, is retrofitting an option?
thanks
rob
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:13:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:22:25 AM EDT
Now I am starting to like it more. When I purchased mine that was the issue I had, I didn't like the reticle. Now I would definitely get this over the aimpoint/magnifier combination. They finally got it right. In my opinion, you definitely need bullet drop compensation on either the reticle or the dials especially on a precision type scope, which this is.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:50:10 AM EDT
I'd like to get the retrofit down the road. I love this scope, and have no plans on replacing it for something different.

Great scope... seriously underrated around here.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:46:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:31:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:

Originally Posted By rob78:
Sinistral, is retrofitting an option?
thanks
rob



Yes it is.


very interesting, standing by for more info on this
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:53:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 9:55:29 AM EDT by Green0]
Can anyone measure the outside diameter of the front lense housing (the little circular part) with a calipers and let me know what it measures in inches?

I have a 3x night vision magnifier and if I could mount it on the front lense I would buy one.

That way at 1power I could see 3x through night vision with enough gathered light to support it.

"The reality is almost noone shoots a 3X optic beyind 200 yards and you dont need drop indicators on your reticel for that."

I'm not sure the 4power ACOG's really have anything more than 3 power magnification. It never looked like a convincing 4-power to me. <If you grab a CQT and an ACOG you will be surprised- the CQT appears to have more magnification.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:06:24 AM EDT

Can anyone measure the outside diameter of the front lense housing (the little circular part) with a calipers and let me know what it measures in inches?


The outside diameter of the objective lens housing is 1.219 inches.

I agree that the magnification between an ACOG TA31 and the CQT on 3x is very close. Overall I like the ACOG better mainly because I do not like the size of the dot. I think the CQT is the clearer of the two and would like my CQT scope better with the new CQT reticle. I have compared the two scopes in low light conditions and the Leopold even with the smaller objective clearly picks up more light.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 12:58:41 PM EDT
Ummm retro fit!
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 1:37:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:
Leupold CQTs were the single most common optic at the Rifle/Shotgun match this weekend...I counted at least a dozen.

here's the rifles of the people I was shooting with:
www.cavalryarms.com/CQTs.jpg

vids to come...



Wow, look at all those fluted barrels too......they don't seem to be particularly popular around here either.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:29:48 PM EDT
Just found my first gripe with my CQ/T. Actually the ARMS mounts I have it on.

I just put my CQ/T on my new Beretta Cx4 Storm. I swapped the charging handle from the right side to the left side so I can "cock" it with my free/left hand. Well, with the ARMS mount the throw levers are on the left side and while they don't stick out so far that it completely interferes, it's still annoying to say the least. I thought, well I'll just turn the mount around. So I unscrewed it and turned it and then realized the slots in the mount are cut for it to go only one way.

What a pisser. Now I'm wondering... do they make a CQ/T with the levers on the other side?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 6:57:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 6:58:04 PM EDT by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:11:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 4:08:50 AM EDT by pathfinder74]

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:
pathfinder, the easier solution is to just get another CQT
I have 3 now since I don't like swapping optics around.
www.cavalryarms.com/CQTs-2.jpg



I'm thinking you might not totally understand the dilemna. I like the Cx4 charging handle on the left side. This is the same side as the mount throw levers. I'd like to have the throw lovers on the right side... but it's not possible with the ARMS mount. I asked C4iGrant if the LaRue moutn could be put on both ways, but he seems to think not.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:14:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 4:09:36 AM EDT
Can you switch sides with the factory mount. As dumb as it sounds I didn't try that... mainly because I like having the QD option.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:13:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:52:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
... I asked C4iGrant if the LaRue moutn could be put on both ways, but he seems to think not.



Pathfinder ask Grant if the LaRue mounts stay in closer to the optic. My Larues seem to be pretty close to the rail so they might not interfer as much as the ARMS version.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:08:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
... I asked C4iGrant if the LaRue moutn could be put on both ways, but he seems to think not.



Pathfinder ask Grant if the LaRue mounts stay in closer to the optic. My Larues seem to be pretty close to the rail so they might not interfer as much as the ARMS version.



I wanna say there's a comparison photo on one of his threads...

Problem is the charging handle also sits pretty close to the receiver on the Cx4...
Top Top